Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation/Archive 1

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

Misleading viewpoint, blatant tropes of New Antisemitism

The claim that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians is not only factually incorrect but is also deeply problematic and should be seen as demonization of the Jewish State in a larger attempt to delegitimize it. Genocide, as defined by international law, involves the deliberate and systematic extermination of a specific ethnic, religious, or racial group. Labeling Israel's actions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as genocide not only mischaracterizes the complex and highly sensitive situation but also unfairly vilifies the Israeli people as a whole. Such an accusation overlooks the broader context of the conflict, which is rooted in longstanding political, historical, and territorial disputes. Accusations of genocide not only undermine the genuine struggles of those who have suffered from real genocides (such as the Jewish people themselves) but can also be seen as a form of demonization against the Jewish state, invoking harmful stereotypes and perpetuating harmful biases. Constructive dialogue and a nuanced understanding of the conflict are crucial for any meaningful efforts towards peace and resolution. See more on New Antisemitism here. Untruthful and damaging claims that Israel is committing genocide should not remain on a site which is supposed to remain neutral and report objective truths. IshChasidecha (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Your entire post reads like a blog post. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where you post your personal opinions. We follow what the reliable sources say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This article never actually states that it is a genocide, just that a view of it being a genocide exists. Your post reads like a very biased post.
You must try and separate the fact that the Jews have suffered genocide before from the fact that they can commit it now, potentially.
Saying that Israel has committed genocide is not inherently anti-Semitic, as if Israel was not made up of Jews it still could commit a genocide. Scientelensia (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, nobody is blaming the entire people of Israel for the crimes. Scientelensia (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Anyone "could commit genocide." The same anyone "could murder Christian babies." But when thisdemonizing claim is so blatantly false, it's just a modern day blood libel. IshChasidecha (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, nobody said the view is inherently true. Also, your opinion seems to be highly biased. Scientelensia (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Articles should be about topics, and in said topics viewpoints should be presented, both for and against. This article, somehow, only shows one side of the viewpoint. Would you not say that is very biased?
Would it be appropriate to have a separate article under the headline “Palestinian genocide of Israelis” given recent attacks, and show a survey that fits the desired outcome?
Hiding behind a “this is just stating a viewpoint” is the same fallacy as saying “some people are saying…” when stating an argument. Would the viewpoint to the contrary also deserve its own article?
You keep using the “I’m not saying it’s true just mentioning there’s such an opinion” as if you don’t know how actual articles are written and formed.
This, without mentioning the extreme bias in the article itself. 2A06:C701:4505:5600:384B:9E67:5C9E:7536 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Calling it antisemetic simply reinforces the erroneous view that the Israeli-Palestenian conflict is a religious one, it's not. If it was then we could call it the Jewish-Hamas conflict. 2600:8807:C600:EF60:CED:466B:D6B7:B868 (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed the article is rife with misinformation as well as manipulation of facts in order to support ideologies. I fear this article may be a ploy to legitimize the actions of Hamas. This article has anti-semetic motives. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
What facts are wrong? Who is supporting a terrorist organisation? What is anti Semitic? Saying that Israel has committed genocide is not inherently anti-Semitic, as if Israel was not made up of Jews it still could potentially commit a genocide. Scientelensia (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Genocide, as defined by international law, involves the deliberate and systematic extermination of a specific ethnic, religious, or racial group Under international law, it involves any one or more of five acts (killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy, preventing births, or forcible transfer of children) committed with genocidal intent. That definition is so broad that genocide can be committed even without anyone being killed, and a mere intent to destroy a group can render an act legally genocidal even if the act fails to actually achieve its genocidal goal (a "failed genocide" is still legally a genocide). Given the breadth and vagueness of the international law definition of genocide, the question of whether or not Israel has committed the crime of genocide against Palestinians is far more difficult to answer than you think it is. As an example of how broad the international law definition of "genocide" can be, here is blog post by a law professor arguing that Hamas has committed the crime of genocide against Israel. I'm no international law expert, so whether the professor's conclusion is right or wrong is beyond my competence, but his argument doesn't seem prima facie unreasonable. However, if one accepts that law professor's argument that Hamas has indeed committed genocide against Israelis, then we are defining "genocide" broadly enough that the converse claim, that on one or more occasions in the period 1948–2023 Israel may have committed genocide against Palestinians, doesn't seem prima facie unreasonable either. The 1983 MacBride Commission into Israeli actions in Lebanon (including the Sabra and Shatila massacre) concluded with the recommendation that "a competent international body be designed or established to clarify the conception of genocide in relation to Israeli policies and practices toward the Palestinian people"; which reflects the reality that the legal definition of "genocide" is so broad and vague that whether Israel legally committed genocide in Lebanon is far from an "open and shut case" either way. You can disagree with the MacBride Commission's conclusions, but simply dismissing them as antisemitism seems unfounded. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not Genocide

This article is inaccurate, as it falsely claims that there was an attempt to annihilate the Palestinian people. In contrast, there is a documented intention in Hamas' covenant, which explicitly states its primary goal is the annihilation of Israel. Therefore, this article lacks a factual basis and appears to be blatant pro-Hamas propaganda.שלומית ליר (talk) _ שלומית ליר (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The existence of a strong anti-Israel sentiment in Hamas's propaganda does not preclude Israel from trying to infringe upon the rights of Palestinian people. Both statements may be true as they are not mutually exclusive. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between rights infringement and genocide. 176.231.102.238 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is "Genocide against Palestinians is a characterization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which argues that Israel has carried out and/or is carrying out some kind of genocide against the Palestinian population, sometimes related to the view that Israel is a settler colonial state."
By doing this, the concept of genocide being committed is acknowledged but neither outright confirmed nor denied. The article merely states that some scholars, activists, and groups have dubbed various Israeli activities as genocide. Whether or not it is genocide or not, it is Wikipedia's goal to accurately and comprehensively cover the various opinions on the topic, hence the existence of this article. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Novo Tape is correct :) Scientelensia (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Add appropriate content and sources here: Genocide against Palestinians#Rejection of characterization Scientelensia (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, please remove the unrelated images of skulls from Rwanda and the picture of an Orthodox Jew with a flag. These images do not pertain to the subject matter and serve only to reinforce the propagandistic elements in this entry.שלומית ליר (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
What is propaganda? You seem to have a heavy bias. Scientelensia (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey Scientelensia, you seem to be the most prominent voice on this talk page in support of the article, yet essentially every one of your responses to well articulated arguments is just: "What are you talking about? You're biased."
While the removal of the unrelated/egregious images is a start, I'm saddened to see the article still up. I really don't like throwing the term "Nazi" around, but Goebbels would be proud, especially the way this article was initially written.
- Themes in Nazi propaganda
- Propaganda in Nazi Germany
It would be like if in the 1930's we had an encyclopedia article titled "Jewish caused German national woes" with all the Nazi's claims, labeled as "an important categorization of" all of Germany's problems. We could cite so many "unbiased," "expert" opinions who would support this stance, and then we could defend the article's existence in an encyclopedia by claiming that it just represents "one view."
This article should be deleted ASAP. The timing of its conception speaks for the motivation of its creator. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
My motive is only to detail the allegations. It’s quite a statement to compare this page to something on Nazis and me to a potential sympathiser: I would appreciate you striking such comments. I have merely been trying to bring people’s attention to their bias which I have been discerning. Forgive me if I am wrong, but this bias is a major obstacle to positive contribution. Everyone has bias; feel free to point out mine for the greater good. Any bias I may have however is not directed in the insulting way you suggest. Scientelensia (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
You asked this before below and this is my answer. Read your question below to contextualise this:
That they can be found in Israel bears little resemblance to the subject matter. I invite you to put similar images which relate to Israel on other pages, if you wish, although not this one, as that would be insensitive. Also, the skulls image belongs to the template of genocides and is automatically added when one adds this template to the page. The coffins image symbolise the tragedy of the matter. Even if you do not like Palestinians, you must see that this scale of death, whoever caused it, is a tragedy. The image of the man shows that not all Israelis oppose Palestine. And also, what is wrong with being “ultra-Orthodox”? You sound like you may hold a prejudice in this regard; if so, please say why, if not, I issue my apologies. Scientelensia (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, no matter one's opinion. It is nigh impossible to assert that Israel is commiting genocide against Palestinians and Arabs. I fear much of the text of this article was written with clear political interest, especially concerning the circumstances of its publication (the war between Hamas and Israel). Homerethegreat (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You seem to have an anti-Palestinian bias. Remember that the article presents a SUBJECTIVE VIEW which is presented as such and is not inherently true!! It is presented as an ‘alleged genocide’! How can people not understand this? If you like, you can create an alternate page, e.g ‘Genocide against Israelis’. What do you think, @Novo Tape? Scientelensia (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Scientelensia, please strike all comments accusing other users of being/having a bias and/or prejudice. Such comments are unacceptable on Wikipedia and are sanctionable. Drsmoo (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe that should be directed to the user calling others anti-semites and promoting a blood libel? Or the user above who is claiming that editors are editing with clear political interest? nableezy - 23:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn’t see those comments, however the same advice would definitely apply to those users. @Scientelensia Tagging you to ensure you see my message above. Calling users biased/prejudiced is sanctionable. Please strike those accusations. Drsmoo (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I never objectively said that they had a bias, only that they ‘seemed’ biased, ‘perhaps’ had a bias or ‘may’ have held a bias. Thus, I am not stating 100% that these people are biased, because how would I know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=prev&oldid=1180086873 Scientelensia (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I think I lack competence handling controversial article subjects to judge whether or not this article is biased and, if so, the extent of that bias. While I do stand by my earlier responses in that I believe the article attempts to be phrasee in neutral language, it may or may not still have major biases because of lack of due weight. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Homerethegreat: Indeed, no matter one's opinion. It is nigh impossible to assert that Israel is commiting genocide against Palestinians and Arabs It is far from impossible given that (1) the legal definition of "genocide" is very broad (far broader than the average person thinks it is), (2) the original definition of "genocide" (by Rafael Lemkin, the inventor of the word) is even broader than the legal definition – in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin argues that Nazi Germany was guilty of genocide - not just against Jews, but also against (non-Jewish) Dutch and the French. If your definition of "genocide" is broad enough to include not just the Nazi mass murder of Jews, but also how the Nazis treated the average Dutch or French person (i.e. including cultural genocide), then you are defining the word so broadly that the idea that either (or even both!) sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict may be guilty of "genocide" seems much more plausible. But, while that very broad definition of "genocide" is one alien to the popular consciousness, it is one many genocide scholars take seriously, given it is the original scholarly definition of the word. The legal definition is narrowed somewhat; the popular definition is narrowed a lot further. Some genocide scholars advocate a narrow definition close to the popular one (i.e. genocide = mass murder with genocidal intent), others advocate broader definitions equivalent to the legal one or to the even broader original one. There is a lack of scholarly agreement on how to define "genocide", and the question of whether either or both sides has committed it depends at least as much on how we choose to define the word, as it does on what either side may or may not have done, and what intentions may or may not have been behind their various actions. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality.

I have tried hard to make the page more neutral. What else can be done? What does everyone think? I believe it may be time to remove the neutrality notice.

Before you answer, read my opinions on the matter here: User talk:Homerethegreat#Israel and Palestine. This is in response to a specific user. Scientelensia (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This page cannot be neutral in it's current state, because even if there is genocide, some would call it otherwise. אקסינו (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert?

While the source is political here (Special:MobileDiff/1180461930), the facts are true and could be re-added with another/a different source. Scientelensia (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of sources commenting on the bombing frequency and intensity, and I'm sure there are other sources tying it to the label of genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Scientelensia (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Remodelling the article

This article should be remodelled to look like this page: Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Scientelensia (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Broadly agree, yes. The prefixing of the title with "Allegations of" seems fairly reasonable given the current state of things (you may note that this is the way in which it is currently incorporated as a subhead at Criticism of Israel ... though "in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" seems rather needless. Infobox should return. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Scientelensia (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Buidhe: This is your initial creation - what's your assessment here? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I just started the article because I noticed a content gap. I took it off my watch list and other editors can revise as they see fit (t · c) buidhe 14:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support in the strongest terms possible. This is a perfect compromise. It should eliminate much of the issue people have with neutrality and get us as close to a consensus as we are likely to get. There should be no argument against this. If you don't think there's genocide, and you are correct, then it's only notable allegations and the sources and the evidence will prove your stance correct. If you do think there's genocide, and you are correct, the sources and evidence will prove your stance correct. In other words, if you know you're right, this page existing as "allegations" shouldn't bother you, no matter your stance. I'd also like to remind everyone that this site has considered false allegations related to genocide notable enough to have their own article even if they are false (see "Holocaust denial" and "Rwandan genocide denial"). Thus, an allegations article would only need to pass a notability test. The merge discussion wasn't appearing to be coming to any consensus, so I think this should be the new main discussion moving forward if we want to reach one. In any case, by all accounts, many people are dying in Palestine and allegations of genocide are not something to be taken lightly. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per the comparison with Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and reasons well elaborated by HalfHazard98 above. –St.nerol (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Where people tend to go wrong.

It is not a genocide. Statistics show that the Palestinian population is growing constantly — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamiBuzaglo (talk • contribs) :The Uyghur population has also only increased, yet we have a Uyghur Genocide article despite the very dodgy accusations. FF toho (talk) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This comment above demonstrates how people go wrong in this matter, blinded by the contentious subject matter. The article clearly states that the genocide is a “view”, thus acknowledging the subjectivity of the subject rather than calling it the objective truth. Do people understand this? Scientelensia (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, populations can grow due to a high birth rate even when there are frequent deaths. Scientelensia (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
In the popular understanding, genocide requires mass murder, so an increase in the population is an open-and-shut argument against any genocide occurring. However, legal and scholarly definitions of "genocide" are a lot broader than the popular one, so it is not an open and shut argument against those broader definitions. I think a lot of the problem here is people who don't know anything about genocide scholarship and hence don't realise that what "genocide" means in the average person's head is actually very different from what many scholars who debate the topic mean by the word. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


Propaganda

Not a helpful discussion towards improving the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unfortunately, this article proves that Wikipedia is just a propaganda project.

Today, exactly one week after 1,300 Israeli citizens were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist organization - which publicly calls for the murder of ALL of the Jewish people. An organization that deliberately massacred innocents and tortured innocent people, burned entire families, shot children in front of their parents, killed parents in front of their children, raped young women, beheaded babies and toddlers, and kidnapped women, children, old men and even Holocaust survivors into underground tunnels booby-trapped with explosives. On this very day, the English Wikipedia not only decided not to call all of this with the only appropriate word – terrorism – but to allow the existence of this antisemitic blood libel, which describes the so called "genocide" of the Palestinians by Israel. What a shame. what a disgrace.

Facts are not important. The truth is not interesting. Only Palestinian propaganda will be published here. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Also ironic in pushing established propaganda while declaiming supposed propaganda. nableezy - 22:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You can detail this on an another, more relevant page. I have said so many times, how about a page criticising Palestine in favour of Israel as you suggest? Please do not state that those who are not Pro-Israel are also anti-Semites, as this is deeply alarming and untrue. Many clearly do not understand the concept that those who are against Israel are not inherently anti Jews. You may perhaps have a disconcerting bias in this regard.
And AGAIN, I have to say:
Remember that the article presents a SUBJECTIVE VIEW which is presented as such and is not inherently true!! It is presented as an ‘alleged genocide’! How can people not understand this?
Please read the discussion above before taking the time to comment in this absurd and disrespectful way. Scientelensia (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe you have some disconcerting bias regarding antisemitism. I don't care who is pro/anti Israel. I care about anti-Semitic blood libels, such as the one presented before us. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
"Assume good faith" is described as "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". HalfHazard98 (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I reiterate: do not state that those who are not Pro-Israel are also anti-Semites, as this is deeply alarming and untrue. This is not an “anti-Semitic blood libel”. Scientelensia (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Bar, see this: Talk:Genocide against Palestinians#Remodelling the article. Scientelensia (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

:Hundreds upon hundredes of thousands of Palestinians displaced and murdered by Israeli forces and settlers for decades but one terrorist organization and, the what, 200 something IDF causalities? Just as bad. Right? FF toho (talk) FF toho (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you support a potential merge (above)? Scientelensia (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The debate over whether Israel is guilty of genocide against Palestinians goes back to at least 1982–1983, when the question was considered by the MacBride Commission on Israeli actions in Lebanon (it took the question seriously, but does not appear to have ultimately reached a conclusion either way). The MacBride Commission's report has absolutely nothing to do with Hamas propaganda, since Hamas wasn't even founded until 1987. So, we can't simply dismiss a debate as "Hamas propaganda", when the debate is older than Hamas itself is. And there is no evidence that the President of the International Commission who wrote that report, Seán MacBride (a Nobel Peace Prize winning Irish politician and diplomat) had any sympathy for the viewpoints of Hamas whatsoever. As far as the timing goes, there is no evidence the creator of this article (User:Buidhe) is some kind of Hamas propagandist, since Buidhe has been a heavy contributor to Wikipedia articles on the Holocaust–from a mainstream perspective, not as a Holocaust denier, whereas one would expect a Hamas propagandist to promote Holocaust denial not the mainstream understanding of the topic, given that Hamas' official position is that the Holocaust is a "lie made up by Zionists". For all we know, maybe it is just coincidental that Buidhe decided to create this article at this time; alternatively, it sometimes happens that recent events makes an editor think about a topic, and then those thoughts lead them to broader thoughts about the topic which are not directly related to current events, and they then notice some gap in Wikipedia's coverage which they decide to plug. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The article wasn't created in response to recent events, actually because I stumbled across this paper. I was just surprised that a Wikipedia article on the topic didn't exist yet because I already knew from research that it was a notable topic—whether you agree or disagree with it. (t · c) buidhe 02:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. And obviously that paper you stumbled upon has nothing to do with current events, given it was published in April last year. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Less, if there was any, bias:

I have added this sentence to the lede: The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.

Feel free to add such sentences in order to contextualise the article. Scientelensia (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This sort of balance should be expanded to include views throughout the entire international community. While the views of Israelis are relevant, It would be a sort of false balance to assign special importance to them. To understand what I mean, imagine this sentence if it were said about the alleged perpetrators of any widely accepted genocide. Unbandito (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Scientelensia (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge \ rename

Rename is being considered with a requested move below. starship.paint (RUN) 07:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

More section than article

This reads like a section in a relevant article rather than its own article. The title isn't a term of art, but is being used as a target for links in other articles as though it is. It's referenced in a handful of documents with a divergent set of definitions [by which standard the list of genocides would be long indeed] and doesn't need its own entire section in the navbox. – SJ + 22:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sj: FYI, with regards to this edit, I would note that segregation is one of the well-recognised steps along the path to genocide, as elaborated on here. While I haven't yet checked if this material was supported with this sort of a context, I would imagine this is why such content was there in the first place. Just a note. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed rename + merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Pausing this discussion as the ongoing AfD which includes a similar discussion (one proposed outcome is a merge), and would supercede any outcome here. A new merge thread can be started if needed once that discussion concludes. – SJ + 19:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge into Israel and apartheid Criticism of Israel, in a new section about allegations of genocide. The title should be something like the Ukrainian example linked in the last section. – SJ + 01:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Comments on that page pointed out that apartheid and genocide should not be conflated. The merged section was moved to Criticism of Israel#Allegations of genocide, which includes a proportionate description of the allegations without undue weight. – SJ + 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey, please see my message on your talk page. Scientelensia (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with a merge. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I also agree with a merge. IshChasidecha (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with a merge.
The title is very one sided. YZM1987 (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
What would you propose renaming it? If you wish, you can create page entitled ‘Genocide against the Israelis’. I think that what you do not perhaps see is that this article is not objectively saying that the violence is genocide, but that some people think it is. The lede even says it is a view, not the certain truth. Scientelensia (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Having an article with this title, and a redirect from an even more inappropriate title, promotes a phrase and concept into search results that mostly appears in highly polarized political propaganda. While there might indeed be more sources for a page on 'Genocide against the Israelis', considering what has passed for political speech in the past few decades, that is likewise not an appropriate title or concept for an encyclopedia article. The proposal is to merge with an existing page, which both contains many paragraphs that were copied here (there's no reason to conflate apartheid with genocide), offers historical and semantic context, and has an established group of editors to provide feedback. I have made a quick summary + merge, including a few references for each in the merged section. Please be careful about giving undue weight to rare views. – SJ + 20:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
See what you are saying, but this is by no means a rare view. Scientelensia (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support merge, appears to be fringe and doesn't meet GNG on its own. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with merge. Also support renaming to something along the lines of "Accusations of Genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", as the article talks about both directions, yet the title incorrectly refers to only one. omervk (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    Then there can be two pages. The allegations against both sides of genocide are separate and should be treated as such. Scientelensia (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I disagree:
  • there have been other separate pages on genocides before.
  • this article has a different subject
Scientelensia (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There are other pages on alleged genocide. The severity and significance of this subject cannot be undermined, which is why we should not merge this article. To merge this subject is to dismiss it. Scientelensia (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
For people who agree, see the discussions below and the discussions in the Apartheid in Israel article, where the conversation was temporarily moved. Scientelensia (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, adding a better balance of views and merging into Israel and apartheid#Allegations of genocide. Please move discussion to the talk page there. – SJ + 20:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on that talk page. I find your actions deeply troubling and also simply wrong. Scientelensia (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't remove the banner for a discussion in progress. Your recent additions made this article more unbalanced, with innuendo and misstated data. – SJ + 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - merge or delete entire thing. Leaving aside the fact that the Palestinian population has only increased since 1948 (interesting "genocide"), this is just a grout of fringe, hyperbolic and extremely biased accusations by radical anti-Israel activists who deprecate the value of words, as usual, just like they did with 'racism', 'fascism', 'apartheid' and, in some cases, even the 'holocaust' itself. Someone could easily start another article called "Genocide against Israelis" with some random writer detailing 100 years of riots, massacres, suicide bombings, rocket attacks, stabbings, car-rammings and shootings, followed by Palestinian and Arab leaders calls to wipe Israel off the map and drown the Jews into the sea. See WP:Advocacy and WP:Competence. Dovidroth (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Article specifically mentions what is happening in the Gaza strip which specifically falls under the definition of genocide. Your description of these "radical anti-Israel activists" is laughable considering the article itself is listed as a view. If you would like, feel free to start the Genocide against Israelis" article as a "radical Zionist". 2600:8807:C600:EF60:CED:466B:D6B7:B868 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Do not support merge. Topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. HalfHazard98 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support merge to Criticism of Israel due to to the same above arguments. Marokwitz (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Do not support merge, since I guess we're allowed to vote twice. HalfHazard98 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    sorry for the snark, the person above voted for a second time HalfHazard98 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    This is because the was proposed merge target was changed and I support the new target. Marokwitz (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Oh, my bad. HalfHazard98 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I support merging into Criticism of Israel. This article is about an interpretation of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the suffering caused to Palestinians. The claim that there is a genocide against Palestinians is not broadly accepted and therefore a Wikipedia page with such a name suggests that there is a broad consent that the genocide against Palestinians is a fact rather than an interpretation. Omri2424 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Do not support merge, as the genocide is explicitly stated to be a view and not the objective truth. The claims of genocide are very severe and have enough weight to deserve their own article. Anything else, for me, is somewhat disrespectful. Scientelensia (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support merge into "Criticism" of Israel. False lies should be framed and put in their true context, without tampering with facts. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Name the lies, if you please, and see the bottom conversation about remodelling the page. Scientelensia (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support merge into "Criticism" of Israel. Lilijuros (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    See the remodelling the article post at the bottom of this page. Scientelensia (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and object to the discussion procedurally as one that has become chaotic, with the proposed target of the merger being shifted mid-discussion, which I've never seen before, but obviously creates absolute bedlam in terms of assessing any sort of consensus. The discussion has also been shown to be premature with material substantiating the topic (or at least one version of it, potentially under a different name) rapidly building up. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    I agree. The whole question is this merge is obviously flawed and muddled. Scientelensia (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support merge Drsmoo (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. This is a notable and complex topic that deserves an article. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - this is a complex topic that warrants its own article. Plenty of sources support the "allegations" of genocide. - Ïvana (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge – a lot of the scholarly debate on this topic revolves around questions of how "genocide" is to be defined; I think scholarly debates over how to define the word "genocide" are getting too far from the core focus of a page such as "Criticism of Israel", even when those debates are carried on in the context of Israel's (alleged) actions. There is really an intersection here of two distinct topics (1) Israel's actual or alleged treatment of Palestinians, (2) how to define "genocide"; and given that specific intersection has received some serious scholarly attention, I don't see why we can't have an article on it, nor do I think it would make sense to merge that intersection to either of those ancestor topics, since it arguably involves too much which is specific to the other. Of course, the article needs to make clear that it is a debate without a conclusion – both what Israel has and hasn't done, and how "genocide" should be defined, are scholarly controversies on which no consensus has yet been reached. I do however support rename to a title which makes clearer this is a topic of active debate, e.g. Palestinian genocide debate. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support merge to Criticism of Israel due to to the same above arguments. Zanahary (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • All I know is that the current title is ridiculous. An example of petty activism trumping over neutrality. The article also doesn't belong in the category "genocides in Asia", that category is for real genocides. Less POV-pushing please. –Daveout(talk) 06:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Merge but, if the merge is not successful, support renaming to Allegations of Genocide against Palestinians or an equivalent title. For renaming, the current title is without a doubt incorrect as there is no consensus among reliable sources as to whether or not genocide is occurring. While I do concur that this is an important topic, I believe it should be merged because a significant portion of this article overlaps with the Criticism article (e.g. History section). It appears that, as a stand-alone article, it is impossible for this to be told from NPOV. No matter how it's reworded, the consensus is nonexistent, suggesting that the existence of this article as an independent page is at fault and that the only way to establish consensus is to merge (merging at least poses a possibility of us reaching consensus in the future, whereas leaving it clearly is not going anywhere). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

