Talk:Gaza genocide: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:46, 3 September 2024 view sourceAdakiko (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,131 edits rv NPATags: Undo Reverted← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:16, 24 December 2024 view source Selfstudier (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,785 edits →Potential source: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talk page~~}}		{{pp\|small=yes}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{{contentious topics/talk notice\|a-i}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|a-i}}
	{{notforum}}
			{{Not a forum}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell \|blpo=yes \|class=B \|collapsed=y \|1=
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|blp=other \|collapsed=yes \|1=
	{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Death \|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Death \|importance=low}}
Line 8:		Line 9:
	{{WikiProject Discrimination \|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Discrimination \|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Ethnic groups \|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Ethnic groups \|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=~~Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Israel \|importance=~~Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Israel \|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}		{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
	{{WikiProject Palestine \|importance=~~Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Palestine \|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject International relations\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject International relations\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
Line 125:		Line 126:
	\|org12 = ]		\|org12 = ]
	\|accessdate12 = 21 August 2024		\|accessdate12 = 21 August 2024

			\|author13 = Aviva Winton
			\|date13 = 13 September 2024
			\|url13 = https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-819899
			\|title13 = Misplaced Pages has an antisemitism problem - opinion
			\|org13 = ]
			\|accessdate13 = 13 September 2024

			\|author14 = Mathilda Heller
			\|title14 = Misplaced Pages's page on Zionism is partly edited by an anti-Zionist - investigation
			\|date14 = October 21, 2024
			\|org14 = ]
			\|url14 = https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-825520
			\|lang14 =
			\|quote14 =
			\|archiveurl14 =
			\|archivedate14 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate14 = October 22, 2024

			\|author15 = Aaron Bandler
			\|title15 = Misplaced Pages Editors Add “Gaza Genocide” to “List of Genocides” Article
			\|date15 = November 3, 2024
			\|org15 = ]
			\|url15 = https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376425/wikipedia-editors-add-gaza-genocide-to-list-of-genocides-article/
			\|lang15 =
			\|quote15 =
			\|archiveurl15 =
			\|archivedate15 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate15 = November 4, 2024

			\|author16 = Rachel Fink
			\|title16 = Misplaced Pages Editors Add Article Titled 'Gaza Genocide' to 'List of Genocides' Page
			\|date16 = November 7, 2024
			\|org16 = ]
			\|url16 = https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-11-07/ty-article/.premium/wikipedia-editors-add-article-titled-gaza-genocide-to-list-of-genocides-page/00000193-0749-d3a2-a3d7-4f491b760000
			\|lang16 =
			\|quote16 =
			\|archiveurl16 =
			\|archivedate16 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate16 = November 7, 2024

			\|author17 =
			\|title17 = After Months of Debate – Misplaced Pages Describes Israel’s War on Gaza as ‘Genocide’
			\|date17 = November 8, 2024
			\|org17 = Palestine Chronicle
			\|url17 = https://www.palestinechronicle.com/after-months-of-debate-wikipedia-describes-israels-war-on-gaza-as-genocide/
			\|lang17 =
			\|quote17 =
			\|archiveurl17 =
			\|archivedate17 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate17 = November 8, 2024

			\|author18 =
			\|title18 = ‘It’s not close’ - Israel committing genocide concludes Misplaced Pages ending editorial debate
			\|date18 = November 8, 2024
			\|org18 = ]
			\|url18 = https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241108-its-not-close-israel-committing-genocide-concludes-wikipedia-ending-editorial-debate/
			\|lang18 =
			\|quote18 =
			\|archiveurl18 =
			\|archivedate18 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate18 = November 8, 2024

			\|author19 = Shraga Simmons
			\|title19 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists.
			\|date19 = November 11, 2024
			\|org19 = ]
			\|url19 = https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
			\|lang19 =
			\|quote19 =
			\|archiveurl19 = https://web.archive.org/web/20241113082217/https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
			\|archivedate19 = November 13, 2024
			\|accessdate19 = December 1, 2024

