Jump to content

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

List of Supporting Countries

Please add a list of countries and organisations supporting South Africa's case at ICJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.51 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Request to add Masha Gessen's comments

Masha Gessen, when asked if what is happening in Gaza is a genocide stated, "I think there are some fine distinctions between genocide and ethnic cleansing and I think that there are valid arguments for using both terms". When pressed further they stated, "it is at the very least ethnic cleansing". This was followed soon after controversy surrounding Gessen's receival of the Hannah Arendt Prize over remarks in a New Yorker Article critical of Israeli actions in the strip wherein Gessen compared them to an Eastern European Ghetto "being liquidated" by the Nazis. Nandofan (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Nandofan, added, though in the 'cultural discourse' section since she has no claim to being a legal or similar scholar. Pincrete (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you Nandofan (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pincrete thanks, @Nandofan sorry, I should have checked other replies first. Irtapil (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pincrete *they
Irtapil (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nandofan If you're able to edit the article then I agree that's relevant and endorse you adding it, but it needs a reference.
If you're not able to edit the article, can you suggest where that fits and give a link to a citation we can use please?
Irtapil (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Just saw someone already done. Irtapil (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

First sentence of background is awkward

First sentence of background reads very strangely, "Background - After Israel began the bombing of Gaza following the 7 October attacks, some Palestinians immediately expressed concern that this violence would be used to justify genocide against Palestinians by Israel."
But I'm stumped on how to fix it. Can a better writer than I am please have a go at turning it into something cohesive?
It looks like multiple people have added three opinionated words each? All of the points there probably should be included, but connected better and with a more even tone.
Irtapil (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Flaws seem to be that it isn't only Palestinians, it isn't now only concerns about what would happen, it's about deeds rather than only about justification. Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to fix, I don't know whether this works for others. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Gaza genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gaza genocide has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 17 § Gaza genocide until a consensus is reached. The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

I propose that we split this article into like 10 articles more. Clearly we haven't created enough content forks out of this war, how about we divide it by months or cities or something? I'm sure it will serve for, well, something probably.

This article is at least much, much more serious and realistic than Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. But we have Palestinian genocide accusation already. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Redirecting to Palestinian genocide accusation has already been tried by Parham wiki and was reverted by Vinegarymass911 with the comments that these two articles are "... not the same thing and this should not be merged without a discussion". Also, while article titles should be precise, advice also exists that precise language should not date quickly. Now it is January 2024, I also have to wonder at the wisdom of including the year in the article title. The current conflict in Gaza does not look like being over any time soon, so a change in title is probably warranted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we should merge this and the (currently somewhat shambolic) Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel into a neutral Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (or whatever the main article ends up getting moved to). Keeping two separate articles is a recipe for POV forking based on original research and synthesis, rather than a collaborative effort to summarize, with due weighting, what reliable sources say - which is what we're supposed to be doing here. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. To me the current situation just seems like a WP:FALSEBALANCE situation, editors creating certain articles and other editors creating their equivalent of the other side as a reaction. Though if it was up to me I'd completely delete the genocide by Hamas one and merge this one into the general one for a Palestinian genocide, which is an article in a much better shape and standing. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is much in common between the two articles to merit a merger? VR talk 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There is, quite obviously in my view, much in common between the two. They're the same article but about the opposite side in the same war. And both are alleged genocides. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain what is in common? In other words, wouldn't that article just consist of two sections: "allegations against Israel", and "allegations against Hamas". VR talk 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
At least that would provide some balance. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE. WillowCity(talk) 23:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I also cannot see what is in common, nor what balance. Hamas is certainly accused of having genocidal intent towards Israel, but I have heard of no one who thinks that October 7 - however indiscriminate and bloody it was - was a realistic attempt to eliminate Israel or the Israeli people. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
International law references "genocidal acts" in discussions of genocide. Essentially, genocidal intent + violent action to pursue that intent = genocidal act. Hamas has absolutely been accused of genocidal acts re 7 October. It's why the genocide conventions say "in whole or in part". But that's hardly germane to this discussion. Jbbdude (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
It would only be false balance if the two sides were presented perfectly equally rather than in proportion to the weight they are given in reliable sources. I imagine we could have a shorter section about accusations of genocide against Hamas re: October 7, followed by a longer section about accusations of genocide against Israel in the ensuing war. PrimaPrime (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Civilian attack infobox

The article has acquired a civilian attack infobox. It is much less muddled, PoV and synthy than that of the related 'historic' article infobox. Still, is this apt for an article about accusations? Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say not. PrimaPrime (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Considering various other genocide accusation articles, including specifically in contexts of war, also use the same infobox for a brief summary, it would seem to be the best one we have until a specific one is created, and would be in line to how we treat other articles of a similar nature. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This is less synthy than the related infobox, but how do you decide what are the motives for an allegation? Who says that the motives are Anti-Palestinianism or Settler colonialism? Finally, where in the article are these motives expounded?Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It may be better to leave that section blank until we have more comprehensive sources that state the alleged motives. Though for a the three motives listed, on the first that is easy to cite to the statements of Israeli officials on declaring war against Hamas and Gaza. The second you could cite to previous statements in recent years from government officials and politicians, such as declaring Palestine and Palestinians do not exist, alongside statements that declare the West Bank and Gaza as Israeli territory, and the dehumanising language used against Palestinians both before October 2023 and since. For the third point, you'd cite it to such papers as:
  • Wolfe, Patrick (21 December 2006). "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native". Journal of Genocide Research. 8 (4): 387–409. doi:10.1080/14623520601056240.
  • Rashed, Haifa; Short, Damien (2012). "Genocide and settler colonialism: can a Lemkin-inspired genocide perspective aid our understanding of the Palestinian situation?". The International Journal of Human Rights. 16 (8): 1142–1169. doi:10.1080/13642987.2012.735494. S2CID 145422458.
  • Shaw, Martin (2013). "Palestine and Genocide: An International Historical Perspective Revisited". Holy Land Studies. 12 (1): 1–7. doi:10.3366/hls.2013.0056.
You could also cite it to any of the news pieces written which cover the treatment of Palestinians in the Palestinian territories by Israeli settlers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"We will eliminate everything"

This is a mistranslation and misinformation. The actual quote is Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all. [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've modified so as to report the initial quote - and its correction rather than simply linking to an article saying "the quote was wrong".Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That is NYT correction (ie they reviewed the thing again) of their initial report so they believe it to be "everything". Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edit: Main article link for Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al

After the heading === Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit ===

I request that a link to the main article for this lawsuit be inserted on the line immediately following that heading.

Main article: Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al

Lovelano (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 10:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Channel 14 is mentioned twice in the article. It is not clear what / who this channel is. It would be better to make the first reference a link to the Wikipedia article about Channel 14. 86.139.218.163 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 13 February 2024

Description of suggested change: Please add a wikilink for "Genocidal intent" to the phrase "intent to destroy" in the first paragraph, so that it reads [[Genocidal intent|intent to destroy]].

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

188.176.174.30 (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done — kashmīrī TALK 11:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhetoric from politicians in the United States

What does this section have to do with anything? Ron DeSantis and other American wingnuts don't speak for the Israeli government, they aren't proof of genocidal intent. jftsang 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, as far as I am aware, the Israeli government is extremely closely allied in major policy issues with the politicians of both the main U.S. parties. [2] [3] David A (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It is, but then again people like RDS aren't actually in charge of American foreign or military affairs, so it's hard to see how that applies. If it were Biden, that'd be different. jftsang 10:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. We don't need to quote every nut who decides to comment about the Middle East situation, especially if it concerns legal aspects. Just because someone was shown on Fox News or CNN doesn't mean it must go into an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 10:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the section, as no reason was presented why the internal electoral rhetoric in the US should be given prominence in the section about legal aspects of Israeli actions. — kashmīrī TALK 11:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Never mind then. David A (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Should the information be moved to the following page instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war David A (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, looks like a good target. — kashmīrī TALK 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Would you be willing to handle it, or should we wait for more confirmations first? David A (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Maybe someone else could do it... I somehow don't find it rewarding to spend my time on DeSantis's speeches. Sorry! — kashmīrī TALK 17:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The point is it was deemed prevalent and noteworthy enough to include in the article Palestinian genocide accusation, where the "Rhetoric" section is all bar 1 (small) paragraph is about the 2023-2024 conflict. As that article is meant to cover the broader and full history of the genocide accusation, the commentary on politicians complicity and also inciting genocide is better suited being in this article. And, a single day for a "discussion" to be decided, especially on hot articles like this seems a bit premature, to say the least. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not personally mind if the section in question is returned, but what do you think about my suggestion above? David A (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
That could work, then reduce the text in the two genocide accusation pages done to a brief overview, while linking to the relevant section of United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. I do believe it's unwieldly for the genocide accusation articles in it's current state, and this is after I've already been through and condensed the text from it's previous even-more expansive state. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri and Jftsang: Would that solution be acceptable for you? David A (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems like the other, more on-topic, page organises such comments more concisely and in chronological order though, so that format likely needs to be adhered to there. David A (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits that detract from the point of this particular page

Hello.

These linked edits by a very recently approved extended confirmed rights editor seem to distort the context of this particular page into prioritising the crimes of Hamas over the statistically enormously greater crimes of the state of Israel, which are the entire point of this page, and the initial crimes of Hamas have already been more throroughly dealt with in the "Israel–Hamas war" page that was already linked to at the start of this page.

As such, I would much prefer if we revert this page to how it was organised previously. David A (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Very much agreed. I agree that they distortionary and essentially biased obfuscation. Even if others do not agree, the edits do remain entirely tangential at the very best and have no place in the lead. FJDEACKB (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I think that it is probably fine to revert those edits then. David A (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Totally agree. Pincrete (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I added a redirect to this website from the Aaron Bushnell section of political self immolations. I think it provides readers with the most appropriate context and it's an abundant site ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Add United States to accused list

The United States and Joe Biden are frequently accused of complicitly or outright participation in the genocide and South Africa has considered opening a case against them. Should they be added to the accused list? Bill3602 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the infoboxes for all the other genocides/accusations, there's not a perfect match for having those accused of complicity in the infobox. The closest is Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine with Belarus, but there Belarus is actively engaged in what can be labelled an act of genocide (forcible transfer of children), so while I have no problem personally adding the US to the accused, convincing others it fits in that section of the infobox may be more difficult. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of Belarus in the infobox there is sourced to a tweet. The body also mentions a Yale report, although the report doesn't make genocide claims. For now, my understanding is that children were transferred away from the battlefield as is the normal practice in such circumstances (see e.g. Evacuations of children in Germany during World War II, Evacuations of civilians in Britain during World War II, Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II). — kashmīrī TALK 15:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The statistical support among the population of Israel for preventing all transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza

The following public opinion poll by the Israel Democracy Institute reveals that 68% of the population of Israel supports preventing all international transfer of humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza. That information seems extremely noteworthy to include in this page.

https://en.idi.org.il/articles/52976

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/over-2-3-of-jewish-israelis-oppose-humanitarian-aid-to-palestinians-starving-in-gaza/

David A (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There's also Human Rights Watch accusing Israel of blocking aid, as well as for about the past month Israeli civilians have been blocking aid from entering Gaza. While this can be evidence towards "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", we'd really need a source to link these opinions and actions to genocide for a solid citation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, the issue here as I perceive it is that if 68% of the population of Israel actively wants all of the 2.3 million Palestinians to starve to death, that also puts significant pressure on their government to act out that desire, and makes that part of the Israeli population at least partially complicit in the genocide that is currently occurring, so it seems important to mention somewhere in the Wikipedia pages covering this horrible situation. David A (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
57% maintain the bombing so far is not sufficient and has to be increased, another 35% think that the IDF's bombing volume is more or less adequate. The problem with these things, as with all polls, is that Israeli analysts of their country's war reportage conclude that very little of the realities on the ground in Gaza is covered. Complicity implies full awareness. Civilians rarely grasp in any depth the full scale of what their representatives do, ostensibly in their name. Of course in a digital age, all we see is accessible in Israel, but but ultimately the focus should be on those who plan, and execute these operations, otherwise one falls into the same error Israeli leaders themselves make, of confounding all people under Hamas rule as responsible for whatever has been done by Hamas. Collective guilt is a very dangerous concept.Nishidani (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That is a good point. David A (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
With Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International's statements on the matter, I've added a section, also detailing the survey. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for name change

The absolutely abhorrent actions taken by the IDF, as well as the clear genocidal intent expressed by Israeli cabinet ministers, are CLEAR justification for the name change. To displace millions of people, to tell them to move to specific zones, only to then indiscriminately bombard those zones. To bomb hospitals, schools, areas known to only be home to civilians. To murder thousands of children. The news today of Israel murdering civilians who were gathering aid. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of stories which justify this name change.