AfD discussion

The above discussion may be superceded by the outcome of the AfD discussion started yesterday. For those who commented above but not at the other @Novo Tape, Daveout, Zanahary, Lilijuros, Omri2424, HalfHazard98, Abrvagl, Yotamsahar, SamiBuzaglo, Omervk, YZM1987, IshChasidecha, and Drmies: that discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_against_Palestinians. – SJ + 19:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Should I ping the people in the discussions bellow as well? –Daveout(talk) 19:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I normally don't ping people to preserve their notifs, but the above discussion which would normally be closed at some point is now moot. I would leave it; the AfD banner is clear for those interested. – SJ + 19:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Renaming of article due to disputed factuality

It's obvious from even just this talk page that the claim that a genocide against Palestinians actually exists is contested. Therefore I recommend the name of the article change to "Claims of genocide against Palestinians" or "Alleged genocide against Palestinians" or another NPOV name. DGtal (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment, We also have the Uyghur Genocide article, despite the supposed genocide only being allegations with little to no evidence too. It would also have to be renamed to include "Allegations" to keep things consistent. FF toho (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
    Good point. However, I think it should be a case-by-case basis. Evidence aside, the Uyghur Genocide article must not appear contentious enough to the people editing it, but this one certainly is. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
This may be a good solution. Scientelensia (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
We should change the title to:
Allegations of genocide of Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Scientelensia (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

Proposed deletion

Article was brought to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians) and the result was no consensus. starship.paint (RUN) 07:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

NB: Eladkarmel proposed this article for deletion on October 15 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_against_Palestinians. The primary discussion about the proposal is on that page.

Deletion of Article 1

This article is clearly politically motivated and against Wikipedia conventions. I propose this article be deleted. Due to the circumstances of the publication of this article. It is very possible that it was written with the intention of influencing people's opinions on the war between Hamas and Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Highly lack of WP:NPOV, poorly sourced. In addition to the timing, seems like an ugly attempt to justify the terror attack and the Re'im music festival massacre. A shame that this piece of antisemitic propaganda is gonna probably stay here until a vote. Just shows how messed up and horrible is the bias in English Wikipedia. I'm not gonna be suprised if The Holocaust article or articles related to it are the next ones who are gonna be effected. Trying to rewrite history through Wikipedia. dov (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
You do realise that the creator of this article Buidhe, is in fact, one of Wikipedia's most prolific writers about the Holocaust and genocide generally? I really don't think this was a bad faith creation, maybe it wasn't the best idea, but "antisemitic", really? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. And people can add more info to the page, reducing any possible POV, rather than deleting it. Scientelensia (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I support the restoration of this page. For more, see the section about the merge here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_apartheid Scientelensia (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
(The next section down) Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
If it is so (" that the creator of this article Buidhe, is in fact, one of Wikipedia's most prolific writers about the Holocaust and genocide generally").
then it is not clear the lack of standards of the value's visibility, for example in the pictures in it. About showing a picture of skulls from the Rwandan genocide it is misleading. In addition, a picture of a non-representative anecdotal case of a Jew with an ultra-Orthodox appearance who supports a Palestinian demonstration as encyclopedic evidence for what? Even showing coffins in which it is claimed that they belong to unarmed dead can be found in Israel about jews as well and how is this an example of the issue? מי-נהר (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
That they can be found in Israel bears little resemblance to the subject matter. I invite you to put similar images which relate to Israel on other pages, if you wish, although not this one, as that would be insensitive. Also, the skulls image belongs to the template of genocides and is automatically added when one adds this template to the page. The coffins image symbolise the tragedy of the matter. Even if you do not like Palestinians, you must see that this scale of death, whoever caused it, is a tragedy. The image of the man shows that not all Israelis oppose Palestine. And also, what is wrong with being “ultra-Orthodox”? You sound like you may hold a prejudice in this regard; if so, please say why, if not, I issue my apologies.
If you wish you can create an opposing page (e.g. Genocide against Israelis) Scientelensia (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you'll find that it's the other way around, and the Re'im music festival massacre is being used in the ugly attempt to justify the litany of sins and war crimes that we now see unfolding in Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I do support the restoration of this page. For my thoughts, see the section about the merge here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_apartheid Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
(The next section down) Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Using the adjunct 'ugly' on an "attempt" rather than a massacre is where the problem starts. dov (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure it is not lost on you that I was using your own turn of phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do not state that those who are not Pro-Israel are also anti-Semites, as this is deeply alarming and untrue. Many clearly do not understand the concept that those who are against Israel are not inherently anti Jews. Scientelensia (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Add appropriate content and sources here: Genocide against Palestinians#Rejection of characterization Scientelensia (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
100% agree. Is there any way to make the process move quicker of addressing this issue? IshChasidecha (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Israel_and_apartheid#Allegations of genocide – SJ + 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sj@Homerethegreat@Hemiauchenia@Iskandar323@דוב@VeronkiaStein@Nableezy
What do you think of this: Talk:Genocide against Palestinians#Remodelling the article? Scientelensia (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is an obvious propaganda. I wished for higher standards in the Ewiki... Please Don't fail your audience. Lilijuros (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Instead of advocating the deletion, you can implement these higher standards by adding content. Scientelensia (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The article is politically motivated and the contents already exist on the Israel apartheid page. So I don't see why there should be a page that is misinformative. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Article 2

Clearly breaches codes of neutrality. Raises serious concerns of abuse of power in order to manipulate public opinion regarding current Israel-Hamas war. Raises serious concerns regarding potential political motives that seeks to legitimize Hamas actions against Israelis.

Due to misinformation, breach of neutrality as well as potential political motivation; I propose this article be deleted as soon as possible. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, because ... sources Iskandar323 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Not a reliable source Drsmoo (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There are many other sources throughout the article. Scientelensia (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
News flash: that's not the only source on the page; far from it. And I think you can expect more in the coming days if Israel keeps bombing trapped civilians. Also, the consensus on Mondoweiss specifically is no consensus, so it's not not reliable either. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Many sources are unreliable, by pundits or authors known for fringe or controversial ideas or employed by think tanks with a related political goal. That doesn't mean they can not be a ref in some article, but they can't prop up a one-sided one. While future developments may merit an article, this one is presently just a hatrack for fringe or discredited ideas and aspersions. – SJ + 22:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
This view was always going to be subjective however, thus the sources are also. What one cannot deny (I believe?) is that Israel have breached the UN’s Genocide Convention and around 2-3/5 of its terms. I’ve tried to make this article as neutral as possible, and cannot do this alone.
These are not discredited ideas, they are becoming much more relevant and already were too.
I really would appreciate your help on developing the page.
Please also see my thoughts on your talk page. Scientelensia (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Please read my message to you on your talk page and reconsider your actions. Scientelensia (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
This article, aka Hamas propaganda, is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Hamas publicly calls for the destruction of Israel and worldwide murder of Jews. Last week he took the most significant step in this direction. Efforts are now being made in the field of propaganda as well. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
How is this propaganda? It may not be 100% but we, the editors, are working in this. Many government officials have called also for the destruction of Palestinians, and perhaps you do not regard this as as severe? In the words of Raz Segal:
“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—more bombs than the US dropped on all of Afghanistan in any year of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by “act accordingly”: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza “as such,” in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a “complete siege,” in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals.
It’s not only Israel’s leaders who are using such language. An interviewee on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 called for Israel to “turn Gaza to Dresden.” Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news station, published a report about left-leaning Israelis calling to “dance on what used to be Gaza.” Meanwhile, genocidal verbs—calls to “erase” and “flatten” Gaza—have become omnipresent on Israeli social media. In Tel Aviv, a banner reading “Zero Gazans” was seen hanging from a bridge.” Scientelensia (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is a strong case for this current war to be classified as unquestionable Genocide. It will soon be added to the 'List of Genocides' page as well. This particular instance may be called "Genocide of Gaza" as it appears to be contained within Gaza (for now).
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide VeronikaStein (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I support the immediate deletion of this article. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you give your reason(s)? HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the deletion of this article, for reasons I have stated in other sections (topic isn't to be taken lightly, notability, has sources, title can be changed to make the article more neutral, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfHazard98 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


An arbitrary article, as you can have a genocide article on any group of people that went through some war. Gabi.guetta (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not one war however, it is a series of wars, skirmishes and general ethnic cleaning since 1948. It’s different. Scientelensia (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
This isn't just "some war", the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the world's oldest ongoing conflict, in which tens of thousands have perished. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


Keep this article

This is no different than the page for "Holodomor genocide question", merely showing that there is a debate and varying views on the topic. Deleting this article would come across as hiding the fact that many do characterize the conflict as genocide, as the sources show. At most, rename the article. HalfHazard98 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This must be stated. Scientelensia (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

False claims? not on Wikipedia!

The false claims on this article should not win Wikipedia space. They should be framed as false lies, and put in their true context, as a mixture between Criticism of Israel, and attempts to tamper with facts.

TaBaZzz (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Disagree :No, because, there are numerous sources FF toho (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Any credible source to show that? TaBaZzz (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

:::You can look at the sources section of this article. FF toho (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Suggestion: You should move your merge suggestion into the discussion above: 'Proposed rename + merge'. Marokwitz (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Name one fact that is a lie. Scientelensia (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Please name facts. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The stats and sourced facts in the article!? Scientelensia (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Not a credible source. TaBaZzz (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Which ones aren’t? Scientelensia (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

Rename or merge

Rename suggested below. starship.paint (RUN) 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Rename or merge article: suggested target: Nakba or Nakba-related pages, or rename to "Allegations of genocide against Palestinians" etc Andre🚐 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not a merge to Nakba, this covers way more than 1948 and the surrounding years. No opinion on a rename but oppose "allegations" as a rule. nableezy - 15:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, "claims" and similar are not recommended by MOS, but obviously the current title implies an active genocide against Palestinians as opposed to a disputed term. Any suggestions? Andre🚐 15:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
"Accusations". nableezy - 17:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The analogy is not exact but imagine "Apartheid against Palestinians" iso "Israel and apartheid" (a title arrived at with much effort with "accusations" being ditched in the process).
Suggests "Israel and (accusations of) genocide". Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'm cool with these improvements if y'all are. Andre🚐 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I think wait and see if the other afd closes keep or merge or delete and decide from there. nableezy - 18:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I looked and thought it was already closed no consensus. There's one still open? Andre🚐 18:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This one?, closed as redirect. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Although seems to be some difference of opinion as to the redirect target... Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, but that shouldn't block the RM of this page. But, if there's another AFD open against this page that would. So let me know if there is one. I can't find one though. Andre🚐 18:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Hadnt seen that close, the question was if that closed to merge that here and combine the articles in to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I see my vote did not carry the day (honestly tho, yall should really just let me write these articles and trust my judgment, it would be much better than this system we have now), so thats moot. And in that case my comment about waiting is not relevant, and you can feel to propose a move at your leisure. (er you did that, nvm) nableezy - 22:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
No worries. I'm quick on the trigger, but all is well in this case. Andre🚐 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

Allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis

As well as allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians, there are also allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis. See for example Weiner, Justus Reid, and Avi Bell. "The Gaza War of 2009: Applying International Humanitarian Law to Israel and Hamas." San Diego Int'l LJ 11 (2009): 5, Jens David Ohlin, "International Criminal Law Analysis of the Situation in Israel", 12 Oct 2023, Stuart Winer, "Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts", The Times of Israel, 15 October 2023. I am thinking, given Wikipedia is covering allegations that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, it is only reasonable to also cover Israeli allegations that Palestinians are committing genocide against Israelis. However, the question is whether both sets of allegations belong in the same article, or whether two different articles should exist. I think the problem with two different articles, is the "Israeli genocide against Palestinians" claim has received significantly more (and more long-standing) scholarly attention than the "Palestinian genocide against Israelis" claim, and an article on each might wrongly imply the two claims have equal scholarly support. This suggests to me, that we should broaden the scope of the article – maintain alleged Israeli genocide against Palestinians as the primary topic and main focus of the article, but include a section discussing the converse Israeli allegations towards the end, with a brief mention of them in the article opening. What do people think? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

As you say, this material has a totally different scope. Having a bi-directional page on this type of topic (have you ever seen a twin genocide page?) would be a clarion call for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting the two sets of claims should be treated as equivalent – it is clear that much more scholarly attention has been paid to one set of claims than the other. However, the problem with two separate articles, is it creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE problem of a different sort – having a pair of articles, Allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians and Allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis, essentially puts the two topics on an equal footing, despite the fact that the scholarly literature takes one of those topics much more seriously than it does the other. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I suggest a second page. Scientelensia (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Sporadic acts of terrorism should be seen as a strain of genocide, i.e. genocidal, but cannot be viewed and considered entirely comparable to systematic genocide, which is committed over a sustained period of time and typically by an economically and militarily superior nation state or internationally recognized political entity. 76.126.242.226 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've created Draft:Palestinian genocide of Israelis. I'm still not sure where it belongs or under what title, but I definitely think there is enough material on the topic for an article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice. I suggest removing genocide against Jews and just put the Israeli population as a significant part of this population is non-Jewish and the conflict from Hamas’ side has not yet been directed to non-Israeli Jews. Scientelensia (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that would be mistaken. Indeed Hamas and other organizations have called specifically for murder of Jewish civilians and not the Arabs of Israel which are viewed as their Palestinian brethren. Indeed, the intent of genocide and the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian organizations are aimed specifically against the Jewish population. Therefore it is fitting that it be against Jewish Israelis. Of course there are some who view Israeli Arabs as traitors, but most of the narrative opinion of anti-Israeli organizations are against the Jews. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Plenty of Jews are antizionists and most of them are not Israelis so acting like all of those terms are interchangeable is ridiculous. The issue is against settlers. Even Hamas Charter says they're against Zionists, not Jews (you can choose to believe that or not). - Ïvana (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2023

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: moved to Palestinian genocide accusation. Multiple possibilities were raised but this clearly had the strongest support. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Genocide against Palestinians → Israel and accusations of genocide – Idea from above discussion, but open to others. More descriptive and accurate title IMO. Andre🚐 18:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Allegations of genocide against Palestinians is preferable given that it is similar to existing article titles and directly states what it is about. Israel and accusations of genocide is unclear because it could also refer to accusations of genocide that someone else is committing against Israel, which is not within the article's scope. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Buidhe: When you just put "allegations of" out in front, it can read like allegations against Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Iskandar323 I see your point. What title do you support? (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
See below. (I was already typing.) Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I also support "Palestine genocide question/allegations" etc. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
True, but "Palestinian genocide accusations/allegations" has the same problem even if to a lesser degree. Fundamentally, when you mention a person/group alongside the word "accusations" or "allegations", people infer guilt rather than victimhood. DFlhb (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Fooian Genocide seems to always means the Genocide of Fooians in any example I can care to think of. I can't see there being serious confusion with this. Rather than the possible source of confusion that you're suggesting, if anything, the one possible semantic confusion with "Palestinian genocide accusations/allegations" is that it could be about "genocide accusations/allegations" made by Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough - DFlhb (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Although I believe that the label of "genocide" is accurate and pertains to the situation of Palestinians, they are indeed allegations and few international bodies or academic scholars classify it as definitively a genocide. I support the title "Allegations of genocide against Palestinians." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Gave this some more thought, I realize that my proposed title would be ambigious and could mean that the Palestinians are the ones committing genocide. I think there are two titles that work: Allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians or Allegations of Palestinian genocide by Israel. Both of the make it pretty unambigious that Israel is being accused of genocide. 18:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
If one were to go down the tempering route, Palestinian genocide accusation(s) would be better. "Foo-ian genocide" is a pretty standard format and "accusation" is more suitable (and accurately descriptive) than allegation, which should be avoided, per MOS:ALLEGED and the point that alleged can imply inaccuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Since there was no consensus to keep, merge, or delete this page, but significant dissatisfaction with its name, it should be renamed (the closer said there's not enough support for any one of the proposed alternatives). Palestinian genocide question seemed to me like the best of the choices that was proposed in the AfD... not only does it recall the landmark 1948 debate cited in the article (the question of genocide in Palestine), and the Holodomor genocide question, but the word "question" is wishy-washy-lukewarm-neutral whereas "allegations" and "accusations" are hot and could lead to shrinkage. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
"Question" works too. Also briefer. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Edit: As mentioned below Palestinian genocide is a term that's been mentioned a fair bit in RS, and like Armenian genocide it's more clear about who the victim is. Given the clarity of what the subject is and use in RS, I'd also support this as the title. aismallard (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
My vote is to merge this page and Second Holocaust (and are there any others out there?) to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
That's actually not a bad idea. I'd be fine with that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Levivich I oppose this proposed merger because the main uses of "second Holocaust" include to decry the practice of Jews marrying non-Jews outside the context of the Israel Palestine conflict, as well as antisemitism in the Jewish diaspora. Relatedly, Holocaust is not synonymous with genocide. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair. Then I'd leave Second Holocaust alone, still merge this page to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and retarget Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis there. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd support that for whatever that is worth. Andre🚐 04:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This suggestion works. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I should note this is actually Nableezy's idea (in case there's a boomerang later) Levivich (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Not it. nableezy - 04:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support moving to "Palestinian genocide question". Failing that, I would support "Allegations of genocide against Palestinians" over the current title as well. The current title does not reflect the fact that this is a contested interpretation of a long and complex history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    P.S. I would also support Levivich's solution above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    This option, as inherited from Holodomor genocide question, is not a bad one. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    Support Agreed. I like this one best (especially in line with Holodomor comparison). Mistamystery (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    I don't like "Palestinian genocide question" because I'm getting zero Google hits for that phrase, so I worry Wikipedia would be the first to use it, and coin the term in a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    "Allegations [or accusations] of genocide of Palestinians" is clearer to me than "against." Levivich (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    I get virtually the same result for "aogap (1) and "aogop" (0) and even "agape"... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 15:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Ironically, the term "Palestinian genocide" is actually relatively quite well used, popularized in part by the use of the chapter title "Ongoing Palestinian Genocide" in the 2010 book The Plight of the Palestinians, which spoke of the violence in 2008 in terms eerily similar to those now in circulation today. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    This is a bit like apartheid, I think we should not imply this is a thing at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Ironic, indeed. I had noticed that "Palestinian genocide" is used in the literature, but "Palestinian genocide question" does not seem to be used anywhere. One of my concerns is that we would call it a "question" when nobody else seems to...?
    I was just looking at Plight of the Palestinians yesterday. It's available via TWL. Weird book. The editor appears to be an English prof from University of La Verne who, AFAICT, has never published anything in this field ever before or since. I haven't checked all the authors, but a whole bunch of them are not academics and AFAICT not published -- kinda low profile or no profile in the field. The book and its chapters have been cited (per GS), but not very often, and I can't find any academic reviews. Yet, it has chapters by Ilan Pappe and Robert Fisk (two names that jumped out at me), so... I don't know what to make of it. Many of the chapters of this book use the word "genocide," not just the one you pointed to. But it seems to be kind of an obscure work, as compared to, well, say anything else written by Pappe, for example.
    For Wikipedia policy purposes, I think that book is an example of a work that shows "Palestinian genocide" is at least a significant minority viewpoint (in WP:NPOV parlance) and not fringe. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Seems to me the more accurate long-form title of this article would be "Does Nakba constitute a genocide or mere ethnic cleansing?" because that seems to be the relevant debate in the scholarship. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    I agree Parham wiki (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, any move should be to a simpler Palestinian genocide. Idol Destroyer (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user
Off topic discussion
*Comment I can't tell you how messed up it is that this is even a discussion. It beggars belief. This page shouldnt even exist but of course, too many want it to do so. The irony of course about this is that there's no page devoted to Genocide against Jews despite the fact of what's happened through the ages. How is this even possible? Genocide of Jews is the core tenet of Hamas' charter and was on full display on October 7 and is well documented as opposed to this based on a paper written by a couple of anti-semites. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • there's no page devoted to Genocide against Jews what do you think the Holocaust is about? M.Bitton (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Lol if you think the Genocide against the Jews is just what happened in the Holocaust from 1941-1945. Goes back thousands of years. Blood libel, pogroms, Spanish Inquisition. Everything outlined on Antisemitism. Educate yourself! MaskedSinger (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    My response to the baseless assertion stands and your crappy comment goes straight to the toilet (where it rightly belongs). M.Bitton (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    which part is baseless? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    "Everything outlined on Antisemitism." - sounds like the page exists. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yes and no. Not all antisemitism is genocide. But the point is, the Jews have been the victims of Genocide for thousands of years and no such page exists. Yet this flimsy excuse of a page is allowed to stand. It boggles the mind. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    a paper written by a couple of anti-semites Suggest you delete this comment. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Suggest you delete this page. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support move to Palestinian genocide accusation: Concise, simple, does what it says on the tin. Also seems to avoid a lot of the issues created by title options with prepositions, including titles using "against", which is causing no end of dual meanings. The accusation is a simple one: that there is a Palestinian genocide, or has been one ongoing for a long time, hence "Palestinian genocide accusation". Supports the standard "Foo-ian genocide" format that everyone knows, and which is definitively in circulation. That the "accusation" is a tangible one is now in little doubt, not least in the figure of Raz Segal stating that it is a "textbook case of genocide", and the numerous accusations by Holocaust survivors and legal voices over the years; "allegation", which MOS:ALLEGED notes implies inaccuracy, does not really cut it. Even NGO Monitor, in its dismissal of the accusations, uses the term "accusations". I also do not thing "accusation" needs to be plural, with the singular both sufficing in a collective sense, and abiding better by WP:SINGULAR. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support, this is the simplest solution and the reasoning is good. DFlhb (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I think this idea is fine. Andre🚐 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
That works. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I would also support this title. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Aye, that'll do. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Support, this is the simplest solution and the reasoning is good. Parham wiki (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Support this as a potential different title. XTheBedrockX (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Support, right now the article makes an impression that genocide against Palestinians is an accepted mainstream concept, which it is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Support Palestinian genocide accusation Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Support this move per reasoning by Iskandar323 (although I'm not sure whether it should be accusation (singlular) or accusations (plural)) GnocchiFan (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Fine with this too. nableezy - 21:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Will do (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This works well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Are the last 12 responses supporting Israel and accusations of genocide, or Palestinian genocide accusation? Please consider editing your comments to make it clearer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Until you raised the question, I had not doubt it was the latter. I still think so. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Same. DFlhb (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Same. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
All aboard the same train. nableezy - 16:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Support PGA and will risk being the unlucky #13 to do so... When's the last time there was snow for Halloween? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