			\|author20 = Debbie Weiss
			\|title20 = Misplaced Pages’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative
			\|date20 = December 4, 2024
			\|org20 = ]
			\|url20 = https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/12/04/wikipedias-quiet-revolution-how-coordinated-group-editors-reshaped-israeli-palestinian-narrative/
			\|lang20 =
			\|quote20 =
			\|archiveurl20 =
			\|archivedate20 =
			\|accessdate20 = December 5, 2024

			<!--
			>>>>> This template's capacity is 30 entries. When it reaches the limit
			>>>>> please add another {{Press}} template below and put new entries there.
			-->
	}}		}}
	{{~~banner~~ holder		{{Banner holder
	\|text=This page has been the subject of multiple discussions.		\|text=This page has been the subject of multiple discussions.
	\|image=Clipboard.svg		\|image=Clipboard.svg
Line 141:		Line 231:
	}}		}}
	{{Old RfD \|date=17 January 2024 \|result='''keep''' \|page=2024 February 1#Gaza genocide}}		{{Old RfD \|date=17 January 2024 \|result='''keep''' \|page=2024 February 1#Gaza genocide}}
	{{Old ~~move~~ \| collapse = no		{{Old moves \| collapse = no
	\| date1 = 13 January 2024		\| date1 = 13 January 2024
	\| from1 = Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza		\| from1 = Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza
Line 157:		Line 247:
	\| result3 = Moved		\| result3 = Moved
	\| link3 = Special:PermanentLink/1232356978#Requested move 3 May 2024		\| link3 = Special:PermanentLink/1232356978#Requested move 3 May 2024
			\| date4 = 6 December 2024
			\| from4 = Gaza genocide
			\| destination4 = Gaza genocide allegations
			\| result4 = Not moved
			\| link4 = Special:PermanentLink/1261911473#Requested_move_6_December_2024
	}}		}}
	}}		}}
	{{Annual readership}}		{{Annual readership}}
	{{Tmbox		{{Tmbox
	\|text={{~~Template:~~Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}}		\|text={{Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}}
	\|type=notice		\|type=notice
	\|image=]		\|image=]
			}} {{refideas
	}}
			\| {{cite news \| title= Israel’s Measures Intended to Prevent Births within Gaza Strip - occupied Palestinian territory \| publisher= ] \| url= https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israels-measures-intended-prevent-births-within-gaza-strip-enar \| work= reliefweb.int \| date= 30 March 2024 \|language=en}}
	{{Section sizes}}
			\| {{cite news \| title= Israel’s Measures Intended to Prevent Births within Gaza Strip \| url= https://pchrgaza.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Israels-Measures-intended-to-Prevent-Births-within-Gaza-Strip-1.pdf \| work= PCHR }}
			}} {{Section sizes}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	\| age =336		\| age =336
Line 172:		Line 269:
	\| maxarchsize =150000		\| maxarchsize =150000
	\| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}		\| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}
	\| minkeepthreads =3		\| minkeepthreads =4
	\| format = %%i		\| format = %%i
	}}		}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving -->		<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving -->

			== Starvation ==
	==RfC on the inclusion on the ''BU Today'' article in the lede==
	<!-- ] 03:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1722049278}}

			The topic of deaths from starvation was reverted based on a discussion at another page altogether. This is highly irregular. Please explain why this figure should be excluded here or I will restore it. ] (]) 12:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	How should the statements in ''BU Today'' "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede? {{Ordered list \|list_style_type=upper-alpha