We must, of course, not let emotion dictate edits on Wikipedia, but this entire genocidal campaign by Israel is beyond disgusting. Any person who still defends these actions is completely morally bankrupt, and it is astonishing to learn of how many deplorable people are amongst us in this world.

There is no other word for what Israel is doing besides genocide. Given other examples on the list of genocides, it is again astonishing that this "conflict" is not included.

I am sickened. Everyone should be sickened. We cannot continue to endorse Israeli lies on Wikipedia, and cannot continue to peddle the narrative that Israel hold some kind of moral superiority in this situation. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Davidlofgren1996: Look, I agree with you that what Israel is doing in Gaza right now likely amounts to genocide, but considering how contentious this topic is and the arbitration remedy associated with it, I really don't think it's a good idea to change the name without consensus. I'm not going to revert it because frankly I just don't feel like going through the motions to sort this out and get consensus one way or the other, but I would advise you notify relevant Wikiprojects and editors of articles relevant to this topic via the respective talk pages of the Wikiprojects and articles. Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Davidlofgren1996: I've reverted your move. C'mon now, use your head. Your move changes it from "allegations" to "attempted", a move that would obviously be controversial. We don't "be bold" for controversial moves, we start RM discussions (WP:PCM). Hey man im josh (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not really controversial to anyone with eyes. But fine, RM it is, so we can be reminded of how many disgusting people exist on this website. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Davidlofgren1996: Stating that the nature of that move is not controversial makes me question whether you should be moving pages at all. Take the sensationalism and "feelings" aspect out of your comments when discussing contentious topics, it's a recipe for disaster and only serves to inflame the discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it really apposite to call other editors ‘disgusting’? Docentation (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Just drop it. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not make such an obviously controversial decision without even bothering to consult other editors first. We must first build consensus before moving the article like this. Unilateral edits like these are only going to intensify the argument drastically, and I doubt it's going to stay up before an admin reverts it and blocks you from editing the page for a while. – Howard🌽33 21:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Read this before voting

This requested move has no reason being implemented in *this* article. This article is not primarily concerned with covering the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which has been considered genocide by majority (but not unanimously) of RS. This article is for documenting the initial background, allegations, evidence, trials, academic, legal, and cultural discourse; and the positions of various organisations and people regarding the genocide designation. It would make no sense in either case to move this article to the proposed name. I am asking everyone to oppose the current proposal, but I am also asking for a move proposal to be re-opened in Humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That article has a better case for being renamed. If the proposal here does pass, it will inevitably be reverted after another long discussion. Let us all please avoid the hassle of that discussion and reject it here and now. – Howard🌽33 15:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Gaza genocide redirects to this page, and I think that it would likely be confusing with two different Wikipedia pages with almost the same titles covering similar subject matter, but I am not certain regarding the issue. David A (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer if Gaza genocide redirected to the article on the humanitarian crisis, but changing the redirect is impossible right now without starting a new discussion. – Howard🌽33 17:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This current article should either be redirected to something like "Gaza genocide question" (if no consensus is reached on if it's a genocide) or "Recognition of the Gaza genocide" (if there is consensus). – Howard🌽33 17:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I beg to disagree – to me, a humanitarian crisis is something fundamentally different from a genocide. The two phenomena may sometimes (!) coexist, but they belong to two different realms. Genocide is a legal term, and articles on genocides will focus on the perpetrator's actions insofar as they run afoul of the Genocide Convention. On the other hand, articles describing humanitarian crises will focus on the deprivation and violations of various rights under various international treaties, and frequently just on the suffering. They are two entirely different perspectives. Additionally, the other article sees almost no participation on Talk...
I encourage editors who are familiar with the nuances of genocide to !vote here. — kashmīrī TALK 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Very good points. I agree. David A (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Allegations of genocide and genocide are still two separate things. Also, a genocide is fundamentally a humanitarian crisis. One that is specifically perpetrated, and is recognised to be one under international law. We don't have two separate articles on The Holocaust and the Jewish humanitarian crisis. It makes no sense to have two separate articles documenting the history of the same thing. – Howard🌽33 06:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
It's because there was no "Jewish humanitarian crisis". There were Jewish ghettos in some countries which may or may not have suffered humanitarian crises. Yet, Holocaust extended beyond these ghettos, and killings included Jewish villages and towns that otherwise faced no other issues. Similarly, there's no humanitarian crisis in Xinjiang, yet many analysts talk about Uyghur genocide. Similarly, the Armenian genocide was not linked to a humanitarian crisis; it was an ordinary mass murder. See the difference? Here in Gaza, we have a humanitarian catastrophe AND we have genocide as the catastrophe is manmade and deliberate, and so we tackle these two aspects in separate articles. — kashmīrī TALK 10:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
what's your definition of humanitarian crisis exactly? don't all genocides count as humanitarian crises? – Howard🌽33 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they do. See e.g. German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, which counts as genocide but was not linked to a humanitarian crisis. — kashmīrī TALK 13:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
What's your definition of humanitarian crisis? I'm struggling to understand how an event can be considered a genocide but not a humanitarian crisis. – Howard🌽33 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The definition that's closest to my understanding is the one from UNICEF:

A humanitarian crisis is defined as any circumstance where humanitarian needs are sufficiently large and complex to require significant external assistance and resources, and where a multi-sectoral response is needed, with the engagement of a wide range of international humanitarian actors.[4]

Here, the humanitarian crisis is defined by the breadth and depth of population's needs.
I also like the Maltesers' definition, which is based on access to resources necessary for survival:

A humanitarian crisis is usually referred to when one or more events deprive the population or parts of the population of a country of basic subsistence conditions such as access to water, food, shelter, medical care and education, and threaten the long-term health and security of the population.[5]

It follows that, say, imprisoning members of an ethnic minority (as in Xinjiang) or banning their language, or trying to erase their ethnic identity through administrative measures (as in Sinicization of Tibet) even if falling under the Genocide Convention, will not in itself constitute a humanitarian crisis requiring an international multi-agency response – sufficient will be a local political will. Similarly, deportation of the Crimean Tatars, often considered a genocide, wasn't accompanies by a humanitarian crisis (even if certain humanitarian needs of the resettled population could be identified). I hope I was able to show the difference in my understanding of a genocide and a humanitarian crisis. — kashmīrī TALK 21:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
"sufficient will be a local political will"
If the perpetrator of the genocide is able to stop it, but repeatedly refuses to do so (possibly requiring an external humanitarian intervention), does that count as a humanitarian crisis? – Howard🌽33 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
External humanitarian intervention is not there to prevent genocide but to alleviate its effects. To prevent genocide, a political intervention is normally needed. — kashmīrī TALK 18:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Your reasoning does make sense, although the definitions you've provided me are a bit vague and could include genocide. Although, to be fair, I haven't actually seen "genocide" described as a form of humanitarian crisis in the sources I've read. Even if you are correct in this regard, it still doesn't justify the moving of this article. Perhaps we could create yet another article titled "Gaza genocide" which is separate from this article and the article on the humanitarian crisis, since all three seem to be covering different subjects. If you are determined to make that happen, perhaps go to WP:AFC and provide your reasoning there. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean there was no Jewish humanitarian crisis? The Holocaust was the Jewish humanitarian crisis, just as the current Gaza genocide is the Gaza humanitarian crisis. Dylanvt (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Dylanvt WW2 abounded in humanitarian crises, but there was no single "Jewish humanitarian crisis". There were humanitarian crises in individual occupied countries, cities, ghettoes, etc., and they usually affected people irrespective of nationality or ethnicity (except for Germans of course). — kashmīrī TALK 05:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Disputed articles

I have seen confusion about certain New York Times articles being removed from this article due to them being disputed. Because the NYT is generally considered to be reliable, this may be confusing to editors. Therefore, it would be helpful to detail which articles are disputed along with the conversations establishing consensus on that fact.

So, I'll post the one I'm familiar with. Anyone else may add to this list. Additionally we may want to move this to the top of the Talk page so it doesn't get archived:

Mokadoshi (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus in that discussion that the NYT (or even the article in question) is unreliable or "debunked". If it turns out to be sloppy journalism I expect we'll see a correction/retraction. Until such a consensus emerges, the NYT should be presumed reliable per its long-standing reputation for good reporting and editorial review, see WP:NYT. Irrespective of this, I don't see why that specific article (which focuses on allegations of rape, and doesn't mention genocide) would be relevant to this article (on alleged genocide). Jr8825 • Talk 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. We have a guideline for that in WP:NEWSORG: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. There are serious doubts regarding Schwartz's article, and I understand there's a consensus not to use that news piece. — kashmīrī TALK 10:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jr8825 we have recently had editors who think it is relevant to detail extensively every crime Hamas commited on October 7 for the Background section of this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw multiple comments suggesting that the article is problematic. I agree that the discussion was asking for NYT to be declared "unreliable" which is not appropriate here, but it is more than appropriate to make a case-by-case decision as multiple people recommended doing in that discussion. And there may very well be more discussions elsewhere about this article, I just don't have them handy.
I agree with you that this reference wouldn't be relevant to this article in the first place, but unfortunately people continually try to put it in there, and when those get reverted, they get upset because they believe it's impossible for their NYT reference to not be accepted. I'm only suggesting that, when reverting, we say "this doesn't belong here" and "please see this discussion about the source you used." Mokadoshi (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

6 March: South Africa files an urgent application to the ICJ for new provisional measures

See here:

Could someone with a good grasp of law summarise these developments? — kashmīrī TALK 11:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We should probably just wait for more secondary sources; we should have more than enough in a few hours. BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

More sources

Some more sources

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Would the following sources also be acceptable to add?

https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/

https://www.972mag.com/israel-police-repression-protests-gaza/

David A (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo in 'Alleged genocidal actions'

Paragraph 2: Raz Segal detailed in November 2023 three actions that the Israel Defense Forces were engaging in which were genocidal in anture

anture -> nature 2601:80:8600:1F90:50E0:CC8E:D223:D4CF (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for spotting this. Jr8825 • Talk 22:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Damage vs. Destruction of buildings in the lead

To my reading of the sources, the number includes damaged homes, not only destroyed ones. Does someone disagree with this change? FortunateSons (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Background section is deliberating misleading due to erasure of any mention of Hamas' massacres of civilian, rapes or kidnappings on October 7

It is not necessary to detail every atrocity committed by Hamas on October 7 to correct the misleading Background section.


The addition of "massacre of civilians (at a music festival and in Kibbutizim), large scale rapes and kidnapping of over 200 people from Israel" with reliable sources and the appropriate Wikipedia links would improve the quality -- and neutrality -- of the article. (That's 21 additional words).