Redirect creation

I've converted this to a redirect; per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians no such consensus exists. A redirect seems like the simplest way to resolve this issue; it will allow the article to be restored should such a consensus emerge. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; please revert your restoration of the content until such a consensus is obtained. BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a very binary thing. There was an AFD a week ago. It can close as certain things: no consensus, delete, keep, redirect, merge, etc. In this case it closed as no consensus. You cannot then go "per AFD, we are redirecting this". –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
What "no consensus" means varies depending on the context.
In this context, where there is no prior consensus for the inclusion of this context, per WP:ONUS the article cannot exist. How it ceases to exist isn't overly relevant; I believed a redirect was more appropriate, but if you prefer to delete it outright or move it to draft space I will not object.
The only way we are permitted to keep this article is if I am mistaken about the "prior consensus" aspect; if I am, can you please link that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
A bunch of experienced Wikipedians just talked about this article's existence a week ago and did not come to a consensus to take a deletion action. Don't you think that if this article needed to be redirected for WP:ONUS reasons, it would have been mentioned and decided there? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:ONUS isn't and shouldn't be brought up during a formal discussion, because it has no bearing on what the consensus is; it only becomes relevant if there is no consensus. For example, if an RfC is held proposing to include disputed content, and there is no prior consensus to include that content, then a "no consensus" result means the content is not included, per WP:ONUS, even if no one raises WP:ONUS during the RfC.
It's no different here; if we don't have an affirmative consensus for inclusion, we must exclude - which is why I am asking you to revert your restoration of the article unless you can point at such a consensus. I would note that consensus via the existence of the article being the status quo would be appropriate, but I don't believe that applies here as the article is only a few weeks old. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Using WP:ONUS to dispute an entire article containing 41 citations... I'm scratching my head here. Anyway, I decline to self-revert at this time. Per WP:BLAR, contested BLARs should go to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many citations the article has; as ONUS says, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
Let me ask you two questions:
  1. Is this disputed content?
  2. Is there a consensus for its inclusion?
BilledMammal (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: The AfD clearly produced no consensus for redirecting. Your attempt to then do this unliterally was at bare minimum wholly unconstructive. And just why? - with zero chance it would not be reverted. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It clearly produced no consensus for its existence either, and per WP:ONUS this means the article cannot exist - unless you know of a consensus formed elsewhere, either before or after the AfD, for it to exist?
Redirecting was one way to bring the article into compliance with policy, but if you prefer a different method then I have no objection. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:ONUS refers to the inclusion of content within a page; it does not address a page's existence - I'm sure you actually know this. Hence why WP:PAGEDECIDE is a see also link. And a resounding 'no consensus' result at a well-attended AfD is likewise extremely resoundingly not an endorsement of any unilateral action. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:ONUS refers to the inclusion of content within a page - the inclusion of any content within the page is disputed, and there is no consensus to include it.
You're right that ONUS is silent on how to handle the resulting page when we have removed the content, but as I said if you don't believe a redirect is appropriate then I have no objection to an alternative method of handling the resulting page.
And a resounding 'no consensus' result at a well-attended AfD is likewise extremely resoundingly not an endorsement of any unilateral action. Unilateral action, which includes the initial creation of the article. How to determine our actions under such circumstances is why we have policies like ONUS.
Let me ask you the same questions I asked Novem Linguae:
  1. Is this disputed content?
  2. Is there a consensus for its inclusion?
BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe go with less of the trying to come up with novel procedure interpretations to engender the change you voted for at the AfD, and more of respecting the community and process. I'll also note that while you were busy with your extremely point-y redirect, you didn't find time to actually copy any material at all to your chosen redirect destination at Criticism of Israel, making it pretty transparent that your sole aim here is deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect was reverted within three minutes of me making it; hardly time to identify and copy over any content that was not disputed.
more of respecting the community and process I would ask you to do the same; there hasn't been a consensus for your creation of this article, and until there is it cannot exist. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You're mistaking me for someone else. Create it I did not. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You're right, I apologize; you did not create the article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
What a lot of tosh, that is not at all how ONUS (or AfD) works and I expect this nonsense to cease pdq. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@BilledMammal Unilaterally turning an article about a contentious and much discussed subject into a redirect – without any consensus to do so – is still highly inappropriate, and I would advise against trying to do that for similarly contentious topics the future. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Bold editting is absolutely allowed. No-one is required to get pre-approval for their edits, and (as happened) any editor can revert it if they disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s true. I strongly disagreed with the decision to redirect, but you are right about bold edits. XTheBedrockX (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
At the same time, there is still a thing called context that can still make certain permissible actions disruptive and time-wasting in a given context. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You cant ignore an AFD and then impose a result it did not find. Pinging the closing admin to see if this is really an acceptable method of editing to effectively impose deletion when there was no consensus for it or if this merits sanctions in the ARBPIA topic area, Randykitty. And yes, BilledMammal is aware of the sanctions and has sought sanctions at AE against others. nableezy - 16:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  • No consensus means just that: no consensus to delete, no consensus to keep, and no consensus to merge/redirect. A priori "no consensus" defaults to "keep", but a subsequent discussion on the talk page can decide to merge/redirect. Apart from closing the AfD, I am not very interested in this issue, so if you must, take it to ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    Ok, thank you, AE it is. nableezy - 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen ONUS applied such that a no-consensus result in an AFD of a new article means the article is redirected (or deleted or merged or whatever). True, a straightforward reading of ONUS says anything that doesn't get consensus should be removed unless it has consensus, and new articles with no-consensus AFDs don't have consensus... but our deletion policy and longstanding practice is that "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Basically, ONUS means that a "no consensus" should default to delete. This is a contradiction between ONUS and deletion policy/practice (I'm not actually sure if no-consensus-defaults-to-keep is in any actual policy, but it's certainly longstanding practice). This is one of many ONUS-related contradictions. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It is insane, it would turn every no consensus outcome to delete. Imagine if every editor who was upset about not "winning" an AFD decided to ignore the outcome and impose their desired one instead. I have nominated lots of articles that I think merited deletion and it ended with no consensus. You know what I did? Moved on with my life. nableezy - 16:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The idea that a no-consensus AFD outcome should default to delete rather than keep is not insane. I happen to think it's a good idea. It's not consensus, but it ought to be. More generally, the principle that nothing should appear on the pages of Wikipedia that doesn't have affirmative consensus to be there, is a good principle. I wish it was consensus. It's what ONUS says, but ONUS is an example of one of the many Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia does not apply. Why we even still have it, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The idea that it should is not, the idea that it does is. nableezy - 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
For interest I posted this for commentary at the current onus go round at V, here Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
From my reading of WP:ONUS, it applies pretty clearly to content within or part of an article, and is not intended to be read with respect to an entire article. WP:ONUS means "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" for "certain information"; it doesn't mean that all RS information on a topic can be excluded short of consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the "no consensus" close of an AfD can be connected with the idea of consenus expressed in ONUS. The AfD close is that there is no consensus to delete the article, not that there is no consensus to keep the article (that would be AfK). It's that second form of the consensus that ONUS is discussing, and it's not something you can just invert as it's based on the original question asked. Just because there's no consensus for the negative form doesn't immediately imply that there's no consensus for the positive form (if you asked "should we keep this article?" you may get a different answer than "should we delete this article?"). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
not that there is no consensus to keep the article Above, the closer actually clarifies that there was both no consensus to delete the article and no consensus to keep the article. I feel this adds strength to the position that WP:ONUS applies here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As with all policies ONUS can't be read in isolation. The policies aren't a set of laws and no specific sentence is a trump card in all situations. It doesn't give you a reason to edit war, and if page decides it's not appropriate that's consensus for ( at least some form of) the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The emergence of a consensus to move the article to its current title points towards a keep. starship.paint (RUN) 00:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this - there is a sizeable and strong consensus forming behind a new title, which indicates that there is a sizeable and strong consensus that the content has a home at said title, echoing the RM, where there were a large number of votes to move or rename alongside keep. Yes, editors can still wade in like bulls in a china shop and make a mess, but doing so at this point would suggest that either they are not reading the talk page, or they are failing to incorporate its direction of travel into their thinking. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Please remove "accusation" in the title. The article cites prominent historians' viewpoints stating that this is a textbook case of genocide, therefore it is not an accusation. Raneemh (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  • @Raneemh: - we literally had a page move discussion open for 7 days and this was the page title with the strongest support. It appears that this is not as textbook as you claim. starship.paint (RUN) 02:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    I'm directly citing the Wikipedia article itself. I'm not claiming anything. I'm using the words of historians directly cited in the article. Please do change it to better represent the articles contents. Raneemh (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
We've just had a massive conversation about this with over a dozen people. This is the least bad title that was come up with. I really don't think you'll be able to overturn this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware there was a conversation around this. Unfortunately I couldn't participate then. It's illogical for this to be titled an "accusation" when you cite historical scholars, who determine these instances of genocide. If we do not trust a scholars statement, then how do we determine whether or not something is genocide? It doesn't make any logical sense to state this as an accusation when there is history to back it up, citing similarities to other historic genocides. Why is it an accusation when it lines up with different genocides practically 1:1 in both rhetoric and action? Is it because it's an ongoing genocide?
More than 400 Palestinians were incinerated just a few hours ago from writing this message. How is that not genocide? Raneemh (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
We generally only title articles as explicitly "genocides" when there is a broad scholarly consensus to classify them as such. For example the Amhara genocide article was renamed recently because the only sources describing it explicitly as a genocide were Amhara advocacy groups. There is no scholarly consensus that Israel's decades long persecution of Palestinians counts as a genocide. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Well the issue that automatically arises with "scholarly consensus" is that:
1. this is an ongoing issue so we've yet to have a multitude of sources yet that have undergone peer review, meaning that we can only define a genocide after it happens rather than during it, which is in itself problematic
2. I'm unclear with how "scholarly consensus" is defined — if needed I can provide different resources of scholars who have claimed independent from journals that genocide is what is happening
3. Does that not mean we value the voices of a select few rather than the victims of said genocide? There may not be a consensus, but already scholars are stating this falls in line with the pattern of past genocides. When coupled together, does that not provide consensus enough? Many Palestinian advocacy groups are headed by scholars themselves — does that mean they are not subject to be listened to brcause they are advocacy groups? Raneemh (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It’s possible for more than 400 people of any type to be killed (via incineration) and yet not be a genocide. I'm not sure why you are arguing that it automatically counts as genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Raneemh appears to be a Palestinian herself, so I can understand her quite personal anger expressed here, even if I don't agree with her opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
When they are all Palestinian, meaning they all were targeted because they are part of an ethnic group, then it is genocide. What other definitions of genocide do you have? Or are you claiming that they were targeted for some unknown reason? When a single ethnicity occupies a space and you bomb that space without concern for casualties, then you are committing genocide. Unfortunately, it's not a radical conclusion to draw. Raneemh (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a possible argument (and I’m not saying that this definitely happened) that there were Hamas operatives in that area that Israel wanted to eliminate, and that there were civilians killed as collateral damage. In that case this may not have been genocide. As such I find no automatic presumption of genocide just because 400 Palestinians died. starship.paint (RUN) 03:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree, you look at something like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which caused mass civilian casualties (over 100,000 deaths). There has been debate about whether or not the bombings were justified, but I don't think many people argue that the US government were trying to commit a genocide of the Japanese people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thats why rhetoric is important. Israeli media outwardly calls for the death of Gazans. Within their government systems, even. This obstructs from the fact that various points of genocide align 1:1 in this case. So we have:
1. Media outwardly proclaiming from the state of Israel itself its intention to "wipe gaza from the map."
2. Indiscriminate killings where people are killed. It doesn't matter if it's collateral as you claim. Once the rhetoric is established, intention is established, therefore it must fall within the constraints of genocide.
To ignore the hand media and propoganda plays in determining genocide is a willful simplication of the aspects of genocide. Raneemh (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Killing people because of their ethnicity is not genocide. See genocide definitions. Not every hate crime, war crime, crime against humanity, or ethnic cleansing, is a genocide. Genocide has multiple definitions, most require genocidal intent, and there isn't even a universally-agreed-upon definition of that, and there is no such thing as a "textbook genocide," because they're all different, and genocide studies is full of lively scholarly debate about which mass killings were genocides v. ethnic cleansing v. war crime, etc. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Again, there are Israeli government officials that explicitly state their intent. I'm not pulling something out of thin air—the people bombing gaza indiscriminately have openly called for erasing Gazans, a group of Raneemh (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Palestinians. To state that rhetoric is hard to pinpoint in this situation is again, willful misconstruction of the actual facts. Raneemh (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
According to your own sources they have vowed to wipe out a group Western governments have classified as a terrorist group (Hamas) and said nothing about wiping out Palestinians. People of Palestinian descent are Israeli citizens and serve in the IDF and in senior positions in the Israeli government and legal system. These claims of 'genocide' and 'apartheid' are bizarre. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I never mentioned apartheid? But yes, that was a poor link. Apologies. I meant to link the one in the next comment. Raneemh (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
"Gazans" is not an ethnic group, though. And the link you linked to is about an Israeli government official vowing to wipe Hamas off the face of the Earth, not Gaza, or Gazans, or Palestinians, speaking of willful misconstruction... Levivich (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I realize now that my link was incorrect. You are right, that was a poor link. I had meant to link this one. Or perhaps this one, which mentions dehumanization, a telling sign of genocide. Raneemh (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
As Hemi said above, Wikipedia is not going to call something a "genocide" unless there is broad scholarly consensus to use that label. See WP:NPOV. Your first link is an opinion piece, so not a reliable source (see WP:RSOPINION), and reprinted from Mondoweiss [1], which is yellow at WP:RSP. The second link is about a UN agency warning of Gaza "being dehumanized." Neither are indicators of scholarly consensus, or even scholarly opinion. Even the scholarship cited in this article isn't broad scholarly consensus, it's a "significant viewpoint" in the parlance of WP:NPOV policy. It's not enough that some scholars say it's a genocide, and it doesn't matter at all what opinion writers or UN agencies say, it has to be broad scholarly agreement, essentially uncontroverted by scholarship. It's a very high bar, and intentionally so, to prevent misinformation. We can't state one scholarly viewpoint on a contested issue as if it were an uncontroversial fact, that would be misinformation. It would similarly be misinformation if we didn't cover all significant viewpoints, so Wikipedia does what's being done in this article: it describes the significant viewpoint, while presenting it as one viewpoint that is not the only viewpoint. Levivich (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
You know, this is a highly emotional subject that's bringing out a wide range of opinions and perspectives. A lot of the discussion around genocide is speculation (the article you link talks about 'possible genocide' based on comments from one Israeli). There really is no scholarly consensus here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Raneemh: I understand your frustration, given that the Israeli government has clearly expressed genocidal intent and perpetrated systematic killing, as now recognised by many genocide scholars, particularly in relation to the current travesty of a conflict. However, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, and it is still quite early in the day for the groundswell of shifting opinion during the recent conflict, and the human rights and academic literature will obviously take some time to catch up. That, in essence, is what we are waiting for here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Raneemh: - what exactly is the new title you propose? Given that the old title was “Genocide against Palestinians”, if you propose that or “Palestinian genocide”, or frankly any of the article name options already raised in the requested move, the proposal will likely be seen as disruptive due to the very recent consensus established. starship.paint (RUN) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Alright. I'll end the discussion here. Thanks for holding this discussion with me. This is one of my first times disputing a page. I suppose I will come back then with scholarly articles and sources at a later time. Raneemh (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Keep in mind though: There are 1.3 to 1.6 million Palestinian-Israeli citizens with equal legal rights. In the Palestinian territories (Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem) there are over 4 million Palestinians. As of 2021, there are over 7 million Palestinians living outside of Israel and the territories (some estimates are even higher). There were approximately 1.4 million Palestinians before 1948.
    The population data does not support the claim of genocide. In order to make a case for this on Wikipedia, you would need an abundance of scholarly sources stating unequivocally that this is happening or has happened -not opinion pieces, but robust scholarly consensus. And this very unlikely to exist. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    The sources may appear as the war goes on. Personally, I wouldn’t propose a different name change within six months. But that is something editors have to decide for themselves. I’m just a regular editor, not some overlord. starship.paint (RUN) 05:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Speaking of sources appearing: Houghtaling, Ellie Quinlan (2023-11-01). "He Went There: Top U.N. Official Resigns Citing "Genocide" in Gaza". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2023-11-01. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    If this is such a clear and obvious case of genocide, then why is he stepping down from his role at the UN? Apparently most of his colleagues don't see it his way. Considering that the IDF has total air superiority, if a genocide were really occurring we would not be talking about a few thousand deaths -it'd be 100s of thousands. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Please keep your opinions to yourself. It is not about pace. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    In light of all your biased, non-neutral edits, you ought to take your own advice. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I heed genocide scholars. Such crazy bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Move on, guys. No need to bicker. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think this needs discussion since we just had an RM on this. #Requested move 24 October 2023. Hatting this section may be appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023 (2)

ADD Include a reference to pre-20th century sources: Specifically, include a link for details on the earliest Zionist-Arab relations (which bear on the topic at hand): https://jewishcurrents.org/who-owns-the-land Joshuakrug (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done. The source makes no mention of genocide accusations/rebuttal. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on “warning signs”

Looking through the talk page, it seems to me that the main problem is that people are equating "warning signs of genocide" with "there is a completed/ongoing genocide" vs accusations. For example the Lemkin institute for genocide prevention is saying there's "warning signs" of a genocide in Gaza. Same for Genocide watch. Whether genocide scholars will eventually reach a consensus on what's going on in Gaza is a future problem — after the war is over, and after various genocide institutes are finished with their ICC reports. Only after the war is over can people decide whether what's going on now is an incomplete genocide vs just mindless massacres that had public genocidal statements.

Because of wiki voice, I think the most neutral statement is to do the following.

1) the title should be "allegations of genocide…" simply because right now it is technically still an allegation. The word "accusation" should not be used because that word is much less neutral than the word "allegation"

2) In the body, the article should stay strict to citing and reporting what genocide scholars and international human rights lawyers of said — and emphasize the word "warning sign".