			:If you’re referring to the estimate in the infobox the estimate comes from the Doctor’s letter signed to Biden. The paper cited includes that letter in a note which includes a table. The paper doesn’t include any indication of peer-review or similar vetting and does not appear to have a citation count from what I could find, which makes it unlikely to meet ]. The Mother Jones article ], in practice it is not a separate source since it includes no form of analysis or commentary to distinguish it which means it should not be included as a citation even if the estimate is kept.
	\| {{tq\|The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many ] all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.}} ''(as seen in {{diff2\|1229215676\|this edit}})''
			:I didn’t make the revert on this page but in the talk page for the Gaza Famine page an editor suggested that the estimate should be included in the infobox because it was included here. I responded that it sounded like it should probably be changed on this page instead. ] (]) 13:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| {{tq\|The international human rights legal community, several political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.}} ''(as seen in {{diff2\|1230213447\|this edit}})''
			::The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source, being self-published and non-independent. I felt like an estimate shouldn’t be included in the infobox unless its reliability is very strong. ] (]) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| Do not include
			:::OK it seems like people were maybe acting a bit ]y - I'd ask, going forward, that if edits are made to this page on the basis of article talk conversation that the article talk conversation in question be on this page. It doesn't take long to start a thread saying "over at article X we've identified this issue with this source" as part of your editing. Quite a few editors ''don't'' have ''every single'' Israel / Palestine article on their watch list and for those of us not privy to that other conversation such edit summaries seem baffling.
			:::Thanks. ] (]) 13:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You and XDanielX can swap around reverting here and at the other article and providing different reasons each time, that's not going to work. For a start, we can't just diss RS and say they don't count, ] is a standard reason for designating another source as reliable. {{tq\|The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source, being self-published and non-independent}} is just wrong, the is published by ] and authored by Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins, who is an Associate Professor of Anthropology, an author and "with extensive fieldwork experience in Israel/Palestine", who are then both citing the letter that contains the appendix and the appendix further cites the IPC (verifiable) for the detailed calculation. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Alright so everybody we know this is a contentious topic so we should all try to adhere closer than average to Misplaced Pages policy and norms. My opinion based on a review of the paper Selfstudier linked above is that it constitutes pretty close to ] standards. It's published by a university, was written by an academic within her field of expertise and is even timely for figures that tend to change rapidly. It is not Misplaced Pages practice to interrogate the bibliography of a reliable source and to declare subsections of the source unreliable because Misplaced Pages might not accept as RSes everything in that bibliography. Based on this the estimate of death by starvations is likely due, and is cited to a reliable source, although I would support that it should be attributed to Stamatopoulos-Robbins. Let's just move forward from here. ] (]) 14:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I don't think this is really a question of ]; if the best sources still fall short of standards like ] then we shouldn't include the material.
			:::::It was published by a university-affiliated research group, but that seems like essentially self-publication. At least their website doesn't mention peer review, editorial review don't seem to mention editors, peer-review, or other signs of vetting. I'd also somewhat disagree about the author's field of expertise, which seems to be anthropology rather than public health.
			:::::I'm not necessarily against including it somewhere though, but highlighting it in the infobox is almost like endorsing the estimate in Misplaced Pages's voice, when it hasn't been vetted by the scholarly community. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::That's a wildly irregular take to suggest that a university publication is ]. ] (]) 16:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Not technically self-published, but similar in the sense that it doesn't involve the vetting ] requires. It's like using university letterhead, it doesn't imply that some university process has vetted the content. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::You do not need to be a scholar to do the mathematical calculation. Nor is it reasonable to demand scholarship for recent events. This sourcing is not some rubbish written by nobodies on the back of a serviette, it's pretty convincing. ] (]) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::It's not the calculation itself that we need reliable scholarship for, but the soundness of the methodology. As it stands there's no evidence that the methodology has been vetted by the scholarly community. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::It's the IPC's methodology, all they did was do a math calc that a child could do. ] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The is about using mortality data as one metric (among others) to classify food insecurity phases. It never suggests that it's valid to do the opposite, i.e. to infer mortality figures based on the classification. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Exactly ] (]) 22:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::This is an unproven and extraordinary assertion. ] (]) 16:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::How so? It would be unusual for a research group to seriously vet papers before putting them on its own website. That would mean having internal editors or peer reviewers who would need to routinely reject their colleague's papers, and that's just not how research groups normally operate. There's also no mention of editors, peer review, or any other vetting on the group's .
