Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit requests at RFPP

To the regulars here: There are a couple of edit requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit that seem reasonable and well-thought-out, deserving some attention. Would someone more familiar with this topic than the administrators who monitor that RFPP page have a look and weigh in? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Anachronist. Both have now been addressed.

I proposed the last sentence of the lead be replaced by: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[1][2] and a form of Holocaust erasure[3], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[4][5][6][7]. If anyone objects please say so below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Total deaths

The following study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University establishes that, in addition to the officially reported deaths, over 10,000 people in Gaza are dead under the rubble and at least 67,413 have been killed from starvation and diseases, due to lack of access to healthcare, based on reliable data, making the total number of estimated Palestinian deaths over 120,000.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/IndirectDeathsGaza

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/10/08/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120-000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/ar-AA1rQIOg

I think that these numbers should be reported within this article.

David A (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient sourcing for German ban

The article currently says:

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

The source used says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private court proceedings against Mark Regev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage of women and children and the New UN independent analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As WP:SDESC notes:

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

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

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

Domicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

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

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

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

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

Update on Genocide Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is open to edits by anyone, in line with Israel-Palestine editing restrictions. I have added the new article to the list. @Bitspectator: the template is intended to be a tool to make it easier for editors to find various articles for discussion, instead of having to manually grab the same sources every single time they are brought to discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests

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

@Extraordinary Writ: The first 3 can be filed, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-defence

Regarding the "self-defence" talking point, I cannot help but think of Genocide justification. I seem to remember this point having been made before, that this is such a commonplace excuse, but I can't remember where exactly. If a RS can be found making this point regarding Gaza, it can be integrated into the article. Just a heads-up. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Genocide definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know what you're trying to get at, but it's quite a stretch to say that there is no actual academic debate on the question of genocide in Gaza. I've edited on Holodomor pages before, and have made multiple rash edits in the past due to strong opinions I held. Even if it seemed obviously a genocide to me, it didn't mean that there wasn't serious academic discourse or an unclear international consensus on the question. Not all cases where the characterization of something as a genocide is disputed is genocide denial(as stated in the introduction of the textbook you cited). Actions characterized as self-defense by apologists and perpetrators can be considered genocide, that doesn't necessarily make it so that all actions characterized as such constitute genocide. With regards to death toll, estimates do vary quite a bit and the true death toll as of now isn't known. In most of the articles I can see when searching "Hamas-run health ministry" do not dispute the numbers either([12][13][14][15]). Not all criticisms fall under the egregious examples you've described, there are plenty of opinions included in previous name change and deletion discussions, pinned at the top of this talk page or in the article at present that aren't routed in some deliberate distortion of facts.

Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original research so we shouldn't be comparing what happening in Gaza right now to past events to try to determine whether it's a genocide. Instead, we should cite reliable secondaries in order to back up our viewpoints instead. I also do find the idea of comparing the Holocaust and Holodomor to be somewhat distasteful in this context, especially given the classic argument by Holocaust and Holodomor deniers that there was no written order by Hitler or Stalin so said events aren't genocides/weren't caused by them. I'd also note that McDoom's article acknowledges academic discourse on the issue of genocide and a lack of consensus, whilst alleging systematic bias amongst some scholars. It does not allege that other scholars are actively engaging in genocide denial. It's also an article that has literally never been cited before, which makes it questionable whether the opinion stated represents a mainstream opinion or not. Originalcola (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If by debate, you mean are there those who say there is not a genocide, then of course that's the case and why we say in the lead that it is an accusation and not a fact.

However, the majority opinion among experts is that there is a genocide and this is a discussion that has already been had multiple times at this page and the number of experts signing on to that theory has only increased in recent times.

That's where we are at and I do not see any benefit in extending the conversation beyond that currently. Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I just don't think a genocide denial background section or genocide denial section was warranted before some kind of strong consensus was formed on the genocide question. That's why I chose to do some necroposting but I'll refrain from commenting any further. Originalcola (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

@DancingOwl: the previous edit has been reverted without properly justifying the deletion - the one "explanation" provided was basically WP:JD I did give a valid reason that I expect the average editor (who's here to build an encyclopedia) to understand.

What makes you think that such baseless allegations about South Africa's genocide case against Israel belong in the article (in the lead to boot)? M.Bitton (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it as undue, nothing to do with the article here, possibly due at the case or ANC articles but even there, it seems like an extraordinary claim. Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted its addition to the case article as UNDUE there too (it is an extraordinary "allegation"). M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is it UNDUE there?

It's highly relevant to the topic of that article, and the allegations have been reported in several mainstream media outlets. DancingOwl (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that its placement in the lead gave it undue weight, but, in my view, it shouldn't have been removed altogether, but rather moved to the ICJ application section, where it's definitely relevant. DancingOwl (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage" is both wp:rude and wp:jdl and not a "valid reason" for deletion.