3) it would be wise to keep a list of the statements uttered by Israeli officials that have a genocidal interpretation — it's those statements thats the main empirical basis for arguing there's a genocidal intent going on or not. By having a list of such statements, it'll be clearer for readers to know what exactly people are talking about when they use the genocide allegation Hovsepig (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the discourse sections are not in chronological order. It would be wise if the discourse related to the 2023 war are all combined into a single section (with subsections) instead of being sprawled across sections.
I say this because it seems that the degree of reporting for the genocidal warnings is much more recent than in the past, so it's wise to make this article be in chronolgical order — like one section on descriptions of genocide for the nakba, one section about pre-2023 wars/events, and one section for the 2023 war Hovsepig (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Here are all the problems I have with this article:
  • Relies on a dated definition of genocide that's broad and at times ambiguous (wiping out "personal liberty", "dignity" etc?) This is not the definition used by the UN and certainly there are a range of different views that use more precise language.
  • Makes it seem as if this "characterization" is only rejected by Israelis (surprise, surprise). You mean to tell me there aren't any scholars of genocide, international law or Israeli-Palestinian history who totally reject these accusations? I find this hard to believe.
  • Cites a statement that was supposedly signed by 800 scholars of genocide and international law, who aren't all scholars of either genocide or international law. Some are independents with no specific credentials or expertise listed, others are students, and several come from fields that have no apparent connection to the subject of the article (gender studies, feminist studies etc). I don't have the time, patience or staff to go through the backgrounds of 800 people, but having encountered this type of stuff before with other highly politicized and polarizing subjects, there is something suspicious about this list.
Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
All someone has to do to add a genocide scholar who rejects these accusations is to go out and find one. It's all very saying "it's hard to believe", but the proof of such things is 100% in the pudding. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
But my point still stands on how to improve the structure of the article Hovsepig (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand the critique against the 800 scholar list. So it would be good to add a footnote that provides a cited critique of it.
It's also good I think to explicitly state relevant "genocide scholars" who argue there's warning signs of genocide. the two genocide prevention institutes are an example. And also a recent article by a | Bosnian genocide researcher Hovsepig (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
And speaking of warning signs, the | UN also announced there's a "grave risk of genocide". Again, I think the article would be improved if we used wikivoice explicitly state that the pro-genocide reports are being careful to say "risk or warning sign" because we're in the middle of the war, not in the post-hoc Hovsepig (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Population growth counter argument

It may be wise to have a section on how a common counter argument is the population growth statement (with a citation for that counter argument). And then provide a counter-citation that explicitly states how population growth is irrelevant to genocidal attempt — it may indicate a failed or incomplete genocide for a specific time period, but it doesnt count to arguing against genocidal intent-full statements by the current Israeli government.

By adding this section, the talk page would quiet down over the population growth counterargument Hovsepig (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you come off this please? I briefly mentioned this once last night but dropped it because the exchange almost got heated. This is hardly something that needs to be clarified.
I am well aware that it is possible to "attempt" genocide, and some definitions don't even require actual mass murder. But when you're dealing with one culture that is scientifically and technologically advanced, with one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and another that is pre-modern, the point is not entirely irrelevant. I don't believe many editors here appreciate how difficult it is to prove genocide in international courts -it is well beyond war crimes[2]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Please read and internalize WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. nableezy - 02:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, I knew one of these was coming. Good to see some hall monitors on site. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
As well as WP:NPA. I assure you nobody cares what you think, nobody wants to read what Jonathan f1 thinks about genocide. Kindly stop sharing your personal opinions here. Thank you. nableezy - 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
And I double assure you that the conversation ended long before you came over here power tripping. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Unless reliable sources discuss there being a discourse around population growth as a rhetorical tool for genocide denial in this particular case then we have no reason to add it. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Defining sentences in the lead

The present opening sentences of the lead are unclear and borderline evasive IMO. "The Palestinian genocide accusation refers to the controversy regarding a number of violent events targeting Palestinians. This includes the accusation that Israel has incited or carried out genocide against the Palestinians … "

An article about a series of accusations is surely primarily about those accusations, rather than about any controversy caused by the accusations. Also, as the article has developed, it may also be about related accusations (notably ethnic cleansing and possibly crimes against humanity).

I suggest the opening be : The Palestinian genocide accusation refers to the accusation that Israel has incited or carried out genocide, or similar crimes, against the Palestinians … "

Since this relates to NPOV and to the scope of the article, I'm bringing the text here in first instance to test reaction. Pincrete (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

About those 800 "legal scholars"

The 800 scholars who signed a letter of concern regarding the possibility of genocide two weeks ago were not just "legal scholars": they were also scholars of genocide studies, conflict studies and a bunch of other fields that don't seem to have any relevancy to this subject (gender studies, journalism etc), and the list was also padded with several Phd students and 'independent scholars' with ambiguous credentials. They were also drawn from all over the world which I think kind of diminishes the significance of this number. They wrote/signed this 2 weeks ago before mass evacuations had taken place, and were fearful that the "safe" routes weren't safe because civilians were being targeted by the IDF. Well, two weeks later we know there are 600,000 displaced Palestinians[3], out of the war zone although suffering miserable conditions (as you'd expect). Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Then provide a source that argues against that statement — based on the exact arguments presented by the statement Hovsepig (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against the statement -I'm just saying that not all 800 of those scholars are who the article says they are. Let's deal with this nice and calmly. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how them being from all over the world or this happening two weeks ago is relevant at all, but I do agree that "legal scholars" is not a good representation of the people who signed the letter. There's no need to look for another source because the one currently being used specifically says "800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies" which is not the same as 800 legal scholars. - Ïvana (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware that they were described as "practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies", but not all of them are involved in these fields. I randomly selected Abigail Balbale of NYU, number 6 on the list, and it turns out she's a "cultural historian of the Medieval Islamic world"[4][5] -what the heck does she know about genocide and international law? This whole list is padded with people like her. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
A history professor who focuses on political power, religious ideology, and Christian-Muslim relations in the medieval Islamic world probably counts as a scholar of conflict studies. Levivich (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Exactly what does studying Medieval conflicts have to do with the role of modern laws in regulating 21st Century warfare? The term "genocide" didn't even exist before the 20th Century.
Here's #12 on the list: Ahmad Al-dissi, University of Saskatchewan, a professor of veterinary science[6]. I suppose treating victims of dog fights qualifies him as a conflict studies scholar?
Here's 62, Anna Bigelow, associate professor of religious studies at Stanford, specializing in ritual practice[7]. And it is interesting she advises graduate students but there's a caveat on her page: "Please note – if your interests are philological, legal, or primarily before the modern period, I am not the right advisor for you and I encourage you to seek admittance elsewhere." By her own admission, she's got no relevant qualifications in conflict law.
And 115, Bilal Maanaki, University of Virginia, a specialist in Arabic poetry/literature who is currently working on love poetry[8].
I'm not going to keep doing this but I'd encourage some of you to check some names. These are not "800 legal scholars" nor are they "800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies." Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Al-Dissi is with Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. Bigelow is a professor of Islamic studies who's done work in shared sacred sites (can you think of any of those that might be relevant to this conflict?). Maanaki is a professor of Arabic literature, communication and culture. They're all scholars. The RSes all say this is a letter written by 800 scholars. Yeah, they're not all legal scholars, but they're all scholars. You don't need to be genocide scholar to denounce genocide. You don't even need to be a scholar. Levivich (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
So Al-Dissi is an activist as one would expect with a number of these individuals. You know very well it's misleading saying they're all scholars of international law and genocide, and that this was worded deliberately to make it seem like these are 800 people with expertise in the subject they're writing about. But you're right -if reliable sources say a scholar of ancient Egyptian pottery is a "scholar or practitioner of international law" then that's what we say in the article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I changed it to just "scholars" in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
But you raise a good point that the value of all the individuals behind the statement is dubious. Is there a published critique of this statement somewhere that we can cite? Hovsepig (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you want a critique of the statement or just a critique of the signatories? The statement looks pretty solid even if you shoot a few of the messengers. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think it's even WP:DUE for inclusion, even counting it as breaking news... MSM is not reporting on this AFAICT. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
TWAILR is more like a journal (calls itself one) than breaking news. Sponsored by UK/Canada university law departments. I think it is OK as long as it is attributed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I thought TWAILR was the author, or publisher, of the letter? They posted it in the "announcements" section of their website (where they post announcements about their own activities), they're hosting the letter, and TWAILR seems to be what other sources link to as "the source" of the letter. Am I mistaken about that? Is TWAILR an independent RS covering it, or is this "WP:ABOUTSELF" in a sense?
Outside of TWAILR, the only other coverage of this letter I can find that is even arguably RS is from Middle East Monitor, which isn't an RS if the Wikipedia article is accurate, this op-ed by one of the signatories (not an RS), and Common Dreams [9], which I think is an RS. Aside from Common Dreams, I'm not finding any other RS.
So that's either 1 RS, or 2 RS (if you count TWAILR as independent)... in the sea of coverage of this conflict, 2 RS might as well be 0 RS, when it comes to WP:DUE, IMO. BBC, AP, CNN, Al Jazeera... none of them even mention this. This letter does not seem to be a significant aspect of Palestinian genocide studies.
We should consider that one reason this isn't being covered by RS is because it's not actually signed by 800 scholars and practitioners of (whatever that means) genocide studies, international law, or conflict studies. I'm speculating there, but, for whatever reason, this doesn't seem to be covered by the media, even though they're very actively covering the issue of whether there's a genocide going on. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
TWAILR is a journal review of TWAIL. Evidently it is the publisher, it is on their site. If we accept that the signatories are experts then their views are OK on that basis with attribution; en masse, I guess. Anyway, en toto, I still think it is OK. here is a ref by Segal (also a signatory) in the Forward and at Institute for Palestine Studies. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, the Forward I think is actually independent RS coverage -- the author/editor thought it was important enough to mention, so I think that "counts." Doesn't really change my ultimate opinion, but 2 independent RS now (Forward and Common Dreams).
Interesting idea that the letter is like 100s of WP:EXPERTSPS statements (they're not all experts about genocide or IP conflict within the meaning of EXPERTSPS, but surely some hundreds of them are). If they all posted this statement on their blogs, it'd be like 100s of EXPERTSPS sources, and that would be WP:DUE, right? Hmm, hadn't considered that before. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This was precisely my point: it's been 2 weeks since this was published and no mention in mainstream media (has this changed?). The New York Times hasn't exactly shied away from the G word but why no mention of this letter? Probably because it's impossible to determine who's a legitimate expert and who isn't: the list is a crazed mix of academics with relevant credentials, academics with credentials in other fields, and students and 'independent scholars' who have little or no digital footprint. The way the names are presented is kind of deceptive too -some of them have credentials/specializations next to their names/universities while others just have a university or institution listed. And it's a real grab bag when you search up the names with unspecified credentials -some of them are legit, others have no background in any of these fields. It's not there aren't (probably) 100s of experts on this list, but that this list is padded with amateurs and activists and there's no way to tell what percentage of these people are who they're claimed to be.
FYI -I had no idea this article existed until I listened to a debate/interview on Youtube where a woman claimed "800 legal scholars have accused Israel of genocide" and then said the US is complicit (around 13:30[10]). I googled this and was taken to this article. Mehdi Hasan with MSNBC also cited "800 legal scholars" in a segment on genocide earlier this evening.[11]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say about this. TWAIL is described as:
"Third World approaches to international law is a critical school of international legal scholarship and an intellectual and political movement. It is a "broad dialectic opposition to international law", which perceives international law as facilitating the continuing exploitation of the Third World through subordination to the West." Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
There is no need for us to deal with a primary source that has been analysed by a secondary RS. In this article, written by Raz Segal and published in The Guardian, they are described as more than 800 scholars of international law, conflict studies, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The article also mentions that it's been signed by scholars whose work has shaped the field of Holocaust and genocide studies, such as Omer Bartov and Marion Kaplan. M.Bitton (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
That's opinion, not RS. Levivich (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not just an opinion, it's an opinion of a scholar and is therefore RS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It's a signatory of the letter talking about the letter. It's not independent RS, it's not secondary RS. Raz Segal's oped is the same as Raz Segal signing the letter itself. There is still the argument that the letter itself is EXPERTSPS, but the letter is not covered by mainstream media outside of op-eds written by its signatories -- with the three exceptions I know of: Common Dreams, Forward and MSNBC (all linked here). Although it may receive more coverage in the coming days. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
That adds to the relevance of the letter. I can also see that he's also been interviewed by the NJ Spotlight News (the secondary source also mentions the 800 scholars).
In any case, it would be good to know what this discussion is about: the relevance of the letter, its reliability or its media coverage? M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Two of these points are at issue: reliability (are these 800 objective experts offering a professional opinion or 800 activists throwing their academic credentials around to influence public sentiment?); media coverage (there's a paucity of MSM coverage and this is not insignificant). As far as relevance goes, I suppose it's relevant insofar as it discusses "genocide", but then again it talks of the "possibility" of genocide but stops short of making an accusation. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Made Huffpost now, although if this counts as politics, it's a nocon RS. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti-zionism amongst ultra-orthodox Jewish people

It is well documented that Neturei Karta and Satmar Hasidic Jews are often vocally anti-Israel, as they believe Jewish people should only return to the land of Zion in the end of days and not sooner, lest the end of days is hastened by the act of return.

Anti-zionism amongst ultra-orthodox Jews could be its own article, but the point here is that including an image of an orthodox Jewish person holding a Palestinian flag seemingly in solidarity with the Palestinian cause in this article could imply that some significant portion of Jewish people agree with accusations of Palestinian genocide. This could serve to bolster accusations of genocide by the fallacious "see, even their side thinks Israel is bad!" logic that would likely mislead the average reader without more context.

I propose either a section about Ultra-orthodox views on Palestinian genocide is added, with the appropriate historical/religious context, or this picture and caption should be removed. Jacobjr23 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless the ultra-orthodox have something specific to say about the Palestinian genocide accusation, I can't see why they should be mentioned in the article at all.
I agree to the extent that we have no idea why the individual UK Jewish gentleman was demonstrating in solidarity with Palestinians. Perhaps he is anti-Zionist for religious or other reasons, perhaps he thinks that the Oslo accords haven't been fully and fairly implemented, perhaps he just thinks that the treatment of Palestinians has been shameful. I know that last position to be not uncommon among UK Jews, but we have no way of knowing what motivated this individual.
As long as our caption is fair to the individual Jewish man, I don't see a problem with the photo's use. It does certainly imply that not all Jews agree with Israel's policies or practices, but that is hardly a surprise and is anyway clear from the text.Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, then how is this picture related to the subject of the article? The act of engaging in pro-Palestine protests does not support any claims of genocide, nor does it oppose them. Jacobjr23 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the picture; Jacobjr has a point in that its relevance is unclear. BilledMammal (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

Little connection. Purely personally, I find the image a great deal more cheerful than the bombings/coffins/memorials on the page, but it doesn't really inform about the topic, I agree. On balance I'm neutral about removal.Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Victim count in infobox

I've removed the victim counts from the infobox for two reasons.

First, we said began recording Palestinian deaths due to the genocide, but the source made no mention of genocide. Second, while this is merely an accusation, rather than a fact, including figures in the infobox implies that is fact.

So long as it remains an allegation, I don't think we should include figures in the infobox - and if we do, we should attribute them properly, and make sure that the sources claim that the figures represent the victims of genocide and aren't our own WP:SYNTH. BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with all your reasons, but am inclined to think that 'death' figures are too complicated, since we are discussing accusations dating back to 1948. Figures are probably better dealt with in relevant text sections. Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed removal of expulsion numbers from infobox

Since this article pertains to accusations of genocide as opposed to accusations of ethnic-cleansing or general atrocities against Palestinians by Israel, it seems irrelevant to include expulsion numbers as victims ("of genocide", logically) in the infobox. While some esoteric definitions of genocide include expulsion of a major population, this is not likely what's understood by the significant majority of readers of this article and therefore is misleading. Jacobjr23 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. There seems to be some widespread confusion on a number of pages as to the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide.
A proposed ethnic cleansing number absolutely has no place on this page, no less in an info box. Genocide = fatalities.
Mistamystery (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be some widespread confusion on a number of pages as to the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide., except in popular usage genocide does not equate to fatalities. It equates to intent to destroy a people as opposed to necessarily "destroying people". I thought this was debunked many times above and that editors here would have checked their facts by now. That looser notion dates back to Lemkin's 1944 book and the 1948 legal definition and is not some crazy new-fangled idea.
Whether the expulsion figures should be there is another matter, but can we be clear about what genocide is and isn't (necessarily). Pincrete (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Since the article is about accusations relating to a whole series of events, many involving some degree or other of temporary or permanent displacements I think on balance a single 'expulsion' figure would inevitably be problematic and probably WP:SYNTHy. Figures can be more accurate, specific and contextualised in individual text sections where apt. Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

American involvement section

1). The present text in this section is borderline nonsense: "On 13 October 2023, journalist Eric Levitz of the The Intelligencer, argued that administrations of the United States, such as the Biden administration, have given tacit approval to Israeli war crimes and genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Biden's administration isn't an example of a US administration that may have given tacit approval to actions in the 2023 war - it's the only US administration that even could have approved or disapproved of Israel's action in that war. Maybe the intent is to imply that previous US admin's have also been complicit in previous Israeli actions, but present text is borderline nonsense.

2. The cite used doesn't remotely endorse the above text, broadly speaking the article urges restraint on Israel and the US, but - apart from the headline - doesn't address US complicity at all.

3. The text that follows, concerning UN 'ceasefire' votes is only relevant to the topic if you SYNTH that opposing a ceasefire=complicity in genocide. The text is in WPVOICE and not even attributed as a specific accusation.

I would not be at all surprised if the US and other Western countries had at times been accused of complicity in various actions explicitly deemed genocidal and that would be worthy of inclusion - but the whole present section is a mess AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Craig Mokhiber

Current section reads:

Craig Mokhiber, a director in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, resigned over what he called the "text-book case of genocide" in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. He criticized the OHCHR, the US and Western media for their positions on the conflict and noted: "Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it." At the same time his letter did not mention the 7 October attack by Hamas (killing more than 1,400 people and taking 240 hostages), while calling for the "establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews", which would require "the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project".

From the source:

The outgoing director’s departure letter did not mention the 7 October attack by Hamas on southern Israel killing more than 1,400 people and taking 240 hostages. Even more contentiously, his letter calls for the effective end to the state of Israel. “We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” he wrote, adding: “and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.”

I don't think the bolded sentence is an accurate summary of this portion of the source. The quote included is not even the full one (skips apartheid). I don't see the value in mentioning that he did not talk about October 7. What does that have to do with his accusation of genocide? It seems like an attempt to undermine his criticism of Israel by implying he supports violence against Israelis. His letter also specifically mentions violations to the Geneva Conventions and how US and its allies are actively participating in the conflict by arming Israel's assault and providing political and diplomatic cover for them. Shouldn't that be summarized in a better way? - Ïvana (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It did mention just the relevant part, and then an editor added the irrelevant, off-topic part here Iskandar323 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: Yes I am aware but I didn't want to single out a specific person or revert without mentioning it here before. Now that I'm looking through the article history that is the only contribution that this editor made both in the article and its talk page. But still it doesn't hurt to see if anyone opposes to removing/tweaking that section. - Ïvana (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, it is always good to make a context to a statement. If someone says this is a genocide and then adds that Israel should not exist (i.e. calls for a genocide of Israelis), this is an important detail, isn't it? Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Though I agree the current wording is not good. Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land does not mean that "Israel should not exist". The source says "effectively" and then
"We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” he wrote, adding: “and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land." Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"Effective end to the state of Israel" means, well, end to the state of Israel. I am fine with the current version though. Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, editors with different POV will want to quot different parts of Craig's statement. Therefore I prefer to follow the secondary source cited.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
However, this version is satisfactory.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"If someone says this is a genocide and then adds that Israel should not exist (i.e. calls for a genocide of Israelis)" what..? how are those two statements remotely connected? This is exactly what the article cited tries to imply. Craig explicity says "We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews". I think the current section is a good representation of his letter so, nothing more to add. - Ïvana (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Many people (and the cited secondary source too) understands that he is calls "for the effective end of Israel". And he didn’t even condemn Hamas for the October 7 attack (why was this point removed again)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Why was it removed? Because it isnt relevant? And why is he supposed to condemn Hamas? Is he a spokesman for the group? Have some association with them? nableezy - 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Because this issue is covered in a secondary source. And this is important to understand Craig's real position on genocide. Nicoljaus (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The position is covered in an article on Mokhiber's letter, not in an article on Palestinian genocide. If our article were about Mokhiber's letter then yes we should include the Guardian's view on what a one-state solution means (and that has nothing to do with genocide, so I fail to understand what this is important to understand Craig's real position on genocide even means). nableezy - 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I give up. A pointless waste of time. Nicoljaus (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I think this person's opinion in the article is unnecessary: “as expressed on social media and in televised interviews clearly show an extreme anti-Israel bias and there is therefore a clear failure to comply with the international civil service rules on independence and impartiality and the guidelines for UN staff on social media”[12]--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And that opinion comes from an Israel lobby that will obviously denounce anyone supporting Palestine, and conflate antizionism with antisemitism. You could find similar opinions from these kind of groups towards anyone expressing similar views as Craig. Are we supposed to only include opinions that haven't been critiziced by them? - Ïvana (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
“I can confirm that he is retiring today. He informed the UN in March 2023 of his upcoming retirement, which takes effect tomorrow. The views in his letter made public today are his personal views.” - do his personal views satisfy WP:WEIGHT? --Nicoljaus (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
When they come from an expert in the field and are widely covered by reliable sources, yes. You can dislike that his letter was covered in the Guardian, al-Jazeera, the Independent, the New Republic, the Daily Beast, Democracy Now, al Arabiya, Daily Telegraph (AU), and I can keep going if necessary. Weight is determined by how much weight sources give a viewpoint, and they have given substantial weight to Mokhiber's. nableezy - 15:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The situation is like this - 1) the person has long-standing problems with his anti-Israel bias, "A complaint about Mokhiber’s social media output and broadcast interviews had been under review since March" 2) in March he informed of his upcoming retirement (coincidentally), and was retied the next day 3) his organization regards his letter as a “private opinion” 4) talking about "genocide" he ignores the Hamas attack on October 7