(The current phrase "resulting in deaths" does not specify who actually did what to whom, a vagueness that leaves the reader vulnerable to disinformation.) Eli185.2 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The actions that Israel stands accused of under the Genocide Convention are unrelated to its response (self-defence) on 7/10. Adding a discussion of 7/10 to an article focusing on a military operation that started much later would actually make the article less neutral, as that could be construed as providing a justification, in Wikipedia voice, for Israel's ongoing violations of the Convention. Countries signatories to the Convention are obliged to respect its provisions irrespective of any earlier incidents – the Convention is binding unconditionally. — kashmīrī TALK 11:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You know when I added a brief background about the genocide in Gaza to self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, it got swiftly reverted[6] because none of the sources cited has anything to do with Aaron Bushnell thus constituted WP:SYNTH. If that was the case, the same argument can be used here to remove a large chunk of the background info which cites sources solely about the Oct 7th attack, especially those published in October 2023 before the concern of genocide in Gaza has been ever raised. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That is correct. Sources discussing 10/7 in relation to the accusation of genocide by Israel in Gaza may be cited. Zanahary (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This controversy is not really about the right of Israel on self-defense; no one disputes this, but about the alleged violation of rules of war by Israel during their self-defense [7]. This needs to be made more clear on the page. Do we need to mention the attack by Hamas to make it more clear? Perhaps; this depends on specific wording/summary. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
We are talking about Israel's offensive action that began on 27/10, not about its defensive actions on 7/10. The subsequent Israeli offensive was punitive in character, not defensive (vide eg methodical destruction of water sources[8]) – in the same way as the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine were not defensive in character despite both countries claiming so. Let's describe things as they are presented in high-quality sources (e.g., academic articles) and not in propaganda mouthpieces rattling ad nauseam about "self-defence". — kashmīrī TALK 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The current text looks reasonably decent to me: "On 7 October 2023, Hamas led an attack into Israel from Gaza, resulting in at least 1,139 deaths. Israel's response, including its invasion of the Gaza Strip, has led to concerns that..." This is important context but I don't see the need for more detail, other than to note that the majority of those killed were civilians, a point which is currently missing and provides context for the accusation that Israel's actions are a form of collective punishment. Other specifics of the 7 Oct attack (e.g. the music festival, claims regarding sexual violence) are out of scope of this article -- readers can follow the wikilink if they wish to learn more. Jr8825 • Talk 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Israel's response to 7/10 consisted in getting its troops to the border and repelling the attack. The response was hugely successful from the military point of view, Hamas was forced to retreat within hours. The invasion that started three weeks later was not a "response" as such – simply, Israel grabbed the opportunity and decided to try to annex the Gaza Strip by force, rightly calculating that the world opinion will not object to it. (Going after hostages was an excuse – hostages are normally freed in negotiated hostage deals.) I'm not comfortable to present the 27/10 invasion as a "response", despite Israeli politicians claiming so; much like Russian invasion of Ukraine was not a "response to Nazism in Ukraine" or to a "genocide of Russians in Donetsk" despite Russian politicians consistently claiming so. Simply, the 27/10 invasion was a military campaign on its own that took advantage of a favourable opinion shift. — kashmīrī TALK 08:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
A personal opinion does not give a Wikipedia editor the right to systematically delete every reliable source that contradicts his personal vision. Eli185.2 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal opinions can be shared on talk pages in discussions, and as evidenced by Kashmiri's edits to the article, this opinion hasn't seemed to be the impetus for the edits you disagree with, as the article does discuss the assault on Gaza as a response to 7 October, and list that as one of the detailed reasons in the infobox citing reliable sources and specialists in the field of genocide studies, which Kashmiri has not tried to remove. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Eli185.2 Can you confirm that you are accusing me of systematically deleting every reliable source that contradicts [my] personal vision? — kashmīrī TALK 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure on the optimal sourcing and phrasing, but definitely in favour of inclusion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You would still need to show the relevancy to the scope of the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The war is generally described as the pretext to genocide, and the war is considered by RS to be caused by the Oct. 7 attack, example FortunateSons (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
We already detail this fact, using multiple sources in the infobox, and the background sections. So the prior question remains, how does expanding it to include a laundry list of events on October 7 fall within the scope of the article? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
“ Israel says its only means to defend itself is by eradicating Hamas, the Islamist group that rules Gaza, whose fighters stormed through Israeli communities on Oct. 7, killing 1,200 people and capturing 240 hostages. Israel blames Hamas for all subsequent harm to Palestinian civilians for operating among them, which the fighters deny.” Is at least an RS inclusion of hostages. FortunateSons (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Harbu Darbu

Should we mention here that the Harbu Darbu song that strongly encourages hate-fuelled genocidal actions has been extremely popular in Israel in conjunction with the currently perpetrated crimes against humanity? David A (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think so, if you squint really hard you could potentially come to incitement, but no serious (legal) publication has referred to it as such, and even if it did, this would not really be a credible accusation against the state. Therefore, we should refrain from that based on both DUE ans SYNTH reasons. FortunateSons (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, the song definitely enthusiastically encourages genocide, and if I recall correctly it has over 21 million views despite being in Hebrew, so it strongly indicates extreme popularity for its viewpoints. David A (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on how specifically it encourages the crime of genocide? Amalek is a normale figure of speech, the hostility towards perceived enemy appears to be regardless of ethnicity, and everything else could at best be war crimes/a callous disregard for civilian life, not genocide (doing things with intent to destroy in whole or in part). FortunateSons (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I checked through the lyrics, and you appear to be correct.
There seem to have been other horrible songs regarding the genocidal campaign against civilians though. David A (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s possible, but none of those are significant enough for inclusion in this article, as far as I know FortunateSons (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
If we were to include a song, this one has had quite a few articles written about it, and it comes from a civilian media agency who's role (in part) is producing media that supports the removal of Palestinians to be supplanted by settlers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s on opinion piece mostly not focused on the actual song, is there an RS that specifically focuses on it? FortunateSons (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Let me google that for you -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I’m not seeing broad RS coverage beyond saying that some people consider it genocidal, and not enough RS coverage for inclusion. FortunateSons (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The support and oppose camps number roughly equally, with the opposition having a slight numerical advantage. On strength of arguments, though, this isn't close. Both supporters and opposers put forward some arguments mostly based on their perceptions of the article's subject (substituting their own analysis of events instead of what sources say); this was more prevalent in the support camp. These arguments were given little weight. On the policies in question (WP:NCENPOV, WP:NDESC, and by extension, WP:NPOV), the opposition presents the much stronger argument. Their assertion that there is no clear consensus of reliable sources for the title is strong, considering the sources that have been cited within the discussion.

On a side note, some in the discussion attempted to get the attention of any admin to fix the discussion's malformation: the tenor of the discussion, and the proposed move target, suggest that the discussion is being carried out on the wrong article. I'm not entirely sure that I agree that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) would be a better article to have this discussion on; I think that a hypothetical Gaza genocide article would probably have some distinctions from either of the existing titles. That said, in the absence of any convincing policy-based argument to move, this article title stays as is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza – As above. The actions taken by Israel over the last few months amount to, at very least, an attempted genocide. The number of those killed by Israel is now over 30,000 - more than a few "confirmed" genocides on the list of genocides - and Israel shows no sign of stopping their genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza. The list of war crimes is only increasing, and if things continue the way they are, it will eventually amount to a total genocide of the Palestinian people.

As Wikipedians, we are not here to peddle Israeli narrative, and must show the facts for what they are. Israel has openly declared its intent to destroy Gaza, and by displacing millions of people, moving them further and further south, to then continue to bombard areas they declared as "safe" is nothing short of barbarianism. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Deliberately targeting civilians in this manner, with none of the "restraint" that they claim to be displaying, is a clear sign that they intend to kill every single person in Gaza. This is not particularly refutable, hence I did not see the move as "controversial", as [edit: it fits the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention definition of a genocide]; there is no other way to describe what is currently happening. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you didn't see that page move as controversial and likely to generate pushback then you shouldn't be moving pages, plain and simple. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe that, given the nature of the actions that have been taken, and the clear intent shown by Israel, this specific move was controversial, as it meets the definition of (at very least) an attempted genocide. This, as mentioned in my rationale, is in line with other genocides on Wikipedia. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
To be clear then @Davidlofgren1996, do not invoke WP:BEBOLD to make moves like this in a contentious area without a RM discussion first. It's not helpful and it's likely to create a lot of drama and inflame discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
If it is within your powers as an admin, I request that you immediately close this discussion and re-open the move proposal under the same name at Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). – Howard🌽33 15:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Is it possible to move this RM discussion to the Talk page of Gaza humanitarian crisis? As I said below, this article primarily documents the allegations made by various organisations and people against the State of Israel, as well as academic and media discussion. For the actual event itself, it would make more sense to move Gaza humanitarian crisis to Gaza Genocide, if a consensus is reached that the event does indeed follow Wikipedia's guidelines for calling it a genocide. – Howard🌽33 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
May I add that we can have two separate articles even if we describe what is happening at Gaza as a genocide. See Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question. Academic and legal discussion would not end after a Wikipedia RM or shortly after. We will thus have to make sure we give this article an appropriate title that does not overlap with any other right now or in the future. Also I want to note I think the humanitarian crisis article should be moved based on a RM on its talk page and not here, just in case. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
If we will be keeping consistent with the Holodomor articles, we should then move this article to "Gazan genocide question". And if we do end it up describing it as such, then the article for "Gaza Humanitarian crisis" shall be moved to "Gazan genocide". I would, however, like someone else to create a move proposal, since I do not really understand how to start a move proposal. – Howard🌽33 15:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Requested move 29 February 2024)