I do agree that its placement in the lead gave it undue weight, and it should've been moved to the ICJ application section, where it belongs.

The fact that you consider the allegations in the report "extraordinary" is also, in and by itself, not a valid reason for deletion, unless there are good reasons to consider Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy unreliable source (in which case I'd expect it to be explicitly stated as the reason for deletion). DancingOwl (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

that isn't a rude assertion. See also WP:DUE, but unless there is a case to be made that a fact is important to the encyclopedic value of the article, it should not be included. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

allegations are almost certainly extraordinary as well. Seems bizarre to suggest that an $30 million debt to arabian countries would cause the ICJ case... there is not much coverage of this as a legitimate rationale for the case by other sourcing, and to suggest a debt that is less than 1% of 1% of the GDP of south africa is enough to cause bias is definitely extraordinary. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

1. The claim is that a donation was made directly to the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party, to cover its $30 million debt, not to South Africa as a country, so the comparison to the GDP is irrelevant.

2. Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy are not the first ones to bring up those allegations, similar claims were made back in May in a letter signed by 160 international legal experts

3. Those allegation basically mean that ANC had ulterior motives in initiating the ICJ proceedings against Israel, which is clearly a very important part of the context of this case DancingOwl (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

legal experts that's a claim in a GUNREL source about some allegation. M.Bitton (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing the JC now as well, jeez. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The May story was also covered by "Jerusalem Post", "The Times of Israel" and "South African Jewish Report".

And the ISGAP report was also mentioned by "Ynet News", JNS and "South African Zionist Federation", among others.

Is your line of argument now going to be that any Jewish/Israeli source mentioning those allegations is GUNREL? DancingOwl (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The line of argument is simple: extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources (unsubstantiated claims by an involved party are pure propaganda). M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does the same line of argument apply to reports originating from Gazan sources? DancingOwl (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Do you have a claim in mind or are you just fishing? M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC) For example, claims about the number of casualties - in particular, the number of bodies buried under the rubble. DancingOwl (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Claims about themselves are a different matter (you ought to know that). M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I'd appreciate it if you could explain why. DancingOwl (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I already did and have no intention of repeating myself. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I must've missed it - could you point me to your explanation? DancingOwl (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) There are reliable sources dealing with that. Afaik, it is generally accepted that there a significant number of unverified casualties, as to how many, I doubt anyone really knows at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I'm talking about specific numbers, not a general statement that there is a significant number of unverified casualties DancingOwl (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Apples and oranges. If you have a problem with a specific claim, you discuss it in the appropriate talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Will do. Just wanted to make sure that the "unsubstantiated claims by an involved party are pure propaganda" principle goes both ways, as far as you're concerned. DancingOwl (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC) No point in trying to put words in my mouth, because I won't let you. Sources are always judged in context, if you don't know that, then I suggest you learn and learn it fast. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any links to the other coverage but that apart, it is just not due in this article, it may be due in another article, either or both of the South Africa's genocide case against Israel and African national Congress.

At any rate, there is no point in further discussion here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll locate the relevant links and add them, but before I do that, is it acceptable, as far as you are concerned, to also add a short summary of this to the ICJ case section?

Also, I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so before I make any edits, I suggest I start a topic at the South Africa's genocide case against Israel, in which the best phrasing/sourcing can be discussed - how does this sound? DancingOwl (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No objection to a discussion at the case page (or at the ANC page, I would be interested to see editorial reaction there).

There is no basis to add anything here, because an allegation of corruption on the part of the ANC has no bearing on whether or not there is a Gaza genocide. To put it another way, assume the allegation is true, does it follow that there is not a Gaza genocide? Obviously not. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, the "Corruption controversies" section at the ANC page seems like a good place to start - that can give us important input that we won't get elsewhere.

I'm not sure I agree with your view regarding mentioning those allegations in the ICJ case section here, but let's leave this discussion for later. DancingOwl (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You start with the talk page and you seek consensus for what you want to add to the ANC. M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

of course DancingOwl (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the case article either. Maybe the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (as it says more about them than anyone else). M.Bitton (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy seems to be funded by the Israeli government:[16]

This year’s program was given a boost by a US$1.3 million ($1.74 million) grant (over three years) from the government of Israel.

Bogazicili (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that - it's also clearly stated in the lead of the Wikipedia article about them:

"...an Israeli-funded American non-profit organization..." DancingOwl (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wairimu Nderitu

So, I was looking for the actual statement by the UN special advisor on genocide Prevention to add to the experts opinions list, and despite how it has been worded in the article, she has not stated that Gaza is or is not a case of genocide.

In her most recent reiterated statement she reaffirmed her position does not allow for her to state whether something is or is not genocide, and such determinations should be deferred to the relevant courts.

The assumption that she does not consider Gaza a genocide seems to come from the WSJ applying some of the arguments she made in a 2022 paper to the situation in Gaza. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)