And all of this is mentioned by reliable sources: [13]. Now in the article he is presented as an ordinary, full-fledged "director in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights". This is a clear misrepresentation of the situation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Was he or was he not a director in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? Even if he was about to retire he was still in office when he made those statments. "long-standing problems with his anti-Israel bias" based on one complaint coming from an Israel lobby. A human rights official criticised for denouncing human rights violations. Ridiculous. And you're still insisting that because he didn't specifically mention October 7 in his letter then he cannot talk about genocide, like that invalidates his position about the well documented abuse of Palestinians by Israel since 1948. Pretty disingenuous how anyone criticising Israel is expected to condemn Hamas in the same breath but you won't see people demanding the other side to do the same towards the atrocities commited by the IDF or the genocidal rethoric coming from Israeli officials. Anyways, it's not our job to draw conclusions about his statement or inject our personal views in this article; this is not an opinion piece. All we have to do is accurately report what was said. - Ïvana (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The social media comments complained about were that: "After the death of the Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was almost certainly fatally shot by an Israeli sniper, Mokhiber posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Israel was “whitewashing the cold blooded murder of its own citizen”. He went on in that tweet to say "“No accountability. Just an official cover-up. A pattern of supporting #impunity that goes back 75 years and includes covering up war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, apartheid & state terrorism.”
That tweet could of course be added to his recent comments - along with the complaint from "an organisation called UK Lawyers for Israel" that his posts did not "comply with the international civil service rules on independence and impartiality and the guidelines for UN staff on social media”. - which they are probably right about, but that hardly invalidates his comments IMO, nor does it indicate that the person has long-standing problems with his anti-Israel bias, or at least, not sufficient to negate his assessment. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Does this mean there is nothing to add to the description "director in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights"? Well, let everything take its course.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Isn't that what he was? We can add human rights lawyer too. Just in case someone wants to remove that section again, let me mention this here: the (now former) director of the NY office of the UN human rights agency is not an obscure figure, and his statement has been covered by more than a dozen RS (The Guardian, CNN, Reuters, The Washington Post, New York Daily News, The Independent, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, The Indian Express, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, Yahoo News, Rappler, The Jewish Chronicle, etc). - Ïvana (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
'his statement has been covered by more than a dozen RS' - The sources add a lot of detail (see above). They are all thrown out to make the statement more meaningful than it actually is.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we can mention that his letter did not mention the Oct 7 attacks. The bit on "his letter calls for the effective end to the state of Israel" doesnt belong in my view, that is an incredibly disputed view of “We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” he wrote, adding: “and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land. That is saying that anybody that calls for a one state solution is calling for the "end to the state of Israel". And his letter did not do that. nableezy - 16:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand how either the 'no denunciation of Oct 7th' nor his favoured solution have any bearing on the genocide allegations - especially if the 'end of Israel' is robbed of the obvious fact that he was calling for 'a one-state solution' , not the elimination of Israelis. Do all sources even mention the 'no denunciation' ?
However I have no objection to a brief mention of the complaint of anti-Israeli bias made resulting from his prior social media post. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Someone who wants this content included needs to just go through those sources, figure out what details most of them include, and include those details in this article, with cites to the sources. If most of the sources mention "he didn't denounce," then we mention it. If most of the sources mentioned his opinion on X, then we mention it. Until someone does the work of going through the sources and determining what's WP:DUE, this won't be resolved. Once that work is done and and the DUEness of details have been demonstrated, it's time for everyone else to stop objecting to the inclusion of what has received significant coverage in reliable sources. (I haven't gone through the sources myself, so I don't know what's DUE and what's not.) Levivich (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

ADD: Mentionings of Hajo Meyer could benefit this article, a Holocaust survivor who "[...] argued that "what is happening to the Palestinians every day under the occupation" was "almost identical" with "what was done to the German Jews even before the 'Final Solution,'" FF toho (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't mention genocide and WP is anyway not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
"The final solution" was most definitely a genocide. FF toho (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: See BBC, The Guardian, and The Jewish Chronicle just to mention a few RS. - Ïvana (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
First one is good, maybe can use that, of the other two one is opinion and the other is a dreadful source. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing section

The following section should be deleted, or otherwise relegated to any applicable pages that cover accusations of ethnic cleansing or forcible population transfer against the Palestinians by Israel.

Ethnic cleansing is a completely separate matter than Genocide. Outside of the bolded sentence below, none of this section should be on this page.

Israel's evacuation order was characterized as a forcible population transfer by Jan Egeland, the Norwegian former diplomat involved with the Oslo Accord. A "forcible transfer" is the forced relocation of a civilian population as part of an organized offense against it and is considered a crime against humanity by the International Criminal Court. In an interview with the BBC, Egeland stated, "There are hundreds of thousands of people fleeing for their life — [that is] not something that should be called an evacuation. It is a forcible transfer of people from all of northern Gaza, which according to the Geneva convention is a war crime." UN Special rapporteur Francesca Albanese warned of a mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Raz Segal, an Israeli historian and director of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Stockton University, termed it a "textbook case of genocide." A leaked policy paper from the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence suggested a permanent expulsion of the population of Gaza into Egypt, which has been described as an endorsement of ethnic cleansing. Mistamystery (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that Ethnic cleansing is a completely separate matter than Genocide. The page on ethnic cleansing says, in the Genocide section:

Ethnic cleansing has been described as part of a continuum of violence whose most extreme form is genocide, where the perpetrator's goal is the destruction of the targeted group...

Some academics consider genocide to be a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing". As Norman Naimark writes, these concepts are different but related, for "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people". William Schabas adds, "Ethnic cleansing is also a warning sign of genocide to come. Genocide is the last resort of the frustrated ethnic cleanser." Sociologist Martin Shaw has criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide as he believes that both ultimately result in the destruction of a group through coercive violence.

The distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" is nowhere close to cut-and-dry. Considering the topic of this article, it makes sense for this to be here. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Relationality considered, it is a wholly separate crime. And as the page is currently formatted, it is placing “population transfer” in the same category as accusations of actual acts of genocide.
Either create a new section about continuum related matters or observations, or remove it. Very simply - ethnic cleansing - while a precursor or connected element of a genocide - is not genocidal on its own. Mistamystery (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"while a precursor or connected element of a genocide" - which means they are related. But what actually matters here is that the sources discuss ethnic cleansing as part of the topic of accusations of genocide by Israel of Palestinians. And, as a result, so does this article. nableezy - 19:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
If it’s in sources, then mention it in the paragraph. Right now the paragraph (outside of one free floating sentence) doesn’t mention genocide at all, or its connection to ethnic cleansing.
Recommend getting to work on connecting the two, or pending a clearly outlined direct connection in the paragraph, it should go. Mistamystery (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
And a correction/clarification on what I said above: “ethnic cleansing - while may be a precursor or connected element of a genocide in certain circumstances, it obviously not always a universal precursor to genocide.
If the assertions of claims of ethnic cleansing here are connected to accusations of genocide, they need to be made abundantly clear, or else general unconnected items pertaining to just ethnic cleansing on its own are not meant for this article.
Mistamystery (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing is a completely separate matter than Genocide. Only when the harshest definition of genocide (attempt to kill an entire ethnic group) and the mildest definition of Ethnic cleansing (eviction of an ethnic group from an area) are employed. In practice scholars and lawyer not infrequently disagree about a particular instance. There is serious dispute as to whether Srebrenica was genocide or ethnic cleansing, judges ruled the former whilst some - more literal -scholars the latter. In practice it's sometimes hard to pin down where the difference lies, but has to do with issues like intent as much as with severity or kind of mistreatment. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
to do with issues like intent +1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
See Atrocity crime#Ethnic cleansing Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Even if it starts as ethnic cleansing they can't find anywhere to resettle the full population. This is why some people blame the mufti for the "Final Solution". The frustrations and group feelings underlying support for ethnic cleansing progress to genocide when they can't do the ethnic cleansing. Ben Azura (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"human animals"

This Al Jazeera report discusses the possibility of a genocide[14] and features the Israeli Defence Minister describing the enemy as "human animals" and saying "we will act accordingly." This may be significant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Already in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that and thought this was a recent (as in, just published) report. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Template discussion

There is a discussion on Template talk:Genocide navbox about including a link to this article. Feel free to join if you're interested. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What does this sentence have to do with the article?

Their allies cannot talk about democracy. Whether or not Israel's allies can talk about democracy has nothing to do with whether Israel and United States committed genocide or not. It's like writing 2002 State of the Union Address in Axis of evil. Parham wiki (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the tail-end of a quote by a head of state about genocide, and a line that clearly reflects on the irony that the head of state feels is inherent in democracies supporting genocide. Hence the relevance. Context. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Put more bluntly, it's a thinly-veiled 'dig' at the hypocrisy of the US (and I imagine European allies of Israel) for endorsing long-term denial of rights to Palestinians. I'm neutral about whether it should be included - it says nothing about the genocide question, but implies complicity by allies. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm also on the fence about inclusion, but I don't see it as glaringly undue per the reasons above. WP:BOLDly removing the tag; feel free to add this if premature. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

Add [[Template:Genocide sidebar]] to this article. I think it is appropriate. Thanks. JasonMacker (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

We do have a genocide navbox at the bottom of the page so perhaps we don't really need the other as well. Although there is an ongoing discussion about it, maybe wait and see what happens with that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor rename to plural "accusations"

I propose that the article title (and lead sentence) be changed to plural "Palestinian genocide accusations". The subject is clearly not a single sustained accusation, and throughout we refer to multiple individual "accusations", it just seems anomalous to retain the singular in the title.

I haven't put up a formal move request as I'm hoping that this can be settled as a bit of 'housekeeping'. Pincrete (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"Accusations of genocide against Palestinians" would sound more precise and correct. Current one "Palestinian genocide accusation" sounds vogue, like Palestinians made accusations of genocide. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The principle here is WP:SINGULAR, which is best encyclopedic practice unless there are overwhelming reasons not to use the singular. If you take, as a parallel form, articles ending in "denial", no doubt they cover numerous instances of individual denial, but the topic is one of denial overall, in the collective sense. The same applies here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
What do you think of "Palestinian genocide debate"? My thinking is that the RSes (or at least the academic ones) are more about a debate between genocide and ethnic cleansing (and various permutations like "cultural genocide"), than being about an unproven accusation (eg, the quotes I posted in another section above). And it's a descriptive title instead of a neologism like "Palestinian genocide question". Levivich (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
My only thought here is that there isn't so very much debate going on. There is a minor historical debate on terminology around the Nakba, but only between a handful of scholars, and what we now seem to be gravitating towards is a lot of assertion and accusation, but not a particularly noticeable amount of active debate. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
True, the historical debate is kind of separate from the current accusations. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Then “Accusation of genocide against Palestinians” should work. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 08:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
That discussion was already had and concluded just over a week back. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
There is an issue of combining the content about Nakba/ethnic cleansing with the post Likud related content. Even if Sharon/Netanyahu can be considered together many of the more serious accusations have been about these governments and their ideology. IMO, carelessly and without explanation grouping these as an accusation against Israel without being able to identify a perpetrator more specific is probably not justified by RS. It should be moved to a more accurate title but not one that was rejected only one week ago. Ben Azura (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The principle here is WP:SINGULAR - 'Denial' is often used generically, I'm not sure 'accusation' is, certainly not in my experience. But possibly that's a UK thing or maybe I'm wrong. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The 'problem' has been solved by consistently using singular. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

State crime letter

Link nableezy - 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Genocide scholars who say it is/is not genocide

Anybody working on this article happen to have a list handy of who has said it is genocide, and who has said it isn't? Yes: Martin Shaw, Ilan Pappe; No: Omer Bartov, Benny Morris. Who else? Thanks in advance, Levivich (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Geoffrey Robertson said "genocide is not normally the term used in the current situation, since it does not apply to political groups, but to racial groups" which seems to be a technical point, namely that Hamas is the target rather than Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
What an odd position: that would seem to suggest that he is broadly ignoring who is actually being killed and the large number of very much indiscriminate statements of genocidal intent that have been made. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Genocide law - and even more so its implementation - is odd and seemingly inconsistent. Sometimes you don't have to even try to kill anyone, sometimes you can kill people for reasons other than ethnicity and still be found guilty of genocide, sometimes you can only target the men and adolescent boys from one locality and bus the women and children away, but again be found guilty of genocide.
Some of this relates to the concept of 'intent', you can kill 100s of thousands, with wanton, careless, or incompetent targeting, if they are - in that grotesque euphemism - 'collateral damage' rather than your 'prime targets'. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is going to be found guilty of genocide against Palestinians. The legal proceedings of other genocides have done a lot of fact finding which has been of more value than their so-called jurisprudence. Every country is different so it's not just genocide law but many genocide laws in the national laws. The value of trying to compare them is a flaw of approaching this as something other than a legal determination. But...some cases are more clear than others.
When you get into things like having command orders to kill and keep killing (like Himmler's very important speech in Poland) it can't be "collateral damage" anymore. Ben Azura (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Aren't both of those scholars "no" for genocide but "yes" for ethnic cleansing? Ben Azura (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In terms of experts against the view, Geoffrey Nice (barrister, judge and former war crimes prosecutor) takes this position but not because he doesn't think it's happening (it is unclear), but on the grounds of the technical-legal definition of the term. In this Al Jazeera report[15] he cites the definition of genocide but emphasizes that it's a premeditated act that involves the mental state of those implicated in it. Since it's usually incredibly difficult to prove someone's mental process, he argues that it's unhelpful to think of this situation in terms of genocide. He goes on to remind us that war crimes and crimes against humanity can be just as serious and do not involve lawyers and judges having to prove a technical definition of genocide. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
There aren't any lawyers or judges involved. No one is going to jail. There is nothing going on here other than "Shame on you" shaming. I've read a lot of studies recently about how much that has been studied and proven that it probably increases atrocities. International courts can't even abide by their own decisions. There are people who should be going to prison. Not least of all the people who recruit child soldiers. But nothing is going to happen except more Shame rhetoric. Fanning the flames of conflict and ethnic hate is not law.

Ben Azura (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Omer Bartov has recently commented that the situation could become genocide: his op-ed today in the NYT. He's still taking a cautious approach, not saying that the situation is there yet, but he's definitely sounding the alarm, to the extent it may be relevant to this article. WillowCity(talk) 23:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
He signed on to another open letter signed by hundreds of Jewish writers stating "we are horrified to see the fight against antisemitism weaponized as a pretext for war crimes with stated genocidal intent." Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Huh, that's interesting, and more or less aligns with his comments in NYT. But if he acknowledges that acts have been carried out, with specific intent, I'm not really sure why he hasn't taken that to its logical conclusion? If actus reus and mens rea are present, the elements are of genocide are established as a matter of law. WillowCity(talk) 23:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
He did not say 'specific intent' -he is speculating and uses vague language, like most of these accusations thus far. He writes: "Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly," and then cites an exception to the rule. I linked to an interview of war crimes prosecutor Geoffrey Nice who argues that the absence of clear intent is a major flaw in proving genocide. Bartov also mentions the use of phosphorous bombs as a genocidal act, but the law that regulates the use of this weapon is nuanced and does not impose a blanket ban: "As per international laws, the use of white phosphorus shells is prohibited in heavily populated civilian areas. However, the laws allow its usage in open spaces to be used as cover for troops. White phosphorus weapons are not banned, but their use in civilian areas is considered a war crime."[16][17] There's simply nothing of any substance here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The open letter says "with stated genocidal intent", that seems clear enough to me. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
^this. The open letter is definitely substantial.
“war crimes [carried out] with stated genocidal intent” (the phrase in the letter he co-signed) speaks to both actus reus and mens rea. The acts are the war crimes (e.g., killing members of a national/ethnic group) and the “stated genocidal intent” is, on a plain reading, synonymous with “intent to destroy, in whole or part” a national or ethnic group, i.e., the specific intent required under Art. 2. If we view the horrors of Srebrenica as meeting the definition of genocide (which they did) it follows that there’s no “magic number” of victims necessary to make something a genocidal act.
As for white phosphorus, if it’s used to kill members of a protected group as such, with intent to destroy that group in whole or part, then it could certainly meet the legal definition of genocide, irrespective of whether it kills 50 people or 100 people or 1,000. WillowCity(talk) 13:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello there,
Here is an interesting The Economist, that I encountered, worth reading. [18]
1) Quote: "In December 1948, in the aftermath of the second world war, the un adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention defines a genocide as acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Contrary to the common understanding of the term, the un says not only killing counts. “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction” does too, as does inflicting “serious bodily or mental harm”, “measures intended to prevent births”, and “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Categorising atrocities as genocide has legal implications. The International Criminal Court is able to indict someone for the crime, for example."
2) Quote: By the un definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation. Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed. Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law.
Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill civilians in doing so. And while some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy."
3) Quote: "Neither do the Israelis display any obvious intent to prevent Palestinian births. But those who accuse it of genocide point to the large number of civilians killed, at least 10,000 so far, and claim its blockade of the strip meets the “conditions-of-life” criterion. The Israelis have clearly inflicted “serious bodily or mental harm” on the Palestinians. They have also displaced people from the north of the strip. If those people are not allowed to return, this could be considered a partial destruction of their territory or, as Jan Egeland, a former un head of humanitarian and relief efforts, has warned, a forcible population transfer."
Homerethegreat (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it amply explains why genocide cannot be used here. There are also examples of horrific deeds by governments that are not defined as genocide but surmount to war crimes etc. It's well worth noting this since it seems that lately the term genocide is lightly used when in reality you may describing war crimes or some other deed. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
You suggest Israel doesn't prevent births the day it cuts the power to incubators? Wow. The definition of genocide is clear that it applies "in whole or in part" and Israel's intent in Gaza has been made obnoxiously clear. Maybe stop taking pointers from individual articles with all of their inherent bias and try to appreciate the body of sourcing as a whole, per WP:NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Israel has told civilians to leave and medics to send patients elsewhere. It says it has attempted to evacuate babies from the neonatal ward and left 300 litres of fuel to power emergency generators at the hospital entrance, but that the offers were blocked by Hamas. Qidra denied rejecting the offers of fuel but said the 300 litres would power the hospital for only half an hour. Shifa needed 8,000-10,000 litres of fuel a day, which must be delivered by the Red Cross or an international aid agency, he said -- This looks like a hostage situation. 300 liters would be enough for a day for five 5 kW generators, more than enough for incubators.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok, that could literally be a statement direct from the IDF spokesperson. This is no longer a source-based conversation, but something else. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
WillowCity says white phosphorous can be used to commit genocide -of course this is true, but merely using the weapon illegally is evidence of a war crime, not necessarily genocide. I know that an effort has been made on this article to distinguish between war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide based on their differing technical-legal criteria. You cite "if it’s used to kill members of a protected group as such, with intent to destroy that group in whole or part" but seem to take the intention as a given rather than something that must be proven either by government policy or that of the IDF (you'd want something in the way of written correspondence or recorded remarks by commanders and/or government officials outlining a clear, non-military objective to totally or partially destroy "the group" (ie Palestinians, not Hamas). I don't think this evidence exists and I've yet to find an accusation in any reliable source that outlines a clear who, what, when, where and how. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not taking anything as a given, I'm citing Bartov who, on two separate occasions, acknowledged the existence of genocidal intent, and acts committed in furtherance of that intent. Some comments ("recorded remarks by commanders and/or government officials outlining a clear, non-military objective to ... partially destroy" Palestinians as a group) that Bartov cites as indicative of specific intent:
Netanyahu: "'Remember what Amalek did to you' (Deuteronomy 25:17). We remember and we fight." (for the significance of this, see Sefer Shmuel/Samuel 15:3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling…")
Yoav Gallant: "We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly." Gallant may have been referring to Hamas with this remark, but a deft prosecutor could likely draw out evidence to the contrary.
Head of COGAT, Maj. Gen Ghassan Alian: "Hamas has turned into ISIS, and the residents of Gaza, instead of being appalled, are celebrating. Human animals must be treated as such… there will be no electricity and no water. There will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell."
In any criminal prosecution it will be extremely rare to find a criminal explicitly stating their specific intent/desire/motive; this is part of what makes white-collar prosecutions so difficult (and, as you've observed, prosecution for genocide). But overwhelming circumstantial evidence can certainly establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyway, this is all WP:FORUM; I'm just saying that Bartov's comments are very interesting and reflect an increasing recognition of what's happening. WillowCity(talk) 22:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Numerous experts have now noted that the genocidal intent, normally the hardest thing to evidence, has been made plainly obvious by Israel's leaders in their various psychotic statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Sabra & Shatila section

The removal of the entire Sabra & Shatila section - and even more so the edit reason "Remove Sabra and Shatila; the culprits were Lebanese, not Israeli", I find disingenous to say the least.

No one has ever implied that Israelis literally "wielded the knife" in these massacres, but numerous academics and many researchers - most notably a UN commission - have concluded that Israel was at least complicit in the massacre, and at a minimum was in control of the area, became aware of what was happening and did nothing to stop it. As the main article lead has it, "The IDF had ordered the militia to clear out the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Sabra and Shatila as part of a larger Israeli maneuver into western Beirut. As the massacre unfolded, the IDF received reports of atrocities being committed, but did not take any action to stop it … … In February 1983, an independent commission chaired by Irish diplomat Seán MacBride (the then-assistant to the Secretary-General of the United Nations) launched an inquiry into the violence and concluded that the IDF, as the erstwhile occupying power over Sabra and Shatila, bore responsibility for the militia's massacre. The commission also stated that the massacre was a form of genocide."

The section on the massacres may have flaws, but it clearly documents a notable series of accusations - including a UN report by an asst. to the UN Secretary-General no less - of complicity in and indirect responsibilty for a genocidal massacre.

For 1RR reasons, I am unable to restore the section myself at present. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

restoring, disagreeing with the sources, and the Kahan Commission for that matter, isnt a reason to remove them. nableezy - 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Also restored Mokhiber, who himself is a reliable source for an attributed view as an expert in the field and whose statement has been covered by other reliable sources around the world. nableezy - 14:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is surprising that such small details about who carried out the attack were again omitted.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about accusations against Israel, so those accusations should be made clearly and fairly - in this instance the only accusation ever made that I know of is (in everyday speech rather than 'legalese) to a degree enabling the massacres by admitting the Phalangists and doing little or nothing to stop the massacres despite being alerted to them as they were unfolding (which I believe is itself a crime under International law). If anything about present text implies that Israel(is) have been accused of anything more than being "indirectly responsible" - it should be clarified, but the article isn't about Phalangist crimes, nor about the massacres. Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Events during the Lebanese Civil War

Nicoljaus, the - somewhat bureaucratic and euphemistic - title of the UN report covering Sabra and Shatila is surely irrelevant. The WP article covers more sources than the UN report, but all sources are mainly about the massacre. Hardly any are about broader issues in Lebanon, so I've resored the prior text.