Would fully oppose. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support given the sheer amount of evidence. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Call a spade a spade. There are enough reliable resources that now refer to it as genocide. In the Rohingya genocide, about 25,000 people were killed. In the Palestinian genocide, over 30,000 people and counting have been confirmed killed, plus several thousand more missing people are most probably dead under the rubble.Crampcomes (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The evidence has been clear for a long time now, and it was further confirmed when the ICJ accepted the plausibility of "at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa" under the Genocide Convention in the case of Israeli genocide against Palestinians. Nori2001 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Mixed, overall support. I'd say it qualifies as a genocide, and has been recognized as such by multiple countries and organizations (including parts of the UN), and has been recognized as plausible by the ICJ.
    I do have some reservations.
    1. Reliable sources haven't referred to it as genocide yet. They will likely change their tune if the ICJ rules against Israel, but we have to wait.
    2. Neutrality. Until sources and the ICJ say so, especially since it's a sensitive subject, it's a bit hard and will likely be very controversial.
    3. The proposed name. If we're going to change it, go all in. "Attempted genocide" is stupid when sources either aren't saying it is, denying it, or saying it is. No one is saying it's attempted.
    However. There is some precedent for this kind of thing. In 2016/2017, even when sources were describing the Rohingya genocide as massacres and a crisis, and the ICC hadn't ruled on it yet, we still named it a genocide as multiple countries recognized it as such, and the UN said it was plausible. (1) Does this not meet the same criteria? I say it would. Interpretation matters. If a bunch of countries say it's genocide, and international orgs say it is/could be, then I think there's a realistic case for this.
    Summary: I generally support the change, but it's a touchy situation, and it may be better to wait it out until the ICJ ruling. There is however precedent of Wikipedia editor's handling of the Rohingya genocide, and as such, I support this. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    I would also like to say that Western sources may be bias. Reliable sources supporting the claim of genocide may be found internationally. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I find the arguments above compelling I am worried about WP:NPOV issues with the proposed title. I would like to see evidence that international sources generally treat what's going on as a conclusive genocide and not just accusations of genocide. A full ruling in South Africa v. Israel may also be relevent. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    A full ruling is expected to take years, at least according to Reuters. But, I believe it's the best standard for this kind of case. – Howard🌽33 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NODEADLINE. We can wait if necessary. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support although if there is so much evidence that it is simply a genocide and not "attempted," I think it would be far more warranted to change it to something like Gaza genocide. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - (commenting as editor who proposed the name change) I was wary to go all in with Gaza genocide at first, but as I can see other editors above agree that it is a more appropriate name, I’d like to formally change the proposed move to reflect this, as it would be more in line with similar articles. Would the best move be to wait out the debate to see how many people would also support Gaza genocide as the proposed name? It’s 2:51 am so I will most likely not reply until later in the morning, but if someone can formally change this, I would be appreciative, thanks. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support with comment — I'm generally skeptical of putting qualifying verbiage into article titles when it's not justified, and I don't see it as justified here. The standard for accepting the notability of a phenomenon should, in my opinion, run through an accumulation of high-quality expert sources, and on this issue one can look to…
Reviewing these sources has reminded me that many such authoritative statements do have a conditional or future tense, so maybe the proposed title is correct, for now.--Carwil (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
One thing is claiming that evidently careless Israeli actions in Gaza have amounted to a genocide, which can be argued, and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. Could someone explain to me what benefits does this proposed title carry? It has no additional informational value. To me it would appear that it only serves to fit a point of view. It also finds no consensus among reliable sources. The current title does and is perfectly neutral. To do something as inflammatory as referring to something as a "genocide" with appeals to emotion rather than objective arguments about what do reliable sources say is unbelievable. Have sources suddenly changed their narrative? I don't know, because this RM is not based on that. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe it would be prudent to gather a list of RS and tally up which mention a genocide, a potential genocide, and not a potential genocide. – Howard🌽33 12:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This comment is, frankly, sickeningly apathetic. Dropping your phone is "careless", murdering over 30,000 people, 25,000+ of which are women and children (according to the United States) is NOT "careless".
... and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. It is abundantly clear that this is the aim of Israel. Feel free to read through the database of over five hundred deplorable statements made by Israelis in positions of power here.
The current title is not neutral, and does not accurately reflect the current situation in Gaza. I think the sources provided by Carwil above give high-quality expert opinions on the matter, as Carwil states.
What is happening in Gaza is a genocide by definition of the word. We have expert opinion to back this up. Why should the title not reflect the truth? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
For context, 2 sources provided by Carwil, namely that from the UN and University of Notre Dame are at best raising concern of possible genocide in Gaza. While some high-profile politicians have straight out calling Israel guilty of genocide, they are not really expert on the topic. While an "allegation of genocide" is already a very serious issue, if we want the title to reflect more closely of what the experts are thinking, I think something like "Risk of genocide in Gaza" would be a more appealing option to a more editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Like I said before, we need to conduct a proper survey of reliable sources to see if they deem it a "Genocide" or a "Possible Genocide". We are Wikipedia, not the World Court, so we shall follow what the reliable sources actually call it, not what we judge it to be. – Howard🌽33 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Howardcorn33 and Sameboat. Very heavy sourcing plus evidence that contrary views are minoritary/fringe will be needed to defend that there is indisputedly genocidal intent from the part of Israel as the proposed move suggests. The only source provided by Davidlofgren1996 in their reply to me is an apparent list of declarations that we Wikipedians cannot synthesize or use to take conclusions of. That would be the job of secondary sources. I am not opposed to "risk of genocide" if editors deem it appropriate. But I still don't get what's the problem with the current title. To me it perfectly reflects the article's contents, which I remind is legal and academic discussion of Israeli crimes in Gaza rather than the crimes themselves (an argument already raised up above by Howardcorn33). Super Ψ Dro 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus building a table of the sources from the article should have it posted here between 8 and 9 pm GMT. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. - Lula de Silva - Jacobin - Genocide
  2. - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
  3. - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
  4. - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  5. - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
  6. - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  7. - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  8. - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  9. - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  10. - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
  11. - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
  12. - Palestinian UN Envoy - Reuters - Genocide
  13. - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  14. - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  15. - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
  16. - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
  17. - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
  18. - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
  19. - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
  20. - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
  21. - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
  22. - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
  23. - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
  24. - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
  25. - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
  26. - Organization of Islamic Countries, The Arab League, and 7 other countries supporting South Africa - Al Jazeera - Genocide
  27. - Venezuela - Mehr News - Genocide
  28. - Australia, Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, USA, UK - Various prominent news outlets - Not genocide
  29. - Colombia - Associated Press - Genocide
  30. - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
  31. - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide
  32. - Norman J. W. Goda - Quillette - Not genocide
  33. - Jeffrey C. Herf - Quillette - Not genocide
  34. - Cuba - Al Jazeera - Genocide
On counting the statements from different countries in the total this puts it at:
  • 30 sources say it's genocide
  • 7 say it's a Risk, Maybe, or Partial
  • 16 say it is not (only counting Eva Illouz's initial statement saying it is not genocide)
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Personally I would see this as proof of there not being an universal or widely accepted interpretation. There are more calling it a genocide than I expected though. It might have increased over time, and might continue to do so. But in this case it would be appropriate to propose a title of this type only in some months next time. The current one is an appropriate middle ground for something with several main views. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I would just point to take note that some of those sources in labelling this as genocide are counting dozens to hundreds of people in the relevant academic fields. Which is not present in the sources stating it is not. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for surveying the various media outlets. It appears that slightly more than 50% of the sources gathered directly acknowledge it as a genocide. However, seeing that there is still not unanimous agreement among RS, I recommend the following:
– Howard🌽33 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I oppose this. We aren't obliged to follow other cases' standard practices. Because again I see no problem with the current title. Also I don't think a majority (over 50%) means there is academic consensus. We should be looking to get close to unanimity. We already follow values like these at Wikipedia, see WP:NOTAVOTE, a few strong arguments can override a majority of opposite ones. I recommend that we look into this in some months, or even later. There is no rush. The final veredict of the international investigation is probably going to be the most respected authority on this topic in the future. Not implying that things might not get clearer before that though. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd personally like to rename this article "Gaza genocide question" per WP:CONCISE. As for Gaza Humanitarian Crisis, I suppose it should stay as such (although I hardly think 2023-present is necessary) considering that there is not total unanimity. What exactly is the percentage of agreement that we should consider "unanimous" anyway? – Howard🌽33 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Anyway I really would like the admins to close this discussion down so we can migrate to discuss this on Gaza humanitarian crisis. I'll put my vote here for now. – Howard🌽33 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
What was the methodology behind building this list? BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: All sources currently used within this article that provide a decision on what is occurring in relation to it being a genocide, plus a couple of sources that declare it is not a genocide which were removed from the article due to being published in a GUNREL source, and pulling the states that opposed South Africa's case at the ICJ from the article on that matter. I can pull from more sources should people want, as I have a list of sources to work through adding to this article (both saying it is and is not a genocide), but as is the case here the majority of these as of yet not used sources do declare Israel's actions as genocidal or part of a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think that’s a useful metric; there is no reason to believe that the sources in our article are representative - and given we have sources explicitly stating scholars are split on this question, I would suggest they are not and the fact they are not is an indication of NPOV issues with this article. BilledMammal (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The source of an article should determine the specific name of the article, if said name is under debate. If the event that is the subject of the article is referred to as a genocide by the source, the article should reflect that. Cortador (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article is not concerned with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza itself, it is concerned with covering the allegations, statements, and opinions of various organizations and people, including also academic discourse on the genocide question. I instead propose moving this article to Gaza genocide question, per WP:CONCISE. I am still waiting for an admin to close down this discussion and re-open it somewhere more appropriate such as Gaza humanitarian crisis. – Howard🌽33 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is far too contentious to put in wikivoice that Israel is attempting genocide in Gaza, and it isn't supported by the majority sources. Users that are just opining "this is a genocide" without citing sources should be ignored. To move this title to the proposed one would clearly fail Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view. The closer should heed the guidance following passage mentioned in the Naming conventions (events) article: If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    Is a simple majority of sources enough to deem it a genocide? Or must it be a unanimity? – Howard🌽33 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no fixed amount. It should be an amount large enough to convince editors that this should be considered a genocide. This doesn't mean that all editors must agree either, but that consensus is achieved. I don't think there's currently consensus among sources to reach a new consensus here, and opposes by other editors would indicate this as well. Super Ψ Dro 16:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledge that the vast breadth and depth of those who have declared this genocide will not achieve consensus among editors, but just correcting the record for those who claim it "isn't supported by the majority". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is the most neutral. Being accused of genocide is not the same thing as attempting genocide. Strongly oppose 'Gaza genocide' until the lead sentence can definitively state that "The State of Israel is committing (has committed) genocide..." Some1 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To call this "attempted genocide" or "genocide" in wikivoice we need a consensus among reliable sources that it is an attempted genocide or a genocide. No such consensus exists, and doing so in its absence would be a clear WP:NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose no consensus of sources. This proposal is neither evidence-based nor policy-based, and most of the votes are devoid of the same. This CTOP has been experiencing things like this all too much lately. I also agree with Super Dromeosaurus and Hemiauchenia. JM (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Need to have that it is genocide from an authorative source like the ICJ or for lots of time to pass and it be agreed in scholarly sources. NadVolum (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a serious violation of NPOV to refer to these allegations as facts while the CIJ oredered Israel to take measures to prevent [future] acts that could be considered genocidal, and did not order Israel to suspend the military campaign. Had the "attempt" been so obvious, the court's decision would have state it and its orders to Israel would have been much more serious. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    This not only fails in understanding how the ICJ has ruled in previous genocide cases, where they had meagre suggestions given, when subsequently multiple individuals and parties were convicted of the crimes of genocide, and ignores the entire scholarly side of examination, which provides the reasoning for most cases of genocide to be labelled as such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Most of the world is outraged at the scale of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, which include the murder of thousands upon thousands of children; and "genocide" has become the common term for what is happening there. WP:IAR was written for occasions like this, when we should use common sense and not be dissuaded by a pedantic interpretation of the rules from calling something by what it is. There is nothing wrong with the article title Gaza genocide. NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Per arguments of user Davidlofgren1996 in the nomination and list of 30+ sources given by Cdjp1 in the survey.
As of present, more than 30,320 Gazans have been killed, 7,800 are missing and more than 71,000 Gazans have been wounded. Out of more than 30,300 people killed; more than 12,600 are children. Approximately 1.9 million Palestinians are forcibly displaced. The ongoing military campaign appears to be genocidal.
Social media is full of anger and shock about the atrocities occuring in Gaza. When I googled "Gaza genocide", there are plenty of websites, journals and articles accusing Israel of perpetrating a genocide.
Some of the sources I read:

  • "Israel is intentionally starving Palestinians and should be held accountable for war crimes – and genocide, according to the UN’s leading expert on the right to food."