			:::::::::And again, zero citations is also a pretty clear signal that it falls short of ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::This RS is not pretending to be scholarship, what you need to do is show that they made the figure up (I can show that they didn't) and Motherjones screwed up by endorsing their findings, good luck with that. ] (]) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::And that screwed up by mentioning the Costs of War project, Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins and her paper plus her conclusions. ] (]) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The question isn't whether they made it up, but whether their methodology has been vetted by the relevant scholarly community. ] isn't concerned with coverage in news outlets; that isn't evidence of scholarly vetting. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Where is the policy that says our sources require scholarly vetting? This is not a history or science article. There are a multitude of sources in this article that are not scholarly vetted. ] (]) 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::The broader topic isn't a scientific one, but this estimate in particular is scientific in nature, which is what counts in terms of ] applying to it. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::It's a ]. ] (]) 18:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::The calculation itself is trivial, it's the methodology behind it that's novel and constitutes unvetted scholarship. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::The "methodology" takes the IPC published data (verifiable) and the IPC "according to the IPC technical manual: in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to '''at least''' 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day.(also verifiable) and does the math, that's it.
			::::::::::::::::You can say the IPC technical conclusions belong to them but they are the experts. ] (]) 19:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::But the methodology wasn't developed for predicting mortality based on phase classification, but for doing the opposite inference - producing phase classification based on several factors, one of them being mortality. ] (]) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::{{yo\|M.Bitton}} rather than just , can you join in the discussion and explain how you think this passes ]? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::You are editwarring removal of this material
			:::::::::::::::::::
			:::::::::::::::::::
			:::::::::::::::::::
			:::::::::::::::::::Last time, RFC or RSN else AE. ] (]) 10:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::That's a single revert (the second). Please don't make threats, if you think AE is needed then just do so.
			::::::::::::::::::::I hadn't promptly reverted M.Bitton because I wanted to see if there was any argument or explanation behind it, and give the discussion a chance to settle a bit more. If there are no new arguments for how this zero-citation paper could pass ], then I think it's reasonable to insist on its removal (from the infobox, the body is another matter).
			::::::::::::::::::::If anything a discussion on ] might be the best venue to clarify whether affiliation with some research group is enough to pass ], but I think it's pretty clear what the outcome would be. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::{{re\|XDanielx}} there is no reason for it to pass what you think it should, and therefore, no reason for me to re-explain what has been explained by others. Your edit has been reverted three times so far by those that you failed to convince, so I suggest you listen to what the others are saying and take it to RSN or start a RfC about it. ] (]) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::1. "Cost of War" are not the source of the number - the estimate of starvation deaths comes from the physicians' letter and just quoted as is in the "Cost of War" report
			::::::::::::2. Neither physicians' letter nor "Cost of War" report underwent a review by relevant experts (e.g., in Public Health) and both Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbin, who authored the report, and Stephanie Savell, who edited it, are anthropologists, i.e. not experts in the this specific field, hence them quoting the figure in their report cannot be considered to be expert endorsement.
			::::::::::::3. The IPC manual says the following about mortality estimates:<ref>{{Cite web \|title=IPC Manual 3.1 <nowiki>\|</nowiki> IPC <nowiki>-</nowiki> Integrated Food Security Phase Classification \|url=https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/resources/ipc-manual/en/ \|access-date= \|website=www.ipcinfo.org \|page=86}}</ref>
			:::::::::::::{{tq2\|Evidence for Mortality includes the CDR and the U5DR from '''representative surveys''' of good method. If the CDR is below the Famine threshold but the U5DR is higher, the latter can be used to classify the Famine if the 95 percent confidence interval of CDR includes the Famine threshold (i.e. 2/10,000/day).}}
			::::::::::::That is to say that according to IPC methodology, the mortality needs to be estimated using representative surveys and than it can be used as one of the metrics for IPC phase classification. There is nothing either in IPC manual or any other related literature implying that the process can be reversed, with phase classification used for estimating mortality.
			::::::::::::4. Moreover, the "IPC Famine Review Committee Report" published on June 25, 2024, stated:<ref>{{Cite web \|date=25 June 2024 \|title=Famine Review Committee: Gaza Strip, June 2024 - IPC's third review report \|url=https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ipc-famine-third-review-report-25jun24/ \|website=www.un.org \|page=19 }}</ref>
			:::::::::::::{{tq2\|Estimation of non-trauma CDR and U5DR was performed using WFP CATI survey interviews collected between 20 April and 9 June. These interviews used the past census method to determine the number of deaths in each household using a recall period beginning on 1 January 2024, and a mean recall period of 134.4 days...<br/>Taken together, these data allow for a reasonable level of certainty that non-trauma CDR and U5DR '''were below Famine thresholds''' during the current analysis period.}}
			::::::::::::In other words, the IPC Famine Review Committee - who are '''the''' experts on IPC methodology - looked at the survey data, in order to estimate the number of indirect deaths between January 1 and June 9, rather than trying to infer it based on IPC Phase classification, like the authors of the "physicians' letter" did.
			::::::::::::5. All of the above, along with the fact that there have been only 34 officially confirmed malnutrition-related deaths,<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2024-07-09 \|title=U.N. experts say Gaza children dying in Israeli "targeted starvation campaign" - CBS News \|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-n-experts-say-gaza-children-dying-in-israeli-targeted-starvation-campaign/#:~:text=Thirty-four%20Palestinians%20have%20died%20from%20malnutrition%20since%207%20October \|access-date= \|website=www.cbsnews.com \|language=en-US}}</ref> makes the claim about 62,431 "starvation deaths" ], and the current level of evidence is insufficient for including it in the article, let alone in the infobox. <br>] (]) 17:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::The IPC FRC states the all-cause CDR(crude death rate) was 0.55 deaths per 10,000 per day, and that after factoring out non-violence related deaths it was below famine thresholds. Looking at the technical manual, CDR for IPC classifications discounts trauma deaths from total deaths, and are not actually meant to be just deaths by starvation. I personally think that an actual study conducted directly contradicting the estimated numbers of deaths from starvation by the study seems to provide further evidence to suggest that the letter shouldn't be used as a source. ] (]) 01:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Sources-talk}}