On a related issue, I've slightly pruned the Kahan commission text for grammar, clarity and relevance. Whilst I endorse that we should be clear and explicit about what Israel(is) were accused of, I'm dubious whether we need so much text to refuting things no one has ever accused them of, especially in the context of 'genocide accusations', which the text never mentions. We know that no Israeli "wielded the knife" and we already make that very explicit in WP:VOICE in the opening of the section, but I leave it to others to voice whether they think the commission text needs further pruning. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete No, it is highly relevant. The McBride Commission examined all the events in Lebanon, for example the following issues:

"The Commission concludes that the use made of fragmentation and incendiary weapons by the Israeli armed forces...", "The Commission concludes that Israel violated international rules dealing with prisoners..." "The Commission concludes that the bombardment by the Israeli forces displayed at best a disregard of civilian objects..."

Sabra and Shatila - only one of the points, it is incorrect to transfer general conclusions only to this event. If you think that the commission is unimportant, well, let's remove its mention, agree? The events in Sabra and Shatila are part of the Lebanese Civil War, what's wrong? Meanwhile, many people think (70% do not read the article beyond the lead) that this is a massacre somewhere in Palestine carried out by Jews themselves.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Further, We know that no Israeli "wielded the knife" - So what's stopping us from saying it clearly? And point out that the misconduct of the Israeli officials was condemned despite the opposition of the government itself and the Israeli far-right radicals? Information about the march and the killing is important because it greatly influenced the government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Kahan Commission, and it is mentioned everywhere in RS.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Minor matters first, "We know that no Israeli "wielded the knife"" - So what's stopping us from saying it clearly?. We do already - the section's opening para (which I added myself) says ; The killings were carried out by the Lebanese Forces, one of the main Christian militias in Lebanon at the time.. It says this immediately after when, where and how many of which people were killed. The next para says what Israel was accused of as clearly and neutrally as possible. I deliberately ommitted any mention of the militia's motives mainly because their wish for revenge is fairly irrelevant to what Israel is accused of - ie enabling that revenge.
This article isn't about the massacres per se, nor 'everything bad that happened' in the Lebanon war, not any commission(s). The article is about the accusation of genocide and the section is about such accusations relating to the massacres.
I've never said - or thought - that either the McBride Commission or the Kahan commission are irrelevant or unimportant. I said the title of the McBride Commission was irrelevant, since in THIS article about genocide accusations, we deal only with the massacres, and even were we to deal with other 'Lebanon' charges, the focus of our text is accusations relating to the massacres.
Similarly I think that the Kahan commission text should be confined to their principal findings. Broadly that Israel wasn't directly responsible, but - very senior - named individuals were indirectly responsible for a number of failings relating to failing to foresee what would happen in an area under their control and failing to do anything as the massacre unfolded, despite knowing what was happening. Incidentally, I think referring to Begin and Sharon and other very senior figures as 'officials' is again euphemistic. But I'm happy for other editors to agree or disagree about the Kahan paragraph.
I fail to see how even the most careless reader could possibly conclude that because of a single neutral mention of the massacre in the lead this is a massacre somewhere in Palestine carried out by Jews themselves. Changing it to 'events during the Lebanese Civil War' is evasive and euphemistic IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
We do already - This is three paragraphs above, but, well, I understand your position. How about disbanding the second para ("Between the evening of 16 September..." and so on)?
I deliberately ommitted any mention of the militia's motives - The point is that the motives of the Lebanese militias were obvious, Sharon and other officers should have taken this into account.
THIS article about genocide accusations, we deal only with the massacres - But the MacBride commission didn't deal only with massacres, I'm telling you. They assessed all Israeli actions during the invasion of Lebanon.
Incidentally, I think referring to Begin and Sharon and other very senior figures as 'officials' is again euphemistic - well, English is not my first language. I meant persons holding high official positions in the country and the army and I would greatly appreciate it if you could find a more appropriate term.
I fail to see how even the most careless reader - But that's exactly what happens. “Genocide” + “Palestinians” + “Israel” + “Massacre” - and the impression is created. We are not talking in the article about Black September, for example. Israel does everything bad, it directs thoughts in a certain direction.
The article is about the accusation of genocide and the section is about such accusations relating to the massacres - Do you want to keep silent about the fact that Israel seriously investigated the event, despite resistance within the country? Do you want to leave only the blaming narrative? I think this is a serious violation of neutrality.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue point-by-point because we have both made our broad positions clear, and others should endorse or otherwise the points made, Do you want to keep silent about the fact that Israel seriously investigated the event, despite resistance within the country? I consider it largely irrelevant to this page. I don't know about 'domestic' pressure, but international pressure was - almost universally - condemning Israel's and its govt's and military's complicity and attempted cover-up. But both are fairly irrelevant here. Govts don't get 'free passes' because they eventually investigate brutal events with which they - or their troops - are complicit. Especially when they are doing little more than acknowledging info that has long been in the public sphere - it's generally called damage limitation. According to the linked article and sources, Sharon resisted resigning when the report was published anyway. That kind of detail belongs on the commission article, but clarifies nothing here though. Pincrete (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about 'domestic' pressure - but you deleted the place where that was mentioned: [19]. I take it you refuse to discuss improving the text further? Well, I can't force you. But, to be honest, I don’t understand why this fragment should be deleted. Even if we don’t take into account that there is WP:NOTPAPER and we are not saving space, these are literally two lines. Now the sentence appears to be suddenly interrupted.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
By chance, I had just been reading 'your' source about the govt response to the Kahan commission report when I saw this post. I have to say I barely recognise your rendering of that source previously in the article. The then Israeli govt, under Begin, argued furiously for three days about how to respond to the report. Ultimately Sharon 'moved sideways' in the cabinet from Defence minister to minister without portfolio and after a few weeks was returned to the ministerial defence committee (but not as Defence minister). Begin is criticised for obeying the letter, but ignoring the spirit of the report and pro-govt protestors abuse and attack anti-govt protestors, killing a peace activist by throwing a grenade into a crowd. All this is the outcome of ministerial-level complicity in an act of mass murder on mainly unarmed women and children, during a ceasefire, the outline of which had been 'splashed across' the newspapers of the world almost from the day following the massacre.
None of this reflects very well on that govt or Israeli society, but in the context of this article, none of it is very relevant. It is incidental to the nature of the accusations made against Israel(is) and the findings of the two commissions. Thus it isn't that I refuse to discuss improving the text further, it's partly that the 'improvements' you seek aren't supported by the sources, don't represent a 'balanced' account AFAI can see but also IMO aren't relevant here. I left the sentence: "The commission's findings were reluctantly accepted by the Israeli government", because it bears on the govt 'admitting' the commision's findings, albeit reluctantly. Pincrete (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
OK. I can’t do anything here and leave the article. But if someone asks "why a POV tag", this topic will be another example. Nicoljaus (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus: - I read the diff that you last objected to, and frankly, I too don't really see the relevance to this article on genocide, and therefore hardly indicative of a POV problem. That said though, in the spirit of compromise I have summarised the context. [20] starship.paint (RUN) 14:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I've slightly modified, for reasons of flow only and will not be upset if the older version is preferred. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
That's alright. starship.paint (RUN) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2023

This has a WP:SNOWball's chance in hell to actually pass. Oposition has so far been unanimous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Palestinian genocide accusation → Genocide allegations in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – According to reliable sources as stated in the article itself; both Israeli and Palestinian sources frequently accuse each other of genocide or genocidal intention, both are covered in this page. For example several Palestinian charters or former charters, political figures and leadership have made declarations described as genocidal threats to Israelis and Jews at large. In order to gain objectivity, article name ought to changed as it will better reflect the diverse sources. Neutrality (NPOV) will be better served by such an article. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment allegations should be lowercase. Killuminator (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Definitely. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure Homerethegreat (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Edited as relatively uncontroversial. starship.paint (RUN) 15:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is this RM parked at the top of the talk page? Inappropriate RM that ignores RM discussion last month Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the first sentence, on the second sentence see WP:CCC. Parham wiki (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
In a fortnight? And MOS:ALLEGED? Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I have completely missed this earlier discussion, and I must say that I am disappointed with our community - especially with those peers of ours who spent most of their time writing about various other genocide instances throughout the years but did not oppose to move a page from Genocide against Palestinians to this utterly unencyclopedic Palestinian genocide accusation, not to mention obvious pov and polemical nature of such title (which reflect to scope too) and ethically questionable decision to accept it and even extend it to (attempt) create some kind of false equalisation - I was pretty much stunned reading that discussion.. ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - how would the new article be structured? (1) History, (2) Discourse around Palestinian genocide, (3) Discourse around Israeli genocide ? starship.paint (RUN) 13:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • NO - At this point "No" - the current title of the article is already inherently flawed and outdated, because all our Reliable Sources that we normally use for referencing in articles about the Armenian, Bosnian, Rwandan genocides have been calling the situation with the Palestinians "Genocide against the Palestinians" (or some such variant) for some time now, so there is absolutely no reason to continue to avoid changing the title of this article according to the given sources, not someones personal preference, and finally remove "accusations" from it, and not exchange one flawed for another containing "allegations" instead of "accusations". So, at this point and in regard to this Request I am expressing my staunch opposition, until such time arrives and/or conditions are met to move it to proper title - "Palestinian Genocide" or "Genocide on Palestinian people".--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    all our Reliable Sources that we normally use for referencing in articles about the Armenian, Bosnian, Rwandan genocides have been calling the situation with the Palestinians "Genocide against the Palestinians" (or some such variant) for some time now Examples? (Not according to the sources in the article.) Levivich (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    There are no sources in this article which obviously name the situation genocide? ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was: Not all of the RS in this article call Israel's treatment of Palestinians a genocide, not all of the RS in genocide or the other genocide articles do, so what does "all our Reliable Sources that we normally use" refer to exactly? Levivich (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    We use what we can find, but I I just casually tried Google scholar with a query "Palestinian genocide" and got quite a number of research papers with decent citing. Just taking from there I would bet that thorough googling would produce even more such scholarship, not to mention mainstream media outlets often opined by visiting scholars themselves or human rights int. orgs and so on. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    Your opinion might change after reading the sources in that search result. If it helps, a number of them are already summarized in this article. Levivich (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No. This move request is just a callous attempt to dismiss the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide – an opinion that has become increasingly mainstream in recent weeks – by cloaking it in "both sides" language. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis is currently a redirect to Second Holocaust. The redirect arises from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis which produced a "near universal" consensus that such an article could not exist. While I can understand the desire to "balance" the Palestinian genocide with an equivalent Israeli version, the fact is there is no equivalent and this attempt to add such via this RM just doesn't hold water. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: This RM proposal is not a proposed renaming, but a proposed rescoping to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. This page was moved here after extensive debate in the previous RM that was raised just over three weeks ago and closed just over two weeks ago. There the current scope and title were arrived at through a substantial consensus-building process, with a count of at least 14 editors supporting the current title. Not much has changed since then, other than that this page has nearly tripled in size, while, as noted by Selfstudier, a parallel article that was created from the POV that this RM advocates lending false balance to was roundly dismissed as insubstantial at AfD and redirected. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I was in favor of one article for "genocide accusations in the I/P conflict" a little while back but now this article has been substantially expanded, and I don't see how changing the title would work without there being an equal amount of content about the "Israeli genocide accusation," which I'm not sure there is an equal amount of RS for. Or to put it another way: if we had one article covering all genocide accusations in the I/P conflict, this article as it is now would be a child article of that article. One of the things that's changed is that "Palestinian genocide accusation" has become a current event over the last several weeks, generating a bunch of RS, including from historians and genocide scholars. I dare say we're approaching the point where more RS will have been written about this topic since Oct 7 than before Oct 7. Levivich (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This RM proposal is not a proposed renaming, but a proposed rescoping to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. per Iskandar323. What would the new content be? That Hamas and a few others certainly have overtly declared genocidal intent towards Israel. That's a paragraph or two, then what? Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

Lead material unsupported in the body

The last paragraph of the lead:

The characterization has been largely rejected by Israelis, and contested by other scholars. Some defenders of Israel say that characterising the conflict as a genocide against the Palestinians is antisemitic and a blood libel.

... appears almost entirely unsupported in the body. Recent sourcing issues aside, the only part of this present in the body is that the notion is contested by some scholars, which is important to make mention of, if not elaborate on. However, the lines about "rejection by Israelis" and then the antisemitism and blood libel comments are all pure imports into the lead.

The lead is a summary of the body, per MOS:LEAD, and unless some support is produced for this material in the body, there is no reason for it to remain in the lead, and it should go. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"all pure imports into the lead" They are OR violations,, if not outright vandalism. Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that all content has to be within guidelines, but think it a pity that the response isn't recorded in the lead. Certainly with journalistic response, it tends to get a lot of coverage.Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
You can expand from the lead to the body, there are sources. I don't want to do this because my additions get reverted too often.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"accusation" in the title is very inappropriate for Wikipedia

We've been through a recent move request, give it a rest. It's too early to relitigate Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

To most of the world it is clearly apartment that a genocide is happening right now (they cut off the water supply a month ago, and they killed 10,000 people in just one month, which is more civilian deaths than over 2 years in Ukraine). But if we can't state it as fact because it has not been formally declared by someone authoritative? Then a less "tabloid" term of ambiguity could be Palestinian genocide allegation", or another form of the formal journalistic "alleged" qualifier in "alleged Palestinian genocide". But even "allegation" sounds wrong to me. A less allegation based option is "possible Palestinian genocide", but that doesn't quite fit? It should have the mildest qualifier possible, even those options sounds too harsh to me. Irtapil (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

At this stage "risk of genocide" and "imminent genocide" potentially seem most fitting … Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people … or "global campaign against Palestinian genocide" etc. I'm really not sure, but pretty much anything other than "accusation" would be an improvement. Irtapil (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

I do not think it was appropriate to unilaterally close that discussion before anyone else had commented. The previous discussion was about a change of scope in a different direction, this was not redundant. Irtapil (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


can anyone find a better source for this quote?

Obviously a tweet is not very citable. But it looks like it's from something more official. It's been quoted in several news sources that all just lazily cite the tweet. Irtapil (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "Israeli rhetoric" section

User:Scientelensia, I'm not sure if it was deliberate, but why has the whole of the "Israeli rhetoric" section been removed, without even any edit reason? Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It was deliberate; I was moving it to the discourse section (I quickly re-added it and mentioned restructuring) for the reason that it is discourse said by Israelis and that the text on the page has clearly been commented on by analysts. Scientelensia (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to cause confusion; I feel that the page is now better organised. Scientelensia (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
So nothing got removed, just moved? Irtapil (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah :) Scientelensia (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Scientelensia, thanks, I waited a while in case you were moving, but obviously not long enough. I had recently moved the section into the '2023' section as all of the 'rhetoric' related to the current war and it wasn't so much 'discourse' as 'sound bites' - but it wasn't always in '2023' and I don't have that strong feelings about where it should be. Matter closed AFAI am concerned. Pincrete (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Request: Change the title to 'Palestinian Genocide Conspiracy Theory'

Request BobandHinson (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a hope in hell. Not even those who most strongly refute the accusation call it a 'Conspiracy Theory' AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Lemkin Institute

Last month the Lemkin Institute published a statement that warned of genocide in the aftermath of the Oct 7th attack. It condemns both Hamas and the IDF. Should this be added to the article? 111.94.58.155 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

@Ymblanter: - you restored a POV tag for the entire article, stating that it is pretty clear POV since only one, marginal, POV is represented (except for one paragraph which I added and which was immediately switched to a "personal opinion", no reason to remove the template. Clearly, you are aware of the existence of other POV which are yet to be represented in this article. Thus, I invite you (and every other editor who supports the POV tag) to bring relevant reliable sources here so that we can address this POV issue in this article. starship.paint (RUN) 00:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter. There's only one point of view detailed presented. The counter arguments are just like "some disgree and call it racist". C'mon!. This is a very fringe narrative and must be presented as so. One of the biggest counter arguments I've been hearing is that the Arab population never stopped growing (both in Israel and controlled territories). Apparently it is growing faster than the Jewish population. What kind of genocide is this??? In Israel you can see many Islamic cultural spots preserved and secured (like the golden mosque). These type of things should be mentioned and have equal detailment. Yes it is up to us to fix that, but until we find the time, the placement of the tag is warranted. –Daveout(talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The idea that because a population of growing there can be no genocide is only an argument in circulation among the clueless on social media. It reflects more on the lack of understanding of the concept of genocide among its proponents than anything else. You will see a genocide scholar stating this. Ever. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. The first thing people think when they hear "genocide" is an orchestrated "great population elimination". People normally don't equate bad living conditions to genocide. The theory that "I'm oppressed thus my ppl is being genocided" is very VERY new and fringe. I'd like to see the population growth mentioned (even if followed by an ideological "rebuttal".) I bet this "population growth doesn't mean no genocide" theory must be mentioned and "rebutted" in the sources of this very article already (or somewhere else). Just give us a couple of days. –Daveout(talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Encyclopedias don't pander to ignorance, however widespread. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a common persistent misunderstanding about self-determination that was famously invoked by Barack Obama when he said the Palestinians have a right to be a people in their own state. Self-determination doesn't mean the right of a political minority (often an ethnic group) to a state of their own. Self determination is simply the right of political minorities to have the same political rights as the political majority, if they are to have the same obligations. This is significant in the study of justifications of political violence like terrorism - and, historically, denial of self-determination has overlapped with cases of ethnic cleansing that have progressed to genocide. Ben Azura (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
You should look further into the actual definition of genocide.
The term genocide was coined in 1944 by a Jewish Polish legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin, who explained that for him “the term does not necessarily signify mass killings”.
"More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong."
So, you see it's definitively not about population numbers. Please don't speak authoritatively in such a high-stakes conversation without doing the appropriate research. 2603:8000:DB00:1182:7193:5D3F:2D4D:E619 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Read the literature sometime, population growth has nothing to do with genocide just "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.", note that it says "in part" so a little bit of OR yields the conclusion that the current killings in Gaza would qualify under that definition. It's no use Israel saying they have no "intent" either, casualties of war/collateral damage doublespeak won't wash. If anything this article understates the case against Israel so I don't really care about the tag, I will appropriate that for my position. Raz Segal nailed it "Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open and unashamed,..Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly." Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. The first thing people think when they hear "genocide" is an orchestrated "great population elimination". People normally don't equate bad living conditions to genocide. The theory that "I'm oppressed thus my ppl is being genocided" is very VERY new and fringe. I'd like to see the population growth mentioned (even if followed by an ideological "rebuttal".) I bet this "population growth doesn't mean no genocide" theory must be mentioned and "rebutted" in the sources of this very article already (or somewhere else). Just give us a couple of days. –Daveout(talk) 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy to wait for the sources to go with that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
"Just the intent to destroy part of a culture is genocide." C'monnnnnnn.
  • From Britannica: "Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
  • Merriam Webster: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
This "intent" and "partially" are stretches. Potentially OR. –Daveout(talk) 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Tertiaries? No OR from me What is Genocide? definition right there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Or Genocide here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
"bad living conditions" - well acquainted with drinking sea water, eh? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
are you ok?
The term genocide was coined in 1944 by a Jewish Polish legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin, who explained that for him “the term does not necessarily signify mass killings”.
"More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong." 2603:8000:DB00:1182:7193:5D3F:2D4D:E619 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Daveout: - that's a lot of words and arguments without any sources beyond... dictionaries? This is your chance to show what reliable sources are missing from the article, instead of simply claiming the lack of a POV with no actual evidence. starship.paint (RUN) 15:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Indeed dictionaries and encyclopedias mean nothing when your goal is to change a well stablished concept and give it a new, fringe and bizarre meaning (Tailored to fit a political agenda). It's not just dictionaries. Just look at every article or history book, genocide is the extermination of a significant part of a people. And not "living in bad conditions" or "feeling distressed". (lucky you I dont have the time to compile the sources right now, but this is a "the sky is blue" case.) But you activists aren't fooling anyone. Everybody knows what genocide is and what it isnt. –Daveout(talk) 15:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Read this Israeli families have filed a genocide claim against Hamas at the ICC for the death of 9 people. Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
So....??? another good example of what genocide is not. (did you really think I'd back them bc they're Israelis?) I think their complaint is retarded unwise and inappropriate. –Daveout(talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
But I do think they have a good case of "war crimes" tho. Just like the Palestinians do as well. Israeli incursions are often reckless and the number of civilian deaths is unacceptable. They could do better to lower civilian casualties. –Daveout(talk) 16:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
More opinions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry. –Daveout(talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Everybody knows what genocide is and what it isnt the popular usage is mass killing based on ethnicity - ie trying to destroy an entire ethnic grou by killing everyone in it. The legal and scholarly (and Lemkin's own) definitions are not the same and don't necessarily involve large numbers - or any - deaths. The Uyghur genocide is not known to have killed anyone, whereas the Cambodian genocide killed several millions, but not because of their ethnicity. Some of these examples are/have been controversial, but they are very mainstream legally and in academia.
The 'legal' definition dates back to 1948 and includes acts such as making the life of a group unviable, and emphasises intent rather than deeds. However to date no one anywhere has been prosecuted for anything other than mass-killing.
Srebrenica didn't involve killing women and children or the very elderly and was confined to one place, but courts ruled that the intent was to destroy the future viability of the group by killing the able-bodied men, and therefore it was genocide. Pincrete (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Loksmythe: - I think you originally added the POV tag so I extend to you the same invitation as above to contribute. starship.paint (RUN) 03:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

My point is very simple. The article makes an an impression that genocide of Palestinians is an established mainstream academic concept. It said at the moment that I restored the template that the concept (i) not shared by all Israelis (ii) (which I added myself) that Montefiore thinks this is not genocide. This is pretty much all opinions mentioned in the article which disagree with the concept of genocide. It does not even mention that the last war started with the massive terrorist attack HAMAS carried out specifically targeting civilians (it was added to the article and immediately removed). Until a significant number of comprehensive sources has been added to the article showing that the majority of academics do not think occupation of the West Bank and the war against Gaza is genocide (or until it was shown that a large majority think it is genocide), the article is one-sided, and the POV tag must not be removed. I do not feel that this is my responsibility to find these sources. Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Hamas attack. That is a prominent Israeli and Western talking point in the media, for sure, as a means of deflection, but it is irrelevant to the accusation of genocide - a crime which of course cannot be justified, regardless of the proceeding circumstances. In addition, the views of Israelis are largely irrelevant to the picture here. What we need are the views of reliable authorities and experts, with an emphasis on the latter. The only contrasting views that one would really take seriously here would be genocide experts demurring on the use of terminology here. Such a case applies to the Srebrenica massacre, where William Schabas has prominently demurred on the language of 'genocide'. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I am bringing the HAMAS terrorist attack because it is mentioned in the article. I would actually be in favor of removing everything related to the current war because obviously we have zero academic articles related to it. Views of Israelis are mentioned in the article, and not by me. I would be also in favor of removing it, because the statement reads now as "only some Israelis oppose the notion" which is obviously incorrect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It does not even mention that the last war started with the massive terrorist attack HAMAS carried out specifically targeting civilians - the article does have some sort of a mention of that now: The 2023 Israel–Hamas war began when Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing 1,400 Israelis, most of whom were civilians; this led to an Israeli counteroffensive. starship.paint (RUN) 08:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: majority of academics do not think occupation of the West Bank and the war against Gaza is genocide (or until it was shown that a large majority think it is genocide) - how do we know either way what a large majority of academics think unless the reliable sources are brought here? There are two circumstances here - either (a) you know that the article is one-sided because you are familiar with what reliable sources say about whether there is Palestinian genocide (of which then please provide the reliable sources), or (b) you assume that the article is one-sided. Which is it? starship.paint (RUN) 08:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
If the article represents one view and does not represent the opposite view, it is by definition one-sided. I am not even sure what we are discussing. Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I am inviting you to present the opposite view with reliable sources that there is no Palestinian genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 08:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
As I already said, I do not feel this is my responsibility. If you claim EVERYBODY think it is genocide and there is no opposite view, this is a highly unusual claim which needs to be justified. Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
You're asking to prove a negative with evidence that there is no opposite view. Far easier to prove a positive by providing evidence of the opposite view. You're simply claiming a problem exists without providing any evidence in reliable sources to support yourself. Disappointing. starship.paint (RUN) 08:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, the article is now entitled Palestinian genocide accusation, which means that the scope of the article is "some people accused the existence of a genocide against Palestinians". It does not mean EVERYBODY think it is genocide. Rather it implies "some people think it is genocide". starship.paint (RUN) 08:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Im sorry but it is your responsibility to demonstrate a POV issue with sources when claiming one exists with a tag on an article. You cant just say this doesnt feel like NPOV to me, we dont base our articles on our feelings. You do have to bring sources to show that there are issues with the weight as shown or there is some significant POV being neglected. You dont necessarily have to edit the article to incorporate those views, but you do have to establish the basis for the tag, and that is only done with reliable sources. nableezy - 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I did establish the basis of the tag, if you do not like it, I can not help. Hopefully other users will join the discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The operative part of my comment was with sources. You can tell because I bolded it. nableezy - 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the POV tag or the current article content, as I haven't read it lately. But since I'm doing some reading on Nakba anyway, here are a couple of quotes of scholars arguing it's genocide, or it's not genocide:

- Levivich (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the sources, finally something tangible to work with. starship.paint (RUN) 23:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Just a note, I do intend to get back to this, though I am working on other articles at the moment. starship.paint (RUN) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

    New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

    71.105.144.74 (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    from the man who coined the term, genocide ned not be the immediate destruction of a nation.
    "The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."
    In my opinion, clearly this is lost on many. Perhaps include Lemkin's explanation of word he coined for use at nuremberg for context.
    In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

    Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations. Many instances of such crimes of genocide have occurred when racial, religious, political and other groups have been destroyed, entirely or in part.