    ("Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians, UN rights expert says", "The Guardian", 27 February 2024)
  • "A Textbook Case of Genocide", "Jewish currents.org", 13 October 2023
  • "The Limits of Accusing Israel of Genocide", "The New Yorker", 7 February 2024
Although if there are counter-arguments, I would want to read it and assess. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't think this is the correct article to move. – Howard🌽33 20:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
People are misunderstanding the purpose of this article. It is not to document the ongoing humanitarian crisis unfolding currently in Gaza, which has legitimate reason to be classified as a genocide. This article is about the accusations and discussion by various figures on if the crisis should be considered a genocide. Please stop adding votes here. Move this discussion to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present).. – Howard🌽33 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. It is considered doubtful, including by RS, judges at the ICJ, legal scholars, governments and many others that this is a genocide. Additionally, the word attempted implies that they couldn’t commit a genocide if they wanted to - a fact untrue about most modern militaries in the vast majority of conflicts in the last century, and definitely true about an alleged nuclear power. Lastly, this is simply not supported by RS: many still speak of accusations or charges, not of an (un-) successful attempt. If the ICJ (and preferably, the SC) agree with this in a few years, it is definitely worthy of debate, but otherwise such a title change is simply not supported by policy. FortunateSons (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    There is also a practical problem with the (as far as I can tell, well made) list of sources: those that consider “not genocide” so obvious that discussing it is pointless, those in different languages and from different areas (like Israeli, German, etc.), those that make statements that provide limited value (saying that there are allegations and not taking a position) and things of limited relevance but high value, such as the statement by the German ICJ judge, which I didn’t find (but may have overlooked).
    Last but not least, IAR is highly inappropriate here: as long as a significant amount of people, governments and scholars (and many RS) are denying the existence of a genocide or making inconclusive statements, you can’t just skip important policies and discourse by using IAR. FortunateSons (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I second FortunateSons's point about the list of sources. Looking at a few RSes off the top of my head (nytimes, bbc, apnews, guardian), none of them refer to this as a genocide in their own voice. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've looked at the list compiled by user Cdjp1. Some of them, like the opinion of Nicolas Maduro who is well known for respecting human rights, should be ignored. However this is not the only problem with the list. Looking at sources that explicitly say that there is no genocide produces a warped picture. There are hundreds of news articles which describe the events in Gaza without saying that there is a genocide going on, and this approach ignores them. Alaexis¿question? 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support as per Lukt64's argument and Cdjp1's sources. If anything, this is a classic case of a state first explicitly attempting ethnic cleansing (per this and per Avi Dichter's "we're rolling out Gaza Nakra 2023" comment) and as it cannot accomplish it (Egypt not opening the border - yet) resorts to genocide. BubbleBabis (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible, including a possible move to 2023–2024 Palestinian genocide, given that the bar to terming something a genocide has consistently been low on Wikipedia – a small number of reliable sources was enough as evidenced by other events included in Template:Genocide navbox, incl. e.g. such questionable "genocides" as Transgender genocide. Kashmiri (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify: transgender genocide is not included as a genocide in the Template:Genocide navbox, but is instead listed in the "Terms" section, which lists concepts, terms, and ideas, that are not necessarily part of genocides but are related and do fall under the remit of genocide studies. Better examples for @Kashmiri:'s point would be the inclusion of the Destruction of Carthage, the Asiatic Vespers, or the Gallic Wars, which are all listed as genocides in the navbox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the new title would be a violation of WP:NPOV (i.e. WP:WIKIVOICE: we should not state contested assertions as facts in Wikipedia's voice). There is a range of views among experts on whether or not Israel's actions meet the legal definition of genocide -- for a singular example, see the nuanced mix of opinions expressed by experts in this TIME article. This is equally important for article titles, which should be neutral unless there is clearly a common name for the topic, which is not the case here. WP:NDESC therefore applies: "allegations" is appropriate as there is an accusation of illegality that has not been proven. Editors would do well to remember that no matter how clear they feel the evidence for genocide is, there is a legitimate dispute among experts in reliable sources over whether or not Israel is committing genocide, and therefore Wikipedia's rules on presenting the dispute neutrally apply: see this explanatory essay for more. Jr8825 • Talk 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    • The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. This includes a littany that have been published since the Time article, as well as considering the opinions of experts in the Time article. These opinions come from a variety of fields (international law, political science, holocaust studies, genocide studies, history, etc.) as well as from across a variety of reliable source outlets. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
      As another note while Israel has been accused with the crime of genocide, whether a criminal decision is provided by the courts does not actually affect whether a genocide has/is/will occur. This is a point that genocide scholars have written about ever since the adoption of the genocide convention in 1948, and is a point many scholars have brought up in relation to Palestine, and specifically Gaza in 23-24. This is reflected in how a vast swathe of wikipedia articles treat genocides, where many instances are called and labeled as genocide (in wikivoice) based on scholarly opinion without any legal decision having been made, or even legal proceedings having occurred. For examples see any of the dozens of examples at the article List of genocides or that are included in the Template:Genocide navbox -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      The full range and balance of academic views is uncertain as this is a current affairs issue, so expert views will continue to develop and become clearer over time. With that caveat aside, presuming your short list is an accurate reflection of the current opinions of experts, you've counted 30 sources that say Israel is committing genocide and 23 that say there are caveats to this claim, or it is not genocide. This is nowhere near the clear consensus required to state there is a genocide in wikivoice and the accurate way to describe this disagreement is "allegations". Jr8825 • Talk 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      I did my best to steelman the not genocide position, including opinions on the matter I personally believe do not meet the standard we should be using. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      I appreciated your integrity in doing so. I understand your position about inconsistency across Wikipedia's treatment of the term genocide – as a general comment, I think this is simply reflecting a broader inconsistency with the application of the term in media, discourse and politics, because of the weight it carries, where attention is paid, and who is listened to. For every example of where we describe an event as genocide, there is another topic such as Tigray War where the term genocide has been legitimately used by some experts to characterise atrocities, but for various reasons it has not gained widespread traction & we have not applied the term to our article. My position is that if there is significant disagreement about whether or not there is a genocide, we should cover the discussion in detail, but be particularly cautious about applying the term in wikivoice until there is a clear consensus/it becomes the accepted term. I don't think it's a moral failing on the part of editors to describe "allegations" of genocide rather than "genocide", even if events eventually come to be accepted as genocide, as we don't know whether this will happen. Documenting the events themselves, and the surrounding discussion and about whether or not they amount to genocide, is still serving our purpose of educating readers and reflecting the current state of knowledge/range of opinions. Jr8825 • Talk 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologise for any confusion I've caused. The wording of the a-i alert seems confusing as it says "you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic." without mentioning what you can't do without ECP, the decision is clearer, saying without ECP editors cannot make "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content"). Thus I've removed an edit by someone without ECP/ Doug Weller talk 17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support (with caveats), as can be seen from my comments in replies to others here I do support labelling this as a genocide in wiki articles, based on the 3:1-ish ratio of reliable sources (ignoring how various sources that label it a genocide do so with the signing dozens to hundreds of relevant specialists, and a litany of other reliable sources that also call it a genocide which are currently not used in this article). Caveats: I am swayed by the argumentation that this article should remain with it's current title and scope, and that the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) should instead be renamed, so if it be under consideration that this discussion should be closed and moved to that article's talk page, I support that action over renaming this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, what do you propose Gaza humanitarian crisis should be renamed to? Jr8825 • Talk 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    The argument as laid out by others is to rename the Gaza humanitarian crisis article to Gaza genocide, as that details more the conditions and actions that are brining about said genocide, where as this one only touches on them and focuses more on the academic and legal discourse. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
A note for the closer just in case, I really don't think discussion here should determine the title of that other article. I think we should start a new RM pinging everyone here instead on that article's talk page. The result of this RM should focus strictly on this article. Super Ψ Dro 22:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a bit irritating how so many on both sides continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the purpose of this article. If we did move this article specifically, we would either have to move it back to its original name or rewrite the entire text to better align with the title. Either way is unnecessary hassle, so I expect an admin to step in and move the RM. – Howard🌽33 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Apologies. Is the following better?
STRONGLY OPPOSE -- Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza and, especially, Genocide in Gaza, should be deleted. If Israel wanted to "kill everyone in Gaza" as at least one editor stated or quoted on this colloquy, they could do so far more efficiently. They are seeking out the Iranian funded tunnels built under civilian areas and hospitals. Does anyone refer to the Six Day War as "genocide" even though the Arab/Muslim intent was to destroy the State of Israel or the al-Assad attack on Homs as genocide or even the 1492 edict of Alhambra expelling non-Christians from Spain and marking the onset of the Inquisition and colonization of the Americas as genocide? Nirva20 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Genocide of Indigenous peoples ??? Salmoonlight (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I think they are referring to the expulsion in Spain, not the aftermath. FortunateSons (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you know how genocide works judging by that second sentence. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't Gazans' plight fit into Genocide of Indigenous peoples, then? Nirva20 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, that gets us into the question of Gazans are indigenous, an entirely to complex question for Wikipedia to decide as a precursor for inclusion. FortunateSons (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I suggest reading "El-Affendi, Abdelwahab (18 January 2024). "The Futility of Genocide Studies After Gaza". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–7. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2305525.". A genocide need not be successful for it to be a genocide, under any definition of genocide accepted in law or scholarship. As to the other instances you list, you show you have no reading whatsoever on genocide scholarship, as many of them are debated and have been compared to and considered in regards to conceptions of genocide and genocidal actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
"If Israel wanted to "kill everyone in Gaza" as at least one editor stated or quoted on this colloquy, they could do so far more efficiently."
Are you implying that Israel isn't committing genocide in Gaza because they aren't killing Palestinians fast enough? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
No. I am stating that Israel's goal is not to "kill everyone in Gaza" (which would be the most obvious definition of genocide) as some have claimed and that what has been happening since 8 October 2023 is not "genocide", a term some (including on Wikipedia) throw about far too carelessly. Mimicking the UN, which seats third world despots and tyrants on its human rights committees, doesn't convince me either. Nirva20 (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nirva20 First read the definition of genocide before posting this sort of nonsense. It's not far. It's on Wikipedia even. — kashmīrī TALK 02:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am a supporter of the State of Israel and I will never accept that its conduct has ever been or is genocidal. Period. There have been many actual genocides throughout history. Why don't you check and see if each has its own proper Wikipedia article? Nirva20 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
You are free to support whomever you wish, even Alpha Centauri. Publishing on Wikipedia requires adopting a neutral point of view. You may ask yourself whether you are able to respect that policy. — kashmīrī TALK 02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be genuinely fascinated to hear what you believe is currently happening in Gaza, especially considering Israel has admitted to murdering numerous hostages. When you have one of the most thorough intelligence agencies in the world, but still end up bombing your own people being held captive, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza. When you kill people who were waving a white flag, regardless of who you believe them to be, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza. When you are indiscriminately bombing civilians in Gaza, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza.
Do you need any more evidence? 1, 2, 3 We can even go back to before Oct 2023 (1, 2, 3) if you’d like, because Israel has made its intention to wipe out Palestinians from Gaza for a very, very long time now. Such is their dehumanisation of the Palestinians, Israeli companies “joke” about building holiday homes in the ruins of Gaza. As Israel been given carte blanche to continue with their genocide by the west, we will see thousands more die. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
While all of these are terrible cases, none of the sources you've just linked are useful to showing how is the academic and legal consensus currently. In fact most of them do not mention the word "genocide". You took these cases and defined what is happening in Gaza as a genocide based on them. That's not how it works. Super Ψ Dro 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I have defined nothing. My basis for the claim that Israel is committing genocide is based on the Genocide Convention, which very clearly states that genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.. The point of the sources I included was to show that Israel is, and has been, deliberately committing at least two of these acts for a number of years, specifically targeting Palestinians. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
kill everyone in Gaza The UN definition does not require that literally everyone is killed, and neither does the more lax definition used in some academic circles. That would be an impossibly high bar to clear. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Was the intent of the Arab/Muslim states during the Six-Day War to destroy, in whole or in part, the people of Israel as a national, ethnic, or religious group? If not, then that would explain why people don't refer to it as a genocide. Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - like most, I think the Israeli government actions in the last four months are abhorrent and massively disproportionate. But this isn't about what I think and we need to keep WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NPOV in mind - I don't see a strong enough consensus in RS for this move. Too divisive in my mind. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for linguistic reasons I agree with a move that openly declares what is happening in Gaza a genocide, but I don't believe the "attempted" part of the title is accurate. A state commits genocide or it doesn't. Very few genocides in human history have ever actually successfully destroyed an entire people, and nobody only calls events such as The Holocaust as an "attempted" genocide despite the existence of Holocaust survivors. I would prefer something like Genocide of Palestinians (2023-present) instead. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    This seems reasonable to me. David A (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'd much prefer Gaza genocide. Israel's declared intent was to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in Gaza by making the area uninhabitable, killing off a proportion of the population, and terrorising the remainder into escaping to Egypt (vide Israeli requests to Egypt to open the border). It's a textbook case of genocide. — kashmīrī TALK 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't that what Turkey and Pakistan did and have been doing since the 20th century to non-Muslims? Nirva20 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Nirva20 Another bullshit from you. Pakistan state has several privileges for non-Muslims, including a double quota in the Parliament, permission to drink alcohol, and so on. There's no systemic persecution of non-Muslims. Turkey is a largely secular state – arguably more secular than Israel. Why don't you learn about the world before editing an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī TALK 02:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Turkey is flexing to recreate the Ottoman caliphate and Pakistan still has the death penalty for blasphemy. Tell Aasiya Noreen how privileged non-Muslims are there. Nirva20 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Why don't you stop digging deeper? Pakistan is no angel in its treatment of minorities, but to-date not a single person has ever been executed for blasphemy in Pakistan, so the "genocide" label doesn't stick. By the way, blasphemy is also a criminal offence in a number of countries worldwide, including in Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands[9] – will you call them out for genocide? You are mixing up religious discrimination with genocide, likely because you have no understanding of legal concepts, no idea about what constitutes genocide, and no idea about other countries whose names you just fly people in the face hoping to, what, impress them? For the sake of my time, EOT. — kashmīrī TALK 10:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Let’s lower the heat on that response, please? FortunateSons (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    This article is not about Turkey or Pakistan so I fail to see the relevance of this comment. But if that question matters, articles already exist on genocides perpetuated by these states or their predecessors (Greek genocide, Bangladesh genocide). InterDimensional14 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOTAFORUM. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    I would also support the title Gaza genocide. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. I also find that title preferable. David A (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I'd prefer Gazan genocide, as it's in line with other titles such as Rwandan genocide and Cambodian genocide. Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    I've struck this comment as Kashmiri has previously given a bolded response (see the "Strongest support possible" post above). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Didn't notice a double vote as my signature failed there. I've converted my !vote into a comment. — kashmīrī TALK 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons. First, word "attempted" is wrong and should not be used. If someone indeed "attempted" a genocide, this is already a genocide, plain and simple. Secondly, a lot of civilians will be killed in any significant military conflict and especially during urban warfare (as in this case). One question here if the reasonable and possible precautions were taken to minimize the civilian casualties. If not, this could be a war crime, but not necessarily a genocide. But even that is very much debatable because some precautions were taken, but critics say they were not sufficient. There is a much higher bar for calling something a genocide in WP voice, and it was not passed in this case, as best review sources say, i.e "Scholars are torn on whether the current conflict can be yet classified a genocide officially." [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest to rename this page to Allegations of genocide in Israel-Hamas war. That would increase the scope of the page and make it more NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Merely calling it a war with Hamas is not NPOV at all, given the overwhelming amounts of evidence of an extreme focus on systematic slaughter of civilians rather than enemy combatants. David A (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I think such title would be better because it would allow describing allegations by the both sides on the same page (i.e. to merge this page and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel). Right now we artificially divide the Israel-Hamas war into two parts, i.e. the attack by Hamas and the response by Israel. They could be treated on the same page, although keeping them separately is not a POV problem (I agree with this). My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
What benefit would merging "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" with this one provide? The scope and events for each article are different, so it seems forcing two articles together for, based on your comment, "both sides"-ing the events the articles deal with. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
yes, better keep them separately. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • However, deliberately denying food and water to a population or deliberately driving them away from a given geographic area are not war crimes; they are indicators of a genocidal intent. Compare with Holodomor where nobody was shot – people were just deliberately starved to death. — kashmīrī TALK 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    • deliberately driving them away from a given geographic area is generally not considered genocide or proof of intent, even though it can be under some (exceptional) circumstances .
    • And using actions such as not providing food and water as anything but a weak indicator needs to be done with a high degree of care in any alleged genocide (particularly those that are also wars), as they can be fully covered as war crimes (or other unethical/illegal conduct) without amounting to any intent to exterminate in whole or in part (hypothetical example: we will give you food once you overthrow your government -> definitely unethical and illegal, but clearly not genocide, as you want them to be desperate and not dead)
    FortunateSons (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this is a reasonable analogy. Deliberately denying food and water to a population and preventing them from leaving the affected area using military forces (that is what NKVD did during the Holodomor) may be a genocide. And indeed, the Israeli forces do not allow them to escape to Israel. But another place to leave is Egypt. Is not it Egypt who controls that border? If so, then Israel and Egypt could be responsible if these events will result in mass death of civilians from hunger (I assume that did not happen yet, but the events are definitely moving in this direction). But this is just my understanding. The RS say what they say (cited above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Egypt possibly, however from whatever I've read, Egypt's aim is actually to prevent the 2 million Palestinians being relocated to its territory. This, as I'm reading, apart from being a humanitarian catastrophe and rendering moot any talks of a two-state solution, would expose Egypt to a near-certain risk that its soil will be used for cross-border armed attacks against Israel, likely for generations. (It's assumed that Israel will never allow those people back). Egypt seems betting that the international pressure will stop Israel from invading Rafah; yet simultaneously it started constructing a gigantic enclosure where, it is said, it will try to settle Palestinians in case of an Israeli onslaught on the city.[11] Whether this means they are complicit in genocide, it's difficult to ascertain. As we are told, it's intent that matters, and it may be hard to prove that Egypt's intent was to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in Gaza, — kashmīrī TALK 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. But I just do not see how they can survive in no man's land in Gaza while IDF battle with Hamas for another year. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
P.S. As someone only casually familiar with this conflict, I would assume that all civilians must be allowed to voluntarily evacuate somewhere (probably to Egypt) during the hostilities, just as it would be during any other war (e.g. a lot of Ukrainian civilians were evacuated or just left the country after the invasion by Russian forces, etc.) But again, it only matters what the RS say on the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Let's be real. Little precautions were taken by Israel. Also I heavily disagree with diverting some attention to Egypt. A third country should not be coerced into taking any responsabilities because one country is committing crimes in another. I doubt many sources hold a stance like this. Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