			::::I am not a sock puppet, nor am I either co-ordinating my edits with or editing on behalf of another editor. Nor am I constantly changing the core of my arguments to move the goal posts or do anything of the sort, or at least I don't believe that I did. I just honestly think that we should wait until a convincing, authoritative and reliable secondary source is found with a confident estimate for this number, and that as of now it's preferable to state that the true death count might be much higher than the known. We're in no hurry to add a number anyway, we can simply wait for a better source.
	}} 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::The letter is quite literally self-published and is written for political advocacy, making it non-independent. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be cited in all cases, but as a literal statement of fact that makes it questionable. The fact that the study that cites it has''' literally 0 citations''' is proof of it not representing a mainstream view and being inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. You referred to the Mother Jones article as a reliable secondary source on numerous occasions, ] ]. ] (]) 17:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I have added Forbes, another RS, above, they unreliable too? Sorry I cannot take your objections at all seriously. ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::That Forbes source is a ]. ] (]) 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's also a Forbes contributor article, not a Forbes article. This is stated before the first paragraph. In the first paragraph, the author states he co-authored the twin paper on military loses, and he's also a contributor to Cost of War. They are also not an expert in any relevant field, he's a bloody defense analyst. It is a minimum requirement to be specialized in public health or demography or some other relevant field in order to say that he's qualified to comment about a paper. It doesn't matter if he's an exec in a think tank, being an expert in one field does not automatically make you an expert in every field.
			::::::'''SO YES THEY ARE WHOLLY UNRELIABLE AS A SOURCE.''' ] (]) 19:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::No need to ], also see below. ] (]) 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Discussing a separate source can't possibly be considered repetition and the quote I sent was a reply to someone else, not you. That was never mentioned in this talk page, and they requested "that if edits are made to this page on the basis of article talk conversation that the article talk conversation in question be on this page", which was something I agreed with. ] (]) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I suggest you (or XdanielX) take this to RSN for an opinion, or failing that, start an RFC asking whether "Estimated at least 62,413 dead from starvation (refs)" should be in the infobox/article. ] (]) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Except, again, the DR letter is not the source. Concur with @] that a forbes contributor article is not a reliable source. ] (]) 18:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I didn't notice he was a contributor there, , different publisher, he is an exec at ], a think tank admittedly, but he is qualified to comment about the Costs of War project. In any case, that's just additional opinion sourcing. ] (]) 18:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::"Note: There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation, according to the October 2, 2024, “Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024 re: American physicians observations from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023." - It's on page 3 of the paper.
			::::::The DR letter is explicitly the source so, regardless of whether you believe the paper is a reliable source, the opinion is from the letter. ] (]) 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::RSN, RFC...repeating the discussion isn't going to resolve this. ] (]) 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:As i have already explained, ] of Brown University is unquestionably a highly reliable source, it is not our role here to make ] that criticizes any section of its publishing like the indirect deaths section, even the primary source (the letter) xDanielx and OriginalCola trying to dismiss on base of self-publishing is itself a ] because it is written by first-hand experts on the subject.
			:xDanielx (invalid) argument that the estimate is much higher than the last estimate is also invalid because the previous estimate is out-dated by this estimate by 2/3rds of an entire year.
			:There is 0 merits in any of these claims to discard a highly reliable academic source. ] (]) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Since the authors use novel methodology to arrive at a novel estimate, we're firmly in ] territory, and need to adhere to those rules rather than just the basic ] standards. Author expertise isn't sufficient for that, we need evidence of vetting by the scholarly community.
			::The timing difference is minor. One can adjust the 62k estimate for a different time period by looking at the on page 5. Even if we remove the entire June 16-September 30 time period (which is over-adjusting since the 41 figure was from July 8), the IPC-based methodology still would imply 44,022 starvations. That's still more than 1000x the number of recorded cases reported by Wafa and Al Jazeera. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Still disagree and {{tq\|If anything a discussion on WP:RS might be the best venue}} am waiting for you to do this. ] (]) 16:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I see that Originalcola has opened ] for you. ] (]) 16:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Once again, '''I didn't create that on anybody's behalf'''. I know that both @] and I have been arguing on the same side of this dispute, but I am not affiliated with that editor in any way. I'm asking you to please stop doing that. ] (]) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think you are reading too much into things I write. Stop doing that, please. ] (]) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Sure I'll start one on RS - ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::As I just said, Originalcola has opened a discussion already. ] (]) 16:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{u\|xDanielx}}, why did you delete the 62,413 number , but left 5,000? They are both from the same sources. ] (]) 22:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