    — The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which has been incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:

    ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, 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.
    71.105.144.74 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The tag should remain, for now. Now the article is trying to present the accusations of “genocide” as well-founded and having more widespread support than they actually do.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The tag should remain because if anything the article understates the case, although I agree that ftb, we should not imply that it is an actual thing, but the title couches it as accusation, so.. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus and Selfstudier: - you are both invited to present here reliable sources in furtherance of your view so that we may expand the article. @Levivich: - I've added content from the first source you provided Rashed, Short, and Docker. I've read through Fierke but I don't think it's appropriate, it's not explicit enough on whether there is a Palestinian genocide, instead discussing a Nazi genocide. As for the book sources - are you using Wikipedia Library or something to access them, Levivich? starship.paint (RUN) 10:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, for example: "In recent years US Islamist groups and leaders have increasingly sought common cause with progressive left-wing groups that promote minority rights and intersectionality among racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in their efforts to build coalitions around common interests. In doing so, the Islamist groups and the progressive left-wing organizations have formed a red-green alliance, a coalition that crosses ideological lines between the far left (red) and the Islamists (green). Such coalitions are built both by forming a narrative of victimhood of U.S. Muslims, and by utilizing the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, portraying it as an anti-colonial struggle. This has already brought about the formation of a new type of hybrid group which brings together under one roof activists of various fringe backgrounds".[21] Outside the jihadist-progressive alliance, the view that this was a “genocide” is not widespread. See, for example, the entry for “genocide” in Britannica [22] or other mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias (I looked, from those available to me, The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion (1998) and Genocide. World history (2016) by Norman M. Naimark. There is no “Nakba”, no “Gaza Concentration Camp” or the like. The topic must be described in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. You've taken a not particularly mainstream think tank source spouting some opinion and then come up with your own term "jihadist-progressive alliance" that even that source doesn't mention. Now that's just WP:OR and self-sourced fringe. Not sure where to begin, but first things first: Islamist ≠ jihadist. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
It's definitely, definitely not WP:FRINGE.
  • Note the title of this book: Hasian Jr., Marouf (2020). Debates on Colonial Genocide in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-030-21278-0. It has four chapters, Chapter 3 is about Palestine. Here's a quote from page 78:

    In spite of renascent interest in Nakba studies—or maybe because of this renaissance of interest—even those who are sympathetic to the Palestinian positions find ways of using alternative terms in place of “genocide,” reflecting the neo-liberal power of the Auschwitz-centered, or Lemkin-like ways, of determining what does, or does not, qualify as a genocide that deserves redress.

    This, alone, proves it's not WP:FRINGE. But, of course it's not the only one.
  • Al-Hardan, Anaheed (5 April 2016). Palestinians in Syria: Nakba Memories of Shattered Communities. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54122-0. Page 47:

    Most recently, genocide scholars have taken up the subject of the Nakba by building on Morris’s and Pappe’s scholarship in particular. For example, Martin Shaw (2010) problematized Pappe’s use of ethnic cleansing to characterize Zionist policies and actions in 1948, given the notion’s deployment of perpetrator language and its ambiguous relationship to the legal notion of genocide. This ambiguity, Shaw contends, can serve to narrow genocide to only one of its possible outcomes—that of total human extermination. Shaw (2010, 1) argues for an “international historical perspective” on genocide that focuses on genocide’s aims rather than means and distinguishes genocidal violence from other types of violence in its targeting of civilians and its pervasive destructiveness. Within this broadened scope, he argues, the widespread destruction of Palestinian society in 1948 is partly genocidal. This is not because Zionist leaders had, in a narrow definition of what constitutes genocide, a master plan to exterminate Palestinians, though the intent to remove the population was there. Rather, it is because “its specific genocidal thrusts developed situationally and incrementally, through local as well as national decisions . . . a partly decentered, networked genocide, developing in interaction with the Palestinian and Arab enemy, in the context of war” (19).

    She goes on from there to describe Bartov's views.
  • Here's Patrick Wolfe's very, very famous 2006 paper about settler colonialism and genocide (6,800 Google Scholar cites), the last two sentences are:

    Perhaps Colin Tatz, who insists that Israel is not genocidal,79 finds it politic to allow an association between the Zionist and apartheid regimes as the price of preempting the charge of genocide. It is hard to imagine that a scholar of his perspicacity can have failed to recognize the Palestinian resonances of his statement, made in relation to Biko youth, that: “They threw rocks and died for their efforts.”80 Nonetheless, as Palestinians become more and more dispensable, Gaza and the West Bank become less and less like Bantustans and more and more like reservations (or, for that matter, like the Warsaw Ghetto). Porous borders do not offer a way out.

  • Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6., page 83:

    To be sure, at the end of the war, about 150,000 to 160,000 Palestinians remained in the expanded Israel and were allowed to remain there, though as a distinctly pow- erless and unequal minority. The fact that not all the Palestinians fled or were driven out of their homes, lands, and villages—though over 80 percent of them were—is often cited by Zionist apologists as proof that no “ethnic cleansing” took place. However, what that demonstrates is that there was no genocide, not that there was no ethnic cleansing.

  • Lustick, Ian S. (2006). "Negotiating Truth: The Holocaust, "Lehavdil", and "Al-Nakba"". Journal of International Affairs. 60 (1): 51–77. ISSN 0022-197X., p. 67:

    It bears repeating, however, that such learning can in no way be interpreted as suggesting that the Holocaust and al-Nakba were intrinsically similar events. The Holocaust was the result of a systematic, premeditated plan for genocide. The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem was attendant upon the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and refusal to allow them to return. It was a tragic and unjust and opportunistically accelerated unfolding of the logic of circumstances, not a genocidal campaign.

  • Masalha, Nur (9 August 2012). The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84813-973-2., page 10, The work also, crucially, argues that the Palestine Nakba is an example of both ‘politicide’ and ‘cultural genocide’ (see below)., p. 11 Moreover, the term ‘cultural genocide’ is particularly relevant to illuminating the history of the Palestinian Nakba., and on it goes for almost 300 pages.
  • And of course there's Ilan Pappe, the guy who, 17 years ago, famously wrote The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and in that book, page 4, he called out Wikipedia for not calling it "ethnic cleansing" in wiki voice, that guy was already calling it "genocide" 13 years ago (which is already cited in this Wikipedia article).
It's not WP:FRINGE because lots of scholars are talking about it. BTW, this isn't some comprehensive review, this is just me searching the PDFs I happen to have for "genocide." There is so much more about this topic out there. It's not FRINGE. It's not the mainstream view, but it's not fringe. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, this is a very useful review. Now I see that there was indeed an academic debate, but for someone who has not followed it, these views (against the backdrop of real examples of genocide, such as what is happening right now in Darfur) seem completely fringe. Nicoljaus (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The title says accusations? Whether this is adjudicated as a genocide at some point remains to be seen, meanwhile we report what relevant rs are saying about it, quite a lot as it turns out, and more with each passing day. So no, not fringe at all. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
And one more moment. Are there meaningful accusations of genocide beyond the decolonization narrative? It might be worth using Montefiore's article [23] more widely. Nicoljaus (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus: - I don't find the INSS source or encyclopedia sources as persuasive. (1) INSS source only mentions genocide once, and it says Qaradawi, asserted that Hitler’s genocide of the Jews was “divine punishment.” The quote you provided just says there is an alliance among progressives and Muslims, some of whom have fringe backgrounds, but does not say that what is being espoused is fringe, or that the idea of genocide is fringe. (2) For the encyclopedias, you assume that if the alleged Palestinian genocide is not listed, it must not exist, but we cannot assume that the encyclopedias have completely listed every genocide that has occurred. It would be stronger if the encyclopedias outright stated that there was no Palestinian genocide, but I don't think you found that? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. starship.paint (RUN) 14:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1) INSS says that “Such coalitions are built both by forming a narrative of victimhood of U.S. Muslims, and by utilizing the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, portraying it as an anti-colonial struggle.” Accusations of “Palestinian genocide”, as can be seen from the Levivich's review above, are part of the narrative of Israel as a “colonial state” (“settler colonialism”, “colonial genocide” and so on). This is well written in Montefiore's article: The decolonization narrative has dehumanized Israelis to the extent that otherwise rational people excuse, deny, or support barbarity. […] In a further racist twist, Jews are now accused of the very crimes they themselves have suffered. Hence the constant claim of a “genocide” when no genocide has taken place or been intended[24].
2) These views are propagated for obvious political purposes. At the academic level, the concept of “Palestinian genocide” met resistance (see examples above, in Levivich's review) and looking at the “ordinary” encyclopedias on genocides, this concept not receive enough recognition to be mentioned. That is, the “red-green alliance” can make a lot of noise, write articles and publish books that will talk about the “genocide of the Palestinians.” But they cannot force all the scientists and book publishers who have written on the topic of genocide. Therefore, in encyclopedias about genocides we do not see the “Nakba”, “Gaza Concentration Camp”, etc. As for the requirement for an “outright state that there was no Palestinian genocide,” I have not seen such a statement about any claimed genocide, this is a very unusual requirement.
3) This is just my opinion. Levivich's review showed that I am not aware of most of the discussions on this topic, but I thought I was familiar with the mainstream views. My opinion, as I said, is that the article is trying to make these accusations seem more mainstream as they are. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Calling bullshit on settler colonialism sociologizing of genocide like toponyms. No politician should be in jail bevause they didn't give a platform to an enemy's national narrative or because they changed the name of a town. Any official making a policy of targeting children to annihilate the enemy should be in prison. It's not a thought crime
Not surprised this is coming from the nay camp. I dont see Israel as a settler colonial state. I see it as a conflict between two peoples who have been unable to form one nation. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of what I can get into right now. Especially afterthe events on October 7th, one of the most traumatic events for a nation to carry in its own history that is unspeakable it should be obvious to everyone that these two nations are not able to live together. So, on both sides, people like Montefiore are looking for excuses why their violence is justified and they believe that the legitimacy of the national groups claim to the land is determinative. But it is not for genocide - in a worst case situation like this reaching accomodation should be the goal, not justifying annihilation. Ben Azura (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus: - apologies for the late reply. On (1), it is WP:SYNTHESIS for editors to tie criticism of the idea of "colonial" (in INSS) to the idea of "genocide". We can't do that, it must be the sources who do so. Now, you did provide a source doing so in Montefiore, but unfortunately, that Atlantic piece is an opinion article in the media. I am aware that Montefiore is a historian, and this would have been much stronger if it had appeared in academic scholarship. starship.paint (RUN) 13:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Following the succession of points and counter points above, please can whoever still thinks that there is a neutrality issue, i.e. a non-neutral exclusion or misrepresentation of sources, explain which sources they think are excluded or misrepresented, ideally providing those sources, or explain how else the page fails WP:NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm not done with adding sources mentioned above. I will use this comment as a progress tracker. (1) Rashed, Short & Docker - plus Added (2) Lentin - plus Added (3) Lustick - plus Added. (4) Fierke - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide. (5) Auron - plus Added, I was able to read the entire preface and introduction, but little of the rest, but added what I could. (6) Bashir & Goldberg - plus Added. (7) Wermenbol - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide. (8) INSS - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide. (9) Britannica - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide. (10) Hasian - plus Added. (11) Al-Hardan - plus Added (12) Wolfe - plus Added (13) Slater - plus Added. (14) Masalha - plus Added (15) Pappe - plus Added. (16) Montefiore - I did not add it, it is an opinion article in the media and I think better sources can be found. (17) Bland I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide, the focus was Holocaust denial by the British far-right (18) Charny on Holocaust Minimization - I did not add it, the focus was criticising other scholars, for example of omission, and while it mentions "genocidal massacres of Arabs by the Israelis", it is not elaborated much and there is some vagueness. starship.paint (RUN) starship.paint (RUN)
    • Lentin book is here Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your help Selfstudier - I don't have an account there yet, and still considering whether to get one. Will look at the other sources first anyway. starship.paint (RUN) 16:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Montefiore is in the article, I added it a long time ago, and I would object removing it, just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, Ymblanter. While I did not remove it, I personally wouldn't add any more. starship.paint (RUN) 12:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The point of view of scholar studying neo-Nazis (British):

The anti-Zionist discourse of the political soldiers was, from the start, dominated by a brand of explicit (and often extreme) Holocaust inversion. The twelfth issue of the radical journal Nationalism Today, for example, featured on its front cover a crudely altered image of Hitler, who was given Ariel Sharon’s face and a Star of David armband. The headline ‘ISRAEL ÜBER ALLES’ completed the effect. Inside, Sharon was described as a ‘former Jewish death squad commander’ who, having led the ‘Israeli army’s “Einsatzgruppe 101”’ was ‘like Begin, no stranger to genocide, having carried out quite a bit personally’. The fifteenth issue of the same journal featured a four-page supplement—penned by Derek Holland—entitled ‘Victory to Palestine’. This supplement was also extremely provocative, containing both open Holocaust denial—‘a mythical Jewish Holocaust does not justify a horribly real Arab Holocaust’—and a call for violent action against Israel: ‘Israel Must Be Destroyed!
...
Problematically, while anti-Zionism has been utilized by the extreme right partly as a means of disguising the true antisemitic meaning of neo-fascist discourses, the use of Holocaust inversion has only served as a reminder of the indelible link with the Nazi genocide that it was been intended to hide. This was no less the case in the 1980s, when the NF attempted to take advantage of the far left’s use of Holocaust inversion to undermine the state of Israel. (Benjamin Bland: Holocaust inversion, anti-Zionism and British neo-fascism: the Israel–Palestine conflict and the extreme right in post-war Britain)--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

What has the extreme right in post-war Britain to do with this article? Other than as a coatrack for an extremely biased POV argument that AZ = AS. Take it someplace else, please. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Read carefully please: far left’s use of Holocaust inversion. Regarding bias, there is an interesting study: "Holocaust Minimization, Anti-Israel Themes, and Antisemitism: Bias at the Journal of Genocide Research" by Israel W. Charny:

Although INOGS members continue to produce meaningful studies and conferences, this bias is relatively recent and younger scholars may not be familiar with its origins. INOGS was created surreptitiously to compete with the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). From its foundational meeting held at Berlin in 2005, which I personally attended, there were remarks of leaders the new organization that conveyed Holocaust minimization and anti-Israel sentiments. Thus at this Berlin meeting, one of INOGS prominent leaders adamantly declared: “We have heard enough of the Holocaust!”
...
Most important of all, like in the article by Martin Shaw that we looked at earlier, there is not a single word in this long expertly intellectualized analysis of the plain facts that the Nakba developed in response to the threatened destruction of the Jewish community in the newly founded State of Israel after Israel had accepted the U.N. partition into Jewish and Arab states. If you read this article you again will not be reminded in any way that the small Jewish community in Israel known as the Yishuv was in fact fighting for its very existence against the local Arab population who were joined by several Arab countries - the war was fought along the entire long border of the country against Lebanon and Syria in the north; Iraq and Transjordan (Jordan) in the east; Egypt, assisted by contingents from the Sudan - in the south; as well as other volunteers from Arab countries who joined the local Palestinians. A threat of total annihilation was looming once again!
Do you get the logic? If we in no way recognize the antecedent murderous attack by a large number of Arabs from several countries, and then refer to several tragic and despicable moral failures of actual murderous genocidal massacres of Arabs by the Israelis, and to several events where Israeli commanders did all they could to expel parts of the Palestinian population, then what we have is a stark picture of evil destruction by Israel as if with no cause.
...
I had posted on the IAGS listserv a strong critique of Shaw only to be met in a few days not only by Shaw’s anger that I was insulting him, but by removal of my post from the listserv by then president of IAGS, William Schabas (who a few years later was designated by the U.N. to head the investigation of the second Gaza War “Operation Protective Edge,” but was forced to resign when it became clear that Schabas had withheld disclosure of a paid relationship to the PLO some years earlier)