On one hand yes, on the other you'd try to avoid such situations as during the war in Abkhazia where 250,000+ people fled the fighting, only to never be allowed back; nor were they allowed to integrate into the host society as Georgia needed them remain refugees in order to maintain international pressure on Abkhazia.
Similar situation was with regard to Syrian refugees in Turkey and, prominently, in Lebanon.
Removing entire populations to other countries is not always the best solution long term. — kashmīrī TALK 23:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The latest event of this nature was Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. I agree such things amount to ethnic cleansing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep, although in that last event, I wonder whether Armenian families were forced out (that would indeed be ethnic cleansing) or they just decided to leave "because everyone is leaving" or because they didn't see their future in Azerbaijan. I'm asking this because two years prior, millions of Ukrainians run away from Ukraine even though they were not being forced out (many later returned). Again, this would boil down to the actions of the invader. In Gaza, it's blatantly obvious: invading forces have publicly ordered the population to remove itself from the area. — kashmīrī TALK 11:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • But remember, there is a huge difference between this case and Holodomor. This whole thing was initiated by the attack of Hamas on Israel. This changes everything. One can say that it is Hamas who is responsible for genocide of their own people. Or as Israeli commenters say, Hamas is using their own people as human shields. Moreover, this is war. Holodomor was not. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just as a note, no someone committing crimes against you does not give you permission to conduct a genocide under international law. And should such a situation occur, then the culpability for genocide is still on those who conducted it, not those who committed crimes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Committing a genocide (if there is one) can not be justified by anything. But is it a genocide? The Hamas-Israel war was initiated by the attack by Hamas. This is the reason for Israel to argue this is just a war, they have been attacked and acted in self-defense [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment:An attack being committed by a group representing an ethnic, linguistic, national, or religious group does not itself preclude the response to that attack being a genocide. Attempting to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group in response to an attack doesn't make that response not genocide. Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It is precisely the question if Israel comitted genocide while excersizing their right on self-defense. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
No, Israel has not been exercising its right to self-defence other than on 7/10. What Israel started on 27/10 was a military offensive, not a defensive. It's undeducated to conflate defensive actions and offensive actions. — kashmīrī TALK 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Conducting an offensive operation can be exercizing the right on self-defense. Consider Ukrainian offensives. Yes, the right of Israel on self-defense in this case was disputed, but on different grounds [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
One can say that it is Hamas who is responsible for genocide of their own people. Just casually justifying genocide I see. Lovely. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
We have a big page, Use of human shields by Hamas. Is it genocide? No, this is more like a war crime. Is Hamas responsible for the war? Yes, sure, as the side that started the war. Does it justfy genocide by anyone? No, of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This reasoning only leads to such nonsense as saying that Jews were responsible for part of the Holocaust because they started the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. You're saying that the party that starts an uprising is responsible for all of the subsequent pacification, right? — kashmīrī TALK 05:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
That is completely irrelevant. Also as far as human shields go, the IDF regularly uses Palestinians as literal human shields. The Palestinian resistance is also completely justified in armed struggle against the occupation. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
If you are talking about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, then no, it was not "completely justified", and it was not something suggested in the UN documents you linked to. And yes, it was obviously an action that started the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. This is just a fact. I am not trying to justify anything or whitewash anyone. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The strongest support possible. What the nation of Israel is currently doing is far beyond absolutely heinous, and the sum total evidence I have seen both via Wikipedia and elsewhere has been overwhelmingly convincing. The International Court of Justice also ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal according to the 1948 Genocide Convention, and said that at least some of the South African allegations appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention. David A (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    That is factually inaccurate: the standard that was currently met in the ICJ was plausible, which is significantly lower than beyond all reasonable doubt.
    Additionally, Wikipedia pages don’t „prove“, they simply explain the points of view of RS. FortunateSons (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I have seen lots of video evidence as well, so the sum total of all the evidence I have read or watched has still proven overwhelmingly convincing for me. David A (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I get that; would you mind striking the inaccurate claim(s) from your original comment? :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I have now modified my text above according to what Wikipedia currently says regarding the topic. David A (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    No problem. David A (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no "attempted" with genocide. It either is or it isn't a genocide. It may be too early to imply in WikiVoice that it is, even if the evidence is mounting. If "attempted" is removed, and if there's sufficient RS for it, then I would support renaming. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The tone and substance of this discussion has veered into original research and accusatory language. I'm not going to single anyone out here, so I've left a few messages on the talk pages of participants, just as a friendly reminder. To reiterate, accusations of dishonesty are not appropriate here, and editors should not be applying their own analysis on the definition of genocide when considering their !vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I ask Thebiguglyalien not to try to play police and contribute to the discussion and the consensus-building process. They have decided to send some kind of warning to 14 editors that have participated in this discussion which I am pretty sure is the vast majority if not outright the totality of them. This includes cases of users who put one single perfectly neutral comment [14]. I am sure good faith was behind their comments but frankly I don't find them well-thought nor helpful. Super Ψ Dro 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien You might like to know that original research is welcome and indeed encouraged on Talk pages. More importantly, editors must feel free to express their views in any way they like within the constraints of the project's policies. It would be great if you let people share their comments about article subjects, even if they are not a copy-and-paste of press articles. — kashmīrī TALK 23:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
They're allowed to, and I didn't use any sort of warning template to imply otherwise. But they should be notified that these arguments on their own will not be considered in the close. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we should wait for what the ICJ rules (we already note in the article that they say it is plausible) or for numerous reliable sources to report it as such - I have yet to see a list and while I am knowledgable about the Western media's pro-Israel bias I haven't seen enough reliable non-Western/English sources refer to it as such. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I second a call to wait. It all will be surely clearer in the future. We don't necessarily have to wait for the ICJ ruling but I am pretty sure it will be regarded as the most authoritative source for this for a long time once it comes out. Super Ψ Dro 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Third FortunateSons (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that this is an excellent analysis, and agree with it. David A (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as a WP:NPOV violation. The current title is much more neutral. Like Some1 said, being accused of genocide is not the same as doing genocide. There isn't source consensus that Israel is doing genocide. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Hogo-2020 what would satisfy this threshold, in your opinion 70.31.178.242 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - To any !Oppose votes, which definition of genocide are you using when determining a definition for Israel's actions? While it is not deniable that most, if not all, of us here have strong personal opinions on the subject, the fact is that there is an objective definition for genocide. Given that we have such definitions, specifically the Genocide Convention, why is it that we have to wait for a specific scholar (of number of scholars) or specific amount of RS describing this as a genocide (which is unlikely to happen while a lot of them are Israel-backed), when the situation meets the definition?
If there were opinion to be had on the subject, then yes, I can fully understand holding off renaming the article, but by the United Nations' definition, Israel is intending (see sources given above in this article by myself) to destroy a national group, Palestinians, by killing members of said group. It has also caused "serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", and is guilty of "inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". This is not opinion-based, this is not disputable, these are things that are objectively happening. It meets the conditions for the definition of genocide (including Wikipedia's own definition) it is genocide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
If we need RS to confirm something that adheres to a definition, then I think we need to add “reportedly a” or “generally considered by a number of sources to be a” before each description on Wikipedia (i.e. “The European tree frog (Hyla arborea) is generally considered by a number of sources to be a small[1][2] tree frog.[3][4][5]” This, of course, would be ridiculous. But that is how ridiculous this discussion is; why do we have strict definitions if we are going to just ignore them to satisfy personal biases? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I would wait for the ICJ judgement, and potentially its reception (in either direction).
You can not kill anyone/very few people and still commit a genocide, or kill an entire ethnic group without committing genocide. There is a reason while dolus specialis is such a complicated and yet essential issue, and I agree with the assessment of the German judge (maybe on incitement, unlikely to be an actual genocide).
We (as in Wikipedians) cannot make our own assessment even when we have legal or other relevant backgrounds, and the ones that don’t definitely can’t. FortunateSons (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, when looking at Template:Genocide navbox, it doesn't seem that an ICJ ruling is viewed as an inclusion criterion. Following the sources, Wikipedia have called certain events genocides even in absence of ICJ decisions. — kashmīrī TALK 11:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri what seems to be the standard for Wikipedia, is detailed in the lede of the article List of genocides (though the list also seems to be more stringent than the navbox, likely due to need to provide explanation in article text and multiple sources for adding entries to the list), where a significant section of scholarship (not necessarily a majority) needs to label an event as a genocide according to the UN legal definition. So an ICJ ruling is not necessary. I believe this criteria has come about due to the vast amount of historical genocides that will never be seen in the ICJ. And this is then the crux of contention for more recent genocides, where labelling current or recent regimes as genocidal without a court ruling on Wikipedia seems defamatory, and how this consideration is deployed is of course highly politicised based on who the accused are. Cdjp1 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
That is a good point, the standard for a historical genocide may be different from a contemporary genocide. For example, if the ICJ were to consider it not to be a genocide, that would be a strong indication, but could nevertheless be convincingly called genocide if 90% of scholarship disagrees. On the other hand, if the ICJ calls it a genocide and encounters 90% negative reactions from scholars, it should credibly remain as just accusations.
While the question of what to do in absence of a court ruling is complex in many cases, we are very likely to receive a ruling here, so we just have to wait; it really isn’t urgent. FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you bring an example on that list in which we label an event as genocide even though a majority of scholars disagree? A majority of scholars agreeing at the very least would seem to me like a basic requirement. Super Ψ Dro 17:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
An ICJ ruling would be 100% cause for WP to consider it genocide imo, but it is not the only way it could (as Cdjp1 also points out). Since a final ruling is likely to take many years, in the interim an overwhelming majority of scholars considering it genocide according to the UN definition could suffice. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
We aren’t in a hurry, we can leave it as allegations until we get a judgement. FortunateSons (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree there's no hurry. But we also don't have to wait for the ICJ. My main worry is WP:RECENTISM and also waiting for academia to catch up. An ICJ guilty verdict would just remove any doubt. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the ICJ will only take 2-3 years, so we can wait for them + reception in my opinion. But yes, we definitely need clear academic consensus to remove accusations from the title, and that will probably take just as long, particularly considering the (personal opinion warning) poor quality of some of the pleading on special intent by SA, so someone would probably have to do significant amounts of research to get to a credible claim for that. FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons: Any idea what the threshold for academic consensus is and how to evaluate it? Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
By searching Google Scholar and JSTOR and reviewing the sources found there. An academic consensus may develop more quickly than an ICJ case, but it still won't be instantaneous. It takes months for academic papers to go through the review process for publication in a journal. It's therefore difficult to write a paper discussing genocide in the context of Gaza if events are developing so rapidly that the conclusions will likely be outdated by in a few months' time -- I expect we'll see more scholarship when a new status quo emerges, for example if the Israeli military withdraws or the violence slows down. Jr8825 • Talk 05:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably that. A lazier method, but decent when it comes to getting a picture, is looking what the main authors/universities/institutes are saying/have published. FortunateSons (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
As I reminded you on your talk page, coming to your own conclusion about the facts is inappropriate and may not be used to dictate what we do with the article. Interpreting the definition and whether something meets it yourself is original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"which definition of genocide are you using when determining a definition for Israel's actions" - I'm not using any definition myself, because as an anonymous editor I don't have any authority to make an assessment and apply it in Wikipedia's voice (irrespective of my real life views on the matter or expertise) – the principle of no original research/views. All I'm doing is pointing out that currently there clearly isn't unanimous agreement among outside observers that what is happening is specifically a "genocide", as opposed to war crimes and human rights abuses. I read/listen/watch a range of high quality news sources daily, including the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist and Channel 4 News; none of these sources and their reporters and journalists directly refer to events as genocide – they sometimes interview/invite experts to discuss whether or not Israel's actions could be considered genocide, and even then, the topic is not the most prominent feature of their coverage of Gaza, and the word is often entirely absent from articles or episodes. An encyclopedia, which follows rather than leads sources, should not be labelling the overall situation a genocide unless there is a clearer shift in that direction among sources. Jr8825 • Talk 05:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jr8825 you keep using the term unanimous, we do not require unanimous agreement for it, as that would be an impossible bar to ever clear. Depending on where we draw the boundaries, it would only require a majority or a consensus. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cdjp1 I agree, and sorry for my unclear wording. What I meant there is that there's far from unanimous agreement currently, as in, there's no clear majority/consensus position. Jr8825 • Talk 14:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jr8825 no worries, as long as we understand where we're at we can continue having constructive discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose possible horrifically biased. going from "accusations of genocide" to "attempted genocide" is unencyclopedic.
  • Oppose for three reasons.
  1. As others have mentioned, the word "attempted" is meaningless here. Either it's a genocide or it's not.
  2. The proposed title is not WP:CONCISE. A better title would be Gaza genocide.
  3. Most importantly, this article isn't even about the genocide. It's about discourse about the genocide. i.e. this is not the right article to move. As Howardcorn33 has pointed out repeatedly, this move should be proposed in the article Gaza humanitarian crisis, for which I believe sources support a move to Gaza genocide.
Thus this article, being about discourse about the events, rather than the events themselves, should be moved to the more concise title Gaza genocide question. So while I support the move in spirit, the proposed title is clunky and, most importantly, this is not the right article to move. Dylanvt (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Arguably the principal problem for this suggestion is the conceptual distinction between a genocide and debate about whether that genocide occurred. This article is about the latter. Therefore, the move request really really ought to concern Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). This has been repeatedly raised.
As far as I can tell, no supporters of the move have responded to this concern. Nor do I see how any of the arguments made in support (some of which I respond to explicitly below, giving them in italicised form) of the move can be read as a response to that concern.
  1. It is simply obvious that Israel’s actions and intent are genocidal. First, that is for reliable sources to judge (as has been repeatedly raised), not editors. Second, this, again, would motivate moving Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) rather than this article.
  2. Reliable sources call Israel’s actions genocidal. Again, that motivates moving other articles, not this one.
  3. Failing to rename the article amounts to peddling Israeli narratives. First, it doesn’t, any more than the title of Holodomor genocide question peddles Russian narratives. This is an argument for renaming, e.g., Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). Second, to the extent reliable sources support the Israeli view, our coverage will have to reflect that.
  4. Failing to rename the article obscures the facts. Again, this appears to concern Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) or similar, rather than this article, and ignores the conceptual distinction above.
  5. We should ignore all rules; adherence to them would be pedantic in view of the scale of the tragedy. Wikipedia covers lots of tragedies, and it does not seem that we should ignore rules about all of them; the rules should probably apply to e.g. The Holocaust in large part. Moreover, even if we should IAR in this case, why not, again, rename Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)? That would surely respect the urgency of the matter.
  6. The bar for renaming articles genocide has been low. Why not then rename Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)?
  7. Hesitance vis à vis calling Israeli actions genocidal is mostly diplomatic. I don’t think we are meant to read sources this way on Wikipedia, and, again, this ignores the conceptual distinction between the question of whether something amounts to a genocide and a genocide itself.
Docentation (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I think where WP:IAR comes into play is with questions like what you've written above: to the extent reliable sources support the Israeli view, our coverage will have to reflect that. Cases like this are exactly where ignoring all rules becomes important, since maintaining neutrality, objectivity, and high quality are more important that repeating whatever the NYT says just because they're judged to be reliable. Otherwise, I agree with the broad conceptual distinction of your vote. Dylanvt (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose (update below) for the reasons stated just above by Docentation and in the section below by Howardcorn33. Debate about a genocide and the genocide itself are two distinct (though related) topics. The current name Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) is currently a euphemism for what is either a crime against humanity or a genocide according to most scholars; the term "genocide" attracts more attention, but as for the War crimes in the Tigray War, a 10% genocide done within the two years from Nov 2020 to Nov 2022 (and still ongoing as a famine crime)), scholars see stopping the event as higher priority than deciding between a crime against humanity versus a genocide. Nevertheless, Wikipedia should choose a better name for Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) while keeping this article with the current name (or change to "Debate about genocide ..."). Boud (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: WP:NCENPOV is very clear on article title requirements for controversial topics. Per the policy, we should use 1) the common name for an event; 2) if not common name exists, a generally accepted word used when describing the event; or 3) if there is no generally accepted word, a descriptive title that avoids POV implications. The sources shared do not establish a common name, and the body of reliable sources that do not refer to these events as a genocide means that there is not a credible reason to hold that "genocide" is a generally-accepted word. There are serious significant, credible allegations of genocide; that is not in dispute, and those allegations should be the focus of this article and discussion. A number of editors have appealed to their interpretation of the facts on the ground, but that is not sufficient under WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY: Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. We are not a jury. Our role is not to be finders of fact; it is to reflect what sources reliably call an event or occurrence. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the current Gaza War is considered a genocide, then what about the Allied bombings of Japan and Germany (especially the Bombing of Dresden) which also claimed many lives on this scale? Or the Korean War when the Americans flattened Pyongyang and North Korea? Or the Vietnam War when US forces bombed Cambodia? Those are war crimes, yes, but a genocide? Also the proposed title is a bit odd, which seems to imply Israel is committing genocide but not successful. This article is more on various groups (NGOs, ICC, governments) accessing and alleging whether Israeli actions in Gaza amount to a genocide. The proposed title would have suited describing the existing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, not this page.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:NPOV. The nomination makes absolutely no reference to policy and is a clearly a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS proposal.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a fringe opinion, far from the mainstream view of reliable sources on this topic. Marokwitz (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support either of Gazan genocide or Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza. Converting the humanitarian crisis page into the "genocide itself" article versus this article as the "debate about the genocide" page doesn't look viable. An alternative could be to split this article into a "debate" article versus a "what happened article", but I think that much of "what happened" is already more or less covered in various sub- or overlapping articles, such as Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), so there's no need for a split.
    United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese's report was released today.[1] This is the most neutral and reliable source that we have apart from the ICJ proceedings. The claim that there is no ongoing genocide is now a fringe opinion. Both the actions and the intent are clear according to Francesca, and the IV Humanitarian camouflage – ... distortion of international humanitarian law articulated by Israel as a state policy in its official documents ... illustrates a clear pattern of conduct from which the requisite genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference to be drawn. The proposed new name is justified based on the sources. Boud (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Francesca Albanese (26 March 2024), Anatomy of a Genocide – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese (PDF), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Wikidata Q125152282, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2024
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exclusion of at least the number credibly to be believed to be combatants from death toll