			* Got here from AE. FWIW, this content does seem pretty dubious. Doesn't it seem like 60,000+ deaths ''from starvation'' over the course of a year would be getting coverage in mainstream international media? But all I'm finding there is starvation/malnutrition deaths in the dozens. And the point that numbers in an infobox look very much like Wikivoice is valid. I'd support removing from the infobox while discussing, and maybe an RfC, notifying appropriate projects/noticeboards. ] (]) 12:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Survey===
			*:I have created an RfC and will temporarily remove the estimate from the infobox until RfC concludes. ] (]) 21:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	* '''C''' This is an opinion article published in a university newspaper. For a topic as well covered as this, to include a statement like this in the first paragraph of the lede on the basis of a single such source is virtually the definition of ]. Further, the suggestion is to include the position expressed in the article in Wikivoice; the sourcing is clearly not strong enough to do this.{{pb
	~~}} It may be appropriate to include the claim in the body attributed in line, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it~~ in ~~the~~ ~~lede~~ in ~~Wikivoice.~~ ] (]) 02:56, 22 ~~June~~ 2024 (UTC)		*::What do you mean by "temporarily"? ] (]) 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::As in, "until the RfC concludes". It's been reverted anyway, and it was probably way too rash of me to do that so I'd say no harm no fowl. ] (]) 23:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@] I don't think smell-test will work very well here. I mean there's very few independent journalists on the ground, and very few medical volunteers, because so many have been shot or barred from entry. As such estimates is probably all we'll ever get barring some sort of future truth and reconciliation process. This then asks what the most credible sources for estimates are. I still contend this is one. I'd 100% support use ''with attribution'' though. ] (]) 20:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I have zero problem with using it with attribution, but that's not really workable in the infobox. Use it with attribution in the text. Leave it out of the infobox until we have actual RS. ] (]) 22:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I have also removed the lower number which used the same sources from infobox. ] (]) 14:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