The article should describe accusations of "genocide" more in these terms, as an attempted Holocaust invertion (well, that's obvious from the very term "Nakba", literally "catastrophe") and politically motivated attacks, rather than as a well-respected, objective scholar opinion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure where to start with this. You have provided a couple of sources with some marginal crossover with the topic of this page, and based on this, you are calling to mirror this POV? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Best place to start with this is nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus: - the Bland source is not acceptable for this article. It's focus is Holocaust denial by the British extreme right in the 1960s and 1980s. Even the quote of the far left’s use of Holocaust inversion to undermine the state of Israel has a flimsy and unexplained connection with the subject of this article. This is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS or the claim that this is related is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Who is the far left? Palestinians? Turkey? Pakistan? Iran? European scholars? North American scholars? As an aside, Bland had not even finished his Ph.D. at the time. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
As for the Charny source, I see no reason to trust it over the response by Goldberg, Kehoe, Moses, Segal, Shaw, and Wolf, and if you scroll to the end of the second link, you'll see ~60 academics condemning Charny's writing. Anyway this is a bunch of academics criticizing each other. I am seriously wondering whether your POV is colouring your views, Nicoljaus. Focus on sources that focus on the alleged Palestinian genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Charny looks like a very respected researcher, as for me. But, well, now we have a bunch of scholars "A" talking (may be) nonsense. And there are a bunch of scholars "B" - those who object to them. Ok, fine, but here we look at “ordinary” encyclopedias and see who the freak is. Please show me a “regular” encyclopedia where the “genocide” of the Palestinians would be mentioned along with other genocidal atrocities (75 years have passed since the Nakba, enough time to sum it up.). As for my POV, I am quite far from this conflict. If we look, for example, at this topic, we might think that completely different people here have a pronounced POV. Nicoljaus (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'm already aware that Charny is one of the New Historians, Nicoljaus Nevertheless, amomg those ~60 condemn his criticism are Mark Levene and Alon Confino, names I recognize because I added content to this very article that these two opined that 1948 Nakba is not genocide. If Levene and Confino are the scholars who condemn Charny, it really makes me wonder where the fringe is. starship.paint (RUN) 00:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The way I see it: even among people with a possible anti-Israeli bias (or, for example, associated with the PLO), there aren't many willing to repeat the "genocide" charge - this is a rather fringe. On the other hand, I can agree - Charny's speech was very harsh, it is not surprising that he did not receive much support. But, as we see now, he was right in claiming that these “genocidal scholars” are hate-mongering - Hamas and its supporters are confident that the actions of October 7 are justified, because ISRAEL IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE! Nicoljaus (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
You've got that twisted the wrong way around: Israel's leaders appear to think that ethnic cleansing/genocide is justified by the events of 7 October. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
All the same. New slander for the sake of new terrorist attacks. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Look, I get that you are unhappy about the loss of innocent life, but shouting here achieves nothing. starship.paint (RUN) 11:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I looked at the abstract for the article "Israel, Palestine, and the Language of Genocide" by Levine&Cheyfitz. since the coining of the term by the Polish Jewish scholar Raphael Lemkin in the 1930s - Eh, hmm... Is Levine really a historian? And I can’t say that the article looks like it was written from any objective point of view. Further, you can see how narrow the circle of people who share their views is: This understanding of genocide as encompassing only extreme levels of mass murder is why last year's invocation of the term by the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), in criticizing the Occupation in the explanatory text of its manifesto, caused a firestorm of criticism. And yet not all Jews oppose the use of the term. Jewish Voice for Peace, the Jews of Color Caucus, historian Ilan Pappé, and the Center for Constitutional Rights (headed until his death about a year ago by attorney Michael Ratner), among others, have all supported, to a greater or lesser degree, the use of the term in the Israel/Palestine case, as have some of the world's leading scholars of international humanitarian law. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus: - are we already using that source in this article? I cannot find it in the article at present. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't see this source in the article (but I don't have the full text). And I just realized my mistake! - the author of this source is Mark Levine, and you mentioned Mark Levene. And both write about genocide, ugh. Nicoljaus (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Wait a minute, so did Charny write that there are several tragic and despicable moral failures of actual murderous genocidal massacres of Arabs by the Israelis? Charny does not clearly elaborate in the main text, and in a footnote states human rights atrocities including killings that Israeli soldiers committed during the Israel War of Independence. I guess I still wouldn't include this those, it seems vague. Charny himself admits There are any number of ‘biases’ built into this study, including: the way in which the researcher clearly stated his opinion ... the invitation to respondents stated openly that the author of the study considers any number of JGR articles convey “very serious minimizations of the Holocaust.” starship.paint (RUN) 14:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn’t quite understand the question (maybe my language barrier is the cause). In any case, I think there is no point in clinging to the words in one article by Charney:
Charny is not alone in feelings that something is wrong with the way INoGS academics approach Israel and the Holocaust.
“Professor Charny has done a service to the profession by highlighting the creeping anti-Israel bias that has not only overtaken global academia, but has now even invaded the field of genocide scholarship,” Gregory Stanton, a former president of IAGS and the founder of Genocide Watch, told The Times of Israel.
Stanton also defended Charny’s methodology, noting that he sent out a questionnaire to an IAGS mailing list and never claimed to have used random sample or other research methods. “He used a neutral third party to tally the results. He got a respectable rate of return, enough to permit statistically significant conclusions,” Stanton argued.
The founder of the Jerusalem Center for Genocide Prevention, Elihu Richter, also supports Charny’s attack on INoGS.
“The examples Charny gives concerning the Holocaust trivialization are potent,” opined Richter, a retired professor at Hebrew University’s School of Public Health and Community Medicine. “The same applies to negative bias towards Israel with regard to events preceding, during and after the 1948 War of Independence — and their contexts.”
In fact, Richter’s criticism goes even further than Charny’s. In studying genocide, INoGS “factors out the role of Moral Agency,” he wrote in a letter to the Jerusalem Post. “Moral Equivalence is the result.” Nicoljaus (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
What does Holocaust trivialization have to do with Palestinian genocide? What does Charny's views about how a particular journal approaches Israel and the Holocaust have to do with Palestinian genocide? And why would we use an article that admittedly doesn't follow research methods ("he sent out a questionnaire to an IAGS mailing list and never claimed to have used random sample or other research methods") as a source in a Wikipedia article, especially to "rebut" or provide "balance" to peer-reviewed scholarship? This Wikipedia article can be written entirely by peer-reviewed scholarship (WP:TIER1) and, for current events, top newsmedia (WP:TIER2). Charny has written plenty of peer-reviewed scholarship about genocide. This particular article, complaining about the Journal of Genocide Research, does not seem to be one of them. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This highlights serious problems with some of these "peer-reviewed scholarship", and places them in the proper context of WP:FRINGE (perhaps not exactly fringe, but very, very far from the mainstream, and very politically motivated). Nicoljaus (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
That is backwards. When one scholar disagrees with many scholars, that doesn't mean the many scholars are FRINGE. More likely, the opposite. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
That is obviously not our case, see above . Nicoljaus (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
It obviously is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I’m sorry but you keep trying to prove that these sources are biased or fringe and you are doing it based off of sourcing that simply does not back up what you are claiming. The Holocaust inversion bit, besides being highly disputed as antisemitism anyway, isn’t what this article is about. You are attempting to define this as Holocaust inversion, and then use sources about Holocaust inversion to make claims about the characterization and those sources that make them. But the fact that the sources discussing this do not in fact compare Israeli policies with Nazi policies but rather document those policies and describe why, or why not, those policies and practices qualify as genocide under international law. You are, quite nakedly, attempting to claim that any source that makes an accusation of a crime against humanity that the Nazis committed against Israel to be definitionally a comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis, and that is both not true and not relevant. Regardless, your sources have to discuss this topic, not whatever topic you in your own head believe this topic to be related to. nableezy - 18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The Holocaust inversion bit - Hmm, I didn't know about this redirect. I don’t think it’s successful, it’s better to redirect to this article. The Holocaust was definitely a genocide, but the redirect article doesn't even mention any Jewish "genocide" at all. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
creeping anti-Israel bias that has not only overtaken global academia, but has now even invaded the field of genocide scholarship,” - this is an excellent hint that the views are not fringe. starship.paint (RUN) 00:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I want to note that this is about anti-Israel bias, not about accusations of genocide. In addition, “to invade” does not mean to occupy any stable position, in general. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Noted, Nicoljaus, that this is about anti-Israel bias, not about accusations of genocide, therfore this is irrelevant to this article, we can ignore Charny, Stanton and Richter on this topic. starship.paint (RUN) 11:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll write for the very last time. Since you not found any “regular” encyclopedia "where the “genocide” of the Palestinians would be mentioned along with other genocidal atrocities (75 years have passed since the Nakba, enough time to sum it up.)", it is obvious that “accusations of genocide” are quite fringe (otherwise the article would still be called “Genocide of Palestinians”, yes). But this aspect is not reflected in the text, the group that holds this position and their ideology are not defined. Charney's article says something about this. Nicoljaus (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia is just the best encyclopedia now - at the cutting edge of tertiary awesomeness. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Nicoljaus, as I will remind you again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, over the course of my reading on this topic, I have seen different academics writing that there is a lack of academic attention paid to the Nakba, including whether it was a genocide or not. Therefore, it is not automatically a given that 75 years are enough time to sum it up. That being said, if you have a scholarly source that scours encyclopaedias and says "no regular encyclopedias list the Nakba as genocide", we can look into including it. starship.paint (RUN) 03:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I know I'm wasting my time. But first of all. “absence of evidence” argument does not apply in this case. What we are checking is that it is fairly widely known. If in some little-known encyclopedia published by Islamic fundamentalists, Turkish deniers of the Armenian genocide, or ultra-left radicals, this case is mentioned, this will only confirm the compliance of WP:FRINGE. Secondly, the Arab-Israeli conflict has attracted close attention and has been studied very well. If no one has noticed this “genocide” in 75 years, it is very likely that there is something wrong with these accusations. Nicoljaus (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
If you think this discussion is limited to "ultra-left radicals", I'm unconvinced that you have properly read the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
“ordinary” encyclopedias Nicoljaus (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Another gross violation of neutrality: [25]--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be more constructive to focus on the current content version. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
What's the point, you'll delete everything later. Nicoljaus (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Still major POV issues. One glaring issue: there are zero opposing views in the lead to this accusation, of which there are many. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

So write it. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Fine, I wrote it. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Which opposing views are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin section

From the article:

In 2002, the IDF carried out an operation at the refugee camp in Jenin. Palestinian officials said hundreds (or even thousands) civilians were killed[1][2] The world press made harsh accusations against Israel.[3][4] Ultimately, it was determined that 23 Israeli soldiers and up to 54 Palestinians (mostly militants) were killed during the fighting.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ a b Dickey, Christopher (January 14, 2009). "The Crying Game". Newsweek. - "histrionic claims by Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat that 1,000 civilians had been killed. (In fact, about 50 Palestinians had fought and died in a ferocious battle that also cost the lives of 23 Israeli soldiers.)"
  2. ^ a b Burston, Bradley. "Sderot as Stalingrad, Hamas as blind Samson". Haaretz. - "On April 7, senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat suggested to CNN that some 500 Palestinians had been killed in the camp. Five days later, when the fighting stopped, PA Secretary Ahmed Abdel Rahman told UPI that the number was in the thousands, hinting, along with other Palestinian figures, that Israel had snatched bodies, buried Palestinians in mass graves and under the rubble of ruined buildings, and otherwise conducted on a scale compatible with genocide."
    - "A subsequent UN investigation determined that 52 Palestinians had been killed in the fighting, most of them armed members of Palestinian militias and militant groups. A total of 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting."
  3. ^ "Two weeks ago, when European and particularly London newspapers were reporting estimates of "hundreds" massacred..."
  4. ^ "We are talking here of a massacre, and a cover-up of genocide," wrote a columnist for Britain's Evening Standard in April.

What does this have to do with accusations of genociode? AFAI can see no-one (or no serious person) has even mentioned genocide, except perhaps rhetorically.

Unless quote marks are missing or misplaced, the characterisation that the event may have been "conducted on a scale compatible with genocide", is made (ironically) by Haaretz itself in order to mock the (probably inflated) 'body counts' of PLO officials. It isn't even an actual accusation.

The only other mention of genocide is a Washington Post columnist claiming that an (unnamed) London Evening Standard columnist had written "We are talking here of a massacre, and a cover-up of genocide". This W Post piece is also supporting that "The world press made harsh accusations against Israel." (this may be true, but is hardly relevant). Again what is the connection to the topic? It reads as a 'bad-faith' attempt to "muddy the waters" by seeking to imply that accusers are liars - even though no genocide accusation is actually made AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There are better sources for this:
Sometimes called "Battle of Jenin," sometimes called "Jenin massacre." Levivich (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I can't access all of these, and was not previously aware of the event, but the ones I can read certainly paint a very different picture to that currently presented in the article. But, AFAI can see, they don't substantially accuse genocide - it's implicit in Short that Jenin was part of a pattern of such attacks, but not stated in a usable form IMO.
So again why is this here and who is accusing who of genocide and why IRO Jenin? Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
So again why is this here -- Because this is an accusation of genocide, what's wrong?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Because this is an accusation of genocide, what's wrong What's wrong is that Haaretz is simply commenting ironically that the PLO spokesperson's exaggerations are implying that operations were "conducted on a scale compatible with genocide. Simple question one, who accused who of genocide? Simple question two, what does "compatible with genocide" even mean? Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I found a direct speech: "This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon." There are also: "thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graveyards or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus."[26] Nicoljaus (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Many things are not disputed AFAI can see about Jenin, these include that the UN and reporters were not allowed in for quite some time, (therefore the full truth may never be/have been established), but despite that the PLO spokespeople probably significantly exaggerated their initial 'death toll' estimates. So what? The spokespeople on either side in any conflict tend to exaggerate the harm done to them and minimise the harm done by them, when it suits their agenda. What does that have to do with genocide accusations?
Again, Simple question one, who accused who of genocide? Simple question two, what does "compatible with genocide" even mean? My wife and I are very compatible, but Firefox is no longer compatible with my computer's operating system! Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, "This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon" was reduced into "compatible with genocide". Nicoljaus (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
So equally obviously, no one has actually accused Israel of genocide iro Jenin and Haaretz is exaggerating an exaggeration by the PLO in order to characterise the PLO's "death toll' figures as absurd. And we include it in an article about actual genocide accusations because ??? Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
As I say below, it's likely a waste of space. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
no one has actually accused Israel of genocide -- Let's look at a random link from Levivich: "In this regard, back in 1993, as the Lawyer for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I sued the rump of Yugoslavia for committing genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. […] For similar reasons Sharon and his henchmen must also stand trial in The Hague for perpetrating the exact same types of international crimes against the Palestinian people at Jenin and elsewhere in Palestine. It is up to us to bring Sharon and his henchmen to justice in The Hague. Milosevic and Sharon will get along quite well with each other in The Hague because they have so much in common to talk about: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide". Nicoljaus (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok, well that's pretty clearly is an accusation. I guess I take back what I said above. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Well firstly Nicoljaus, this bears almost no relationship to the text presently in the article, so it's difficult for me to believe that the intention is to actually relate a genocide accusation, rather than a rather bad faith attempt to imply that those who accuse Israel are liars. An attempt that has desperately looked for any example of the words 'genocide' and 'Jenin' occurring in the same document, regardless of whether there is any actual accusation of genocide. At Jenin - as I've already said - the PLO spokespeople probably exaggerated (as do the IDF, the Pentagon, the Kremlin etc at times) and the media reported those exaggerations, and the PLO was probably 'caught out' being careless about the truth and/or dishonest. So what? The Pope is a catholic and the sun rises in the morning!
Next, I cannot access the source given,(??) so I may be missing out on detail and context, and I don't know who the 'I' speaking in your quote is (an ICC lawyer obviously), nor when these words were said, (when Milosevic was still alive seemingly) BUT the quote doesn't say that Jenin was genocide. It says this lawyer prosecuted all sorts of crimes against rump Yugoslavis (inc war crimes & genocide), that he thinks Sharon etc should be prosecuted for similar crimes committed at Jenin and elsewhere, and (somewhat rhetorically) that Milosevic and Sharon have much in common that they could talk about (inc war crimes & genocide).
You could certainly conclude that this lawyer is implying that Sharon etc are guilty of unspecified war crimes and/or genocide, but in no way could it be inferred that he is saying that Jenin=genocide. A mountain of WP:SYNTH doesn't get one there.
So what's left is a lawyer saying that - in his opinion - Sharon etc should be prosecuted at the ICC for crimes similar to those which rump Yugoslavis was prosecuted for (which ran the gamut from organised rape, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, conspiracy to commit genocide and actual genocide) - but that he says nothing substantial about Jenin - which is only mentioned in passing. Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The quote is the exact same types of international crimes against the Palestinian people at Jenin and elsewhere in Palestine. By my reading, the lawyer does seem to accuse Sharon of genocide at Jenin. @Pincrete: - I believe this is the same letter - [27] - The Israeli government inflicted war crimes, grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and a Crime against Humanity against the inhabitants of Jenin. starship.paint (RUN) 14:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh wait, the Fourth Geneva Convention isn't the Genocide Convention. This certainly throws a spanner into the works. There now seems to be reasonable doubt on whether he was saying genocide in Jenin, or genocide somewhere else in Palestine. starship.paint (RUN) 14:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Thankyou, yes, the text matches and the author was Francis Boyle, writing on June 6, 2002, (ie about 2 months after the event itself). I agree with your second post - he isn't really saying Jenin=genocide, certainly not explicitly. though he does accuse Sharon etc of genocide in a very generalised overall fashion. Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The section is not great at the moment. Feels more irrelevant than relevant. The quote "on a scale compatible with genocide" is not really a direct accusation, so much as comparison. Even the terminology of massacre seems dispute, so my overall inclination is that this is more distraction than on-topic material here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bradley Burston Haaretz article should be removed as it is a WP:NEWSBLOG. The article acknowledges it as a blog by citing Previous blogs: such as this and that and this by the same writer. These are clearly not news articles. starship.paint (RUN) 15:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a look and there seems to be a literally-never-ending stream of opinion pieces in the media arguing that it was, or was not, a massacre. Everyone cites the 52 civilians dead figure, and some say that's a massacre and others say it isn't. While it receives some coverage in the scholarship, I don't see enough coverage of Jenin 2002 in genocide scholarship to think that it merits its own subheading in this article. This is unlike, for example, Sabra and Shatila massacre, which receives much more significant coverage in genocide scholarship, and I think does merit its own subsection. I think a more WP:DUE treatment for Jenin 2002 is to say that some people who argue that a genocide has happened cite Jenin 2002 as an example of (what they describe as) a massacre in a long string of massacres that are part of (what they describe as) a genocide. But I think it's also true that scholars who say it's an ethnic cleansing point to Jenin 2002 as an example of the ethnic cleansing. Those who say it's neither, just lawful military action or acceptable civilian casualties or whatever, point to the same thing as an example of lawful military action/acceptable civilian casualties/whatever. It's kind of a Rorschach test: whatever people believe is happening, they see Jenin 2002 is an example of that happening. Pretty much no one disputes 52 dead; the question is in the interpretation: genocide, ethnic cleansing, massacre, none of the above. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this best sums it up. It might be worth mentioning that this event is sometimes pointed to as an example of a possible genocidal event, but perhaps without its own section, which seems a little undue based on the very mixed reading of events. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Levivich's summary. Note he doesn't say Jenin was an example of a possible genocidal event he says it was seen by some as an example of … a massacre in a long string of massacres that are part of … a genocide..
I have no objection in principle to a sentence or two, but AFAI can see no one has said Jenin was a genocide. Sources have referred to it as a massacre -including some written before accurate numbers of the dead were 'in' - and others have used the strange construction "compatible with genocide" largely to mock the PLO's original over-estimates of the dead. Pincrete (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the standalone section. Haaretz description of genocide was in a WP:NEWSBLOG. Boyle's supposed accusation is murky, he could have very clearly described Jenin as genocide in his first sentence but somehow did not. starship.paint (RUN) 02:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality: discussion welcome

“

”

This tag has been up here for a while. Let’s be practical:

  • Should this tag still be here?
  • If not, what concrete steps can we take to remove it? What content can be added?

Scientelensia (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No. There has little response to recent invitations to clearly state how and where the article is unbalanced. Pincrete (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I've finally completed adding content from sources that were proposed when discussing the POV tag, most of the sources were raised by Levivich. As such, I believe that if no one can propose any more sources, it's time to remove the POV tag. It is utterly unhelpful to claim POV but provide no missing reliable sources. Below are the 11 sources added (and others not added) to address NPOV: starship.paint (RUN) 15:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    1. Rashed, Short & Docker - plus Added
    2. Lentin - plus Added
    3. Lustick - plus Added
    4. Fierke - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
    5. Auron - plus Added, I was able to read the entire preface and introduction, but little of the rest, but added what I could.
    6. Bashir & Goldberg - plus Added
    7. Wermenbol - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
    8. INSS - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
    9. Britannica - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
    10. Hasian plus Added
    11. Al-Hardan plus Added
    12. Wolfe plus Added
    13. Slater plus Added
    14. Masalha plus Added
    15. Pappe plus Added
    16. Montefiore - I did not add it, it is an opinion article in the media and I think better sources can be found
    17. Bland - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide, the focus was Holocaust denial by the British far-right
    18. Charny on Holocaust Minimization - I did not add it, the focus was criticising other scholars, for example of omission, and while it mentions "genocidal massacres of Arabs by the Israelis", it is not elaborated much and there is some vagueness. starship.paint (RUN) 15:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
      Do you think you can just ignore all the "wrong" sources? Well, here's another one: Cary Nelson Israel Denial: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and the Faculty Campaign Against the Jewish State. Indiana University Press, 2019
      Some who repeated the blood libel that Jews were poisoning the wells of Europe no doubt did so in the ignorant belief they were trying to protect their families. So too perhaps with those today who echo the unwarranted slander that Israel is engaged in genocide.
      …
      Whose fault is it if Birzeit University faculty, victims of their own antinormalization ideology, lose the opportunity to compete for European Union research funding because their institution prohibits collaborative research with Israelis, which is an EU funding requirement? Is the denial of funding for proposed conferences on genocide that focus on and give credence to the false claim that Israel has genocidal designs on Palestinians an abridgement of academic freedom, as the authors seem to think? Israeli universities do support the respectable academic field of genocide studies. An international conference organized by the International Society for the Study of Genocide that included Israeli participants was hosted at Hebrew University in the summer of 2016. No university is required to sponsor — and no faculty committee should endorse—pseudo academic events designed to falsify history and promote hatred. It’s likely that Holocaust denial events wouldn’t receive funding either, though one can attend them in Iran. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
    • @Nicoljaus: - ignore all the "wrong" sources?! You've got to be joking me. You haven't read what I added to the article, right? Lentin - not "genocide". Lustick - "not a genocidal campaign". Auron - "not a genocide". Slater - "no genocide". Penslar - "not a genocide". Pappé, Levene, Confino - 1948 Nakba "ethnic cleansing" without stating "genocide". I wrote this in the lede: Several scholars have written that Palestinians suffered ethnic cleansing during the 1948 Nakba, but that they did not consider the event to have been genocide. Want to re-evaluate your opinion? starship.paint (RUN) 14:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      I cannot agree that you and Iskandar323 made an adequate replacement: [28]. Nicoljaus (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      Moving the goalposts, eh? What happened to your accusation about sources? Per WP:LEDE, the lede is a introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents ... significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article ... According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. At the time the information was removed from the lede, it was not covered in the remainder of the article. Thus it was shifted to the body. I've established the importance of the sentence I added to the lede by showing seven scholars agreeing with that opinion. Can the same be said for the removed sentence? Also, I added the Cary Nelson source, only the first paragraph, because I could not verify that the second paragraph is actually part of the book. starship.paint (RUN) 14:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      "I wrote this in the lede" said you, and I replied about lede. Sourced information should not be deleted. It was not you or Iskandar who "shifted" it to the body, but Scientelensia: [29]. Instead of strong denial of the accusations (as it was), you create the impression that the last ambiguity is whether ethnic cleansing should be considered genocide? Nicoljaus (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      I never claimed I shifted it to the body, and I did not delete the information also. However the net effect is that is has been shifted. Also, what part about they did not consider the event to have been genocide is ambiguous? starship.paint (RUN) 16:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      In net effect, "I cannot agree that you and Iskandar323 made an adequate replacement" in the lede. The fact that the information was later restored in the body is not your merit; and I find the section "Responses to accusation" ridiculously small. Nelson should be there, for example - he doesn't discuss the "Conceptions of genocide". Also, what part is ambiguous? - I mean, the controversy behind the “genocide accusation” is much, much broader than the debate over whether ethnic cleansing should be considered genocide, and broader the only "Nakba" case. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      @Nicoljaus: - I see that the lede has changed now. What do you think about it now? starship.paint (RUN) 14:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
      Same shit. “Oh, look how many terrible things the bloody Jews have done!” Okay, maybe someone more competent can do something here, but I wash my hands of it. Nicoljaus (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
      I could not verify that the second paragraph is actually part of the book - This is the last paragraph in the chapter INCOMPETENT SCHOLARSHIP. You can search in GBook using the words: blood libel that Jews were poisoning the wells of Europe Nicoljaus (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      @Nicoljaus: - the quote you provide is the first paragraph, which I can read from the book, and which I have added to this article. I cannot access the end of the chapter for INCOMPETENT SCHOLARSHIP. I've search the Google Books version for "abridgement", which is in the second paragraph, and got no results. starship.paint (RUN) 16:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      Oops, I'm sorry. I found the page (341-342), but it is closed for viewing: [30] Nicoljaus (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
      I have now managed to access the book, and have expanded the information. starship.paint (RUN) 14:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation/Archive_1&oldid=1203132968"