Most claims of genocide refer to the civilian population, so we should exclude the (lowest reasonable estimate of) combatants from the casualty number in the lead or at least offer a range from lowest to highest estimate of civilian deaths. FortunateSons (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if I have understood correctly, the official numbers are just the people who have been possible to identify, not any corpses trapped under the rubble of collapsed buildings, for example. Including highest estimates might work though. David A (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, which is the issue with the number: includes Hamas, excludes a number of potential civilian victims. FortunateSons (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons As you say "most" not all, and we have prominent examples of military personnel being killed where the actions are considered and labelled as genocidal, such as the Soviet forces and their treatment by the Nazis. There are then plenty of examples in indigenous genocides where the warriors/fighters/soldiers are included in the numbers of victims.
A second issue is that not every Hamas member killed is a combatant. I'd be willing to exclude combatants from the numbers, when we have independent reliable sources detailing estimates. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, there are exceptions to any rule. That being said, considering the optimal legal arguments (made by South Africa) have a high degree of focus on Israel’s alleged failure to make distinctions between civilians and combatants, and the killing of combatants is both generally and in this case lawful , I think we can safely exclude everyone who is a clear combatant death, which as of now is probably in the mid thousands or higher, based on the estimates I have seen. FortunateSons (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
You are assuming that most of the Gazan combat dead are included in the Gazan Health Ministry total, but that would only be true if they were admitted to hospital or otherwise tallied. If they died in a tunnel or in ambiguous circumstances where it is not clear if they died in combat, were imprisoned or simply lost contact with command, who knows if they were added to any tally? Where do you think you can derive the data on "clear combat deaths" from? And how do you plan on triangulating this with health ministry data? Are you going to go through the list one by one? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I’m assuming there will be an investigation, either after the war during a prolonged ceasefire. Everyone has an interest to figure the number out, so someone will try FortunateSons (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
There isn't a way of performing this exercise without engaging in intensive OR. More pertinent in fact to mention that the death toll is broadly assumed to be a significant underestimate. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s probably true, most of the reporting I can find is over a month old, and there is not way to guarantee that we will be able to keep them current. Would you be opposed to inclusion post war when the casualties are properly counted? FortunateSons (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
When there's new information there's new information. Although, given how many murdered civilians are now buried under rubble, I suspect it will be a very long time indeed before we have a final tally for this war-cum-genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Help in Draft:Allegations of ethnic cleansing in the Israeli attack on Gaza