			== RfC about starvation estimate ==
	* '''B''' or similar, as the statement appears to capture the reality well. Only update the source to: {{Cite web \|title=Israel's Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza \|url=https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/palestine \|access-date=2024-06-22 \|website=University Network for Human Rights \|language=en-US}}. — ] ] 06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{Closed rfc top\|result=There is a consensus to exclude the estimate from the infobox. Editors generally agreed that the statistic is too extraordinary to justify its inclusion on the basis of the sources available in an ], whose purpose is to summarize key facts and is a notoriously poor means of conveying anything requiring explanation. <small>(])</small> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	*:'''B''', but would be improved by using the source given by @] above. ] (]) 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	* '''C''' (generally per BM) the ~~source is undue~~, ~~and~~ ~~the~~ ~~claim~~ ~~should~~ be ~~made with attribution~~ in the ~~body.~~ ~~Both~~ ~~the BU piece (and the better actual scholarship) are~~ not ~~appropriate, least of all without attribution.~~ ] (]) 09:50, 22 ~~June~~ 2024 (UTC)		Should the 62,413 estimate for starvation deaths be included in the info box or not? ] (]) 21:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	*:Oh, and particularly A goes beyond what the source states in their own voice IMO, so that’s not great. ] (]) 09:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	*I don’t have a strong opinion on if this specifically should be in the lead, though we do need a summary of the academic discourse section. It does however absolutely belong in the body, and the attempts to claim that an academic expert discussing topics in the area of her expertise is somehow unreliable or undue are straightforward examples of disruptive editing. But does this specifically need to be in the lead? It isn’t the worst thing, it’s an expert giving an overview of the views of other experts. Something needs to be in there about the views of scholars on this topic. This isn’t the worst thing but again no strong opinion on this being the specific source for that summary. ''']''' - 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''B''' not because it is something that is only said in the source specifically named by OP but because that or something similar appears to be the prevailing view across relevant scholarship. See the sourcing given in ] that currently appears to have a consensus for amending the article title to ]. As for removing the specific material from the body as was done, that is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. ] (]) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	*A combination of '''A''' and '''B''': I agree with "A Socialist Trans Girl" below. ] (]) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C''' if this is the only source given (which is only a university newspaper, although nonetheless a secondary source summarizing the views of experts) per ], but likely '''A''' or '''B''' if other sources are added to support it in the body, like Selfstudier mentioned. I don't see A as going beyond what the source says, with the words {{tq\|many}} and {{tq\|consensus}} being closer to what the source says:{{talk quote\|The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.}} ] (] · ]) 18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:It isn’t the only source, see . ''']''' - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	*::Thanks, this appears to be a solid source. While it might look like a primary source at first glance, it does in fact give an overview of previous findings in pages 9 to 11, which could be a good secondary source for the statement. I'd '''support B''' if that source is added. ] (] · ]) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