Hello, I'm making a counterpart article Draft:Allegations of ethnic cleansing in the Israeli attack on Gaza, and I would appreciate it if I could have some help. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is different than genocide because it is not a legally recognized term. I think it might still be fine to have such an article, but it's important to be clear that there will always be a certain level of ambiguity about these allegations since it is a contested term that is not legally defined. Wikipedia currently defines ethnic cleansing as "the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous." In other words, to meet this definition, an action or proposed action needs to meet all of the following five criteria: Removal of a group from an area; the removal needs to be forced; the group needs to be an ethnic, racial, or religious group; the removal needs to be systematic; the intention of the removal needs to be to make the region ethnically homogenous. The current draft of your article states in the second sentence "Multiple Israeli officials and settlers have outright or implicitly expressed support [for] such actions, some also calling for Israeli resettlement in Gaza." There aren't any clear statements I can find for proposals that meet all five of these criteria so this sort of declarative certainty is not justified. Also, you have an entire section on Israeli resettlement in Gaza, and it is not immediately clear why this is necessarily related to ethnic cleansing as defined above. You can include this section but you need to start the section by citing sources which logically tie together Israeli resettlement and ethnic cleansing. Y2K-96 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

New ICJ order of 28 March 2024

Here[15] — kashmīrī TALK 17:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Damage, not accuracy"

@BilledMammal: I understand why the quote from the mayor of an Israeli city might be deemed irrelevant, but why was the "damage, not accuracy" quote removed? [16] David A (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It turned out to be based on a mistranslation; see this Guardian article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay. That seems good then. David A (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

I've removed the death toll, as it isn't supported by sources in this context as far as I can tell, and because it includes all casualties - not just civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that your edit seems like a sweepingly clunky very extreme measure that hides extremely relevant information, so I will undo that edit until the issue has been sorted out between multiple editors here in this talk section. David A (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@David A: Can you clarify why you consider the information relevant to this article, and what sources you have to support that belief? BilledMammal (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The death toll of an alleged genocide being listed alongside other scale of destruction data seems self-evidently relevant to an article about this very topic. David A (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually the burden lies on Billed Mammal to justify his having removed that material, with little more than a subjective edit summary, since numerous sources that raise the issue of genocide, in doing so, cite the overall numbers.Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Given that there is no citation, the burden rests on those who wish to include the disputed material, per WP:BURDEN. At the moment, there is no source attached to claim, and looking for likely sources through the article I cannot find any that say that every death in Gaza falls under this allegation. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal as has been shown multiple times through both academic literature and court proceedings, military personnel (or as militants) can be victims of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
In different contexts, such as where the personnel are POW's, easily. In this context, where there are two forces actively engaged in combat, it would be exceptional, and we would need a source to support the claim. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It would have taken you 3 seconds to have found a source which, in the context of allegations of genocide the figure of 33,000 people killed was mentioned. Everyone who reads up on this topic knows that. Rather than supply the easy ref your idiosyncratic scruple suggests must be given, you just erase the figure, and throw the burden onto everyone else. What you appear to be doing is to insinuate that the figure of 33,000 refers to all fatalities, and therefore includes Hamas deaths, and this, you find, is inappropriate because genocide apparently for you must refer only to the programmatic killing of the innocent/civilians. These are your own particular assumptions, which you bring to bear on the article, and you expect someone to follow you in those assumptions. They don't need to.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I found sources that mentioned the figure - but none that said that this many were the victims. I'm asking for the latter, as that is what we need to include this claim in the article. Do you have a source that says this? BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This is pettifopgging equivocation. What you removed was a figure for the fatalities overall, and they were not listed as 'victims' but as 'deaths'. Another assumption you are trying to introduce here. In short, you are consistently inventing pretexts, having removed the text, and saying 'you can keep the figure' if you satisfy my assumptions by finding RS that back them. That is patently ridiculous. Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The infobox we are using is Template:Infobox civilian attack. The fatalities figure refers to Number of people killed during attack(s) - in this case, the number of people killed in the alleged genocide. Further, readers will obviously interpret it that way - they're not going to interpret it as an unrelated figure that includes individuals who aren't victims. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, where in that info box is it explicitly mentioned that what follows are details of a civilian attack? The header is 'Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza' not the title of the infobox template. This is arid technical formalismNishidani (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Who, exactly, is the group of people killed who you would exclude? I found this from a noticeboard request but I find the terms of the dispute a bit unclear to say the least. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Simonm223: Combatants; it's an exceptional claim to say that they are included among the alleged victims, and as far as I can tell from this discussion we don't have any sources supporting that claim. BilledMammal (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
As everyone know, Israel will not come clean, despite repeated requests, to clarify who it considers combatants, except by claiming anyone in Hamas, from janitors and schoolteachers to militants, is a legitimate target (together with their families). The issue is explained here (Merlyn Thomas, Jake Horton & Benedict Garman, Israel Gaza: Checking Israel's claim to have killed 10,000 Hamas fighters BBC 29 February 2024) That article appropriately cites Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in security studies at Kings College London, who stated: "Israel takes a very broad approach to 'Hamas membership', which includes any affiliation with the organisation, including civil servants or administrators."
So what you are doing is making an impossible demand by setting conditions for a distinction neither Israel nor sources can state, and state with accuracy, to the end of removing the universally accepted figure itself. This, in my view, is POV gaming.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
OK that's absurd. We cannot use Israel's claims about who is or is not a member of Hamas as a basis for excluding victims. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
If sources can't say how many victims there have been then nor can we. That's not POV pushing, that's complying with our core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.
At the moment, our sources say:
  1. At least 33,091 Palestinians have been killed and 75,750 wounded in Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 7, its Health Ministry says.
  2. More than 33,000 have been killed in Israel's offensive in Gaza, the Hamas-run health ministry there says, the majority of them civilians.
Neither of these tell us how many genocide victims are alleged, and we need a reliable source that provides a figure to include that here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You can't just handwave "combatants" as not being subject to the definition of genocide. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that this isn't a WP:BLUE situation - it's possible they are included, but we can't assume that - we need sources that tell us how many victims are alleged, which may or may not include combatants. At the moment, we don't have those sources. BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Whether they include "combatants" is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Because people being genocided tend to fight back. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but the law concerning genocide has no dependency on combatant vs non-combatant status does it? That is covered by other laws. It deals with "national, ethnical, racial or religious" groups. Maybe if there were a substantial number of foreign fighters from other national, ethnical, racial or religious groups it might make a difference I suppose. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No definition of genocide I'm aware of makes a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Considering the history of Jewish resistance during the holocaust, such a distinction would be alarmingly revisionist to say the least. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The UN says In contrast to genocide and crimes against humanity, war crimes can be committed against a diversity of victims, either combatants or non-combatants, depending on the type of crime.
Beyond that, genocide is a crime of intent. The intent that might be there when targeting non-combatants might not be there when targeting combatants. For example, those who died in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are victims of genocide, because the genocidal intent was still there - but Red Army soldiers who were killed in combat during the Battle of Kursk are generally not considered victims of genocide, even though there was a genocide against the Slavic peoples. It's a complicated topic, and none of us are qualified to express opinions on it - all we can do is rely on the sources, which is why I am asking for sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No. There is a reliable source. You just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
And yet in legal cases around genocide adjudicated by the UN (see in particular the Nazis, and Former Yugoslavia), combatants have been included in victim numbers of genocides. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Considering the relevant reports of casualties at the time of record or publication have been used in the ICJ case, as well as in multiple papers from the round table hosted by the Journal of Genocide Research, and they choose to use the numbers reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, this should be more than enough RS usage to use the ministry's numbers for the infobox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This removal was improper. Genocide often takes place in the context of war, and combatants can be considered victims of genocide, especially in asymmetrical or unbalanced warfare where one side has a decisive advantage. See Herero and Nama genocide for a relevant example of a genocide perpetrated against an anticolonial rebellion where both civilians and combatants are regarded as victims. Unbandito (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The claim that combatants should be excluded from casualty totals for genocides is entirely novel and appears to constitute WP:OR - agreed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The euro med monitor does make the distinction, and the number of civilians killed according to their estimate is higher than the overall Gaza health ministry death toll. It is reasonable to assume most, if not all the deaths reported by the Gaza Health Ministry at this point are civilians The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Another source

This just-published article by an associate professor of law could be useful. Zerotalk 10:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A good one, as it's published in a respectable peer-reviewed academic journal. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for Infobox

Change "Sunak administratrion" to Sunak ministry. No one in the UK uses the term "administration" to refer to a premiership and the ministry article covers his govt same as Scholz cabinet does for Scholz Dhantegge (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 00:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up on Joan Donoghue

I don't think the ICJ ruling is 'ambiguous' at all; rather, I think some editors are interpreting the language out of context. One editor wrote:

" "X plausibly needs protection against Y" means precisely the same as "Y plausibly makes protection of X necessary". If Palestinians plausibly need to claim protection from genocide, then it follows that genocide is a plausible possibility for them, ergo Israel is plausibly committing it."

Ergo, no. This is not what 'plausibility' seems to mean in this case. The BBC published a piece on this a few days ago which I think straightens this confusion out.[17]

Here's how this whole thing unfolded: the ICJ deals with disputes between countries over international law, in this case the Geneva Convention. At one point Israeli attorneys raised the question of whether or not the Palestinians were even protected under the Geneva Convention, and it is this context in which the term "plausibility" is understood. If Palestinians do not have GC rights, then South Africa's case is legally implausible. What the ICJ ruled is that the Palestinians do have plausible rights to GC protection (or at least 'some' rights claimed by South Africa), no more or less (see link).

Another quote from the ICJ ruling:

“At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist,” Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The last quote is a nonsense. Rights exist irrespective of the ICJ. Each nation has a right not to be genocided – a right reaffirmed (not: conferred!) by the Genocide Convention. The ICJ is not there to determine, as some commentators argue, whether nations have a right to protection; the ICJ has been instituted to ensure that nations are effectively protected against genocide, through such methods as provisional measures etc. — kashmīrī TALK 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, but we are talking about the way the ICJ ruling is interpreted in the body of this article, no more or less. Of course it is possible to get away with genocide in a legal sense. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

“Genocide”

Seems like this page is only made because of Palestine genocide accusations and how pro Palestinian people didn’t get their way no difference between these pages but the title John Bois (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The article aims to present the topic of the Gaza genocide as covered by reliable sources, in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The title and content reflect the specific focus of this article, which is distinct from broader coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article's balance or accuracy, please feel free to propose them here, ideally with references to reliable sources. We should focus on improving the article's content rather than debating the underlying political issues and we should use clear, direct language when appropriate. ViolanteMD (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m not debating anything i am just asking a question on what’s the purpose of this article and Palestine genocide accusations This article jumbs the gun and says it is a genocide while the other says it’s just a accusation one needs to be deleted John Bois (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not to mention “ethnic cleansing” as well barely any reliable sources have called it that this article is extremely biased towards Gaza
there are many many things I can point out that’s biased towards Palestine John Bois (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
From the lead: “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people” see the problem? In the lead it says accused (which is correct) but the title claims it to be a confirmed genocide John Bois (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This article covers the currently ongoing atrocities, whereas the other one covers a far longer period of time for historical context. Also, it is not about being "pro-Palestinian", but rather about being pro-human rights and anti-supremacist tribalism in general. David A (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Please don't engage with non EC editors, archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Surrender

What about surrender? Usually, a group affected by genocide cannot end the genocide itself by surrendering. In this case, an unconditional surrender by Hamas would be enough to stop the brutal destruction and war immediately. (At least, a continuation of fighting by the Israeli side after this would definitely be genocide.) According to the standards discussed here, one would otherwise have to consider a genocide against the Germans by the Allies in World War II (for example, area bombing of cities). 2A00:20:600D:2A5B:85B5:EAAD:A0BF:1972 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

not actionable bordering on WP:FORUM. You need to find a WP:reliable source that says that, else its WP:OR and you can't include it on the article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:ARBECR, better not to engage with non EC editors, archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_1&oldid=1244574778"