			*'''No''' - it's an ] claim, since health officials reported 38 starvations for a similar time period. The 62,413 estimate would imply that health authorities undercounted by an absurd factor. That aside, the sources just don't pass ]. The closest we have is this , but it's written by an anthropologist and doesn't actually discuss whether the methodology is valid. It also appears to have no citations, and the ] that published it doesn't appear to do any of the vetting that ] requires. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Either of B or A'''. Neither the source is "merely a random opinion" nor the cited piece of information it provides is source’s own claim or opinion but rather a citation of the consensus in the international human rights legal community. The source is a report published by ] and "comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers", therefore the source is indeed reliable for the information it provides, indeed much more than newspapers articles. And the source doesn’t say or give its own opinion regarding the quoted information like saying "we believe there is a genocide" but rather reflects/cites what the international human rights legal community "there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.", it is not the source’s own opinion or judgement. Beside the fact that this isn’t the only reliable source stating so as per @] ] (]) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' per xDanielx. This wild and exaggeratory guesstimate comes nowhere close to passing muster. That said, the "38" count is surely also too low and shouldn't be in the infobox either, since no other body of work is backing it up (and it's too old to bother with, regarding an ongoing conflict of this magnitude; months might as well be decades when it comes to such coverage). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	*:But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a ] publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse.]] 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	*::Are you seriously arguing that ] is not a ] ? ] (]) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::It's not UNCHR, UNHR. ] (]) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::: Thanks, SS. It show the power of modern-day ] that a vaguely institutional-sounding name like UNHR so easily evokes parity with UNCHR AND miscast as a respected, ] global institution.]] 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Well it is kind of your mistake for making your own abbreviation and writing “UNHR” rather than “University Network
	*:::::for Human Rights” ] (]) 19:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Thanks for elaboration ] (]) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C''' This is a ] source, self-published by Akram's employer in a university newsletter. That publication is an appropriate place to inform BU stakeholders of matters relating to the school, but neither that publication nor the fancy-sournding name of Akram's advocacy/activism project can elevate her work to a significant NPOV assessment of the range of current thinking on the issue. We would need a ] publisher, prefereably peer-reviewed, to make a strong statement of a matter of current controversy and pending adjudication. The self-published opinion of a non-NOTABLE individual, however fine her commitment and advocacy, is UNDUE for the lead and should be replaced in the article body with better more reliable sources on the question. She. personally, is certainly not a secondary RS to evaluate the opinions of other observers. That should be clear to any WP editor. We need secondary RS publishers for that.
	:Further, whoever closes this -- please note that several !votes seems to say that, because her views seem OK therefore we can use defectively sourced content. Not so.]] 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC),
	::It is not self published and a second source has been provided and not a single vote says anything close to what you claim in your last couple of sentences. False on all counts actually. ''']''' - 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	::The RFC question is "How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?" and the answer is that it should be cited in support of a statement in Wikivoice (can as well be cited to https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza and not only to BU) along with multiple other supporting references saying a similar thing and about which bald assertions such as "self published" (it isn't) and "primary" (policy does not forbid primary source usage) play no part. Closer should refer to the RFCbefore discussion where it can be seen this editor and the RFC opener (who hasn't signed) both edited to suit a POV and when unable to persuade other editors, it led to this RFC. ] (]) 18:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC.]] 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::It’s a paper by the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good? ''']''' - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort.]] 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because ]. ] (]) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page.]] 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. ] (]) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::Love ya, SS, but you are not a RS either, so saying you think you could write an article doesn't advance the process. But my interest in this from the start has simply been from seeing this self-published opinion (we can call self-published PRIMARY to short-circuit further indignant deflections) being used as if it were an independent RS-published account of a survey of qualified world opinion and with no evidence that Akram is a scholar qualified to make such an assessment. I have no opinion as to the underlying issue and I have expressed none. I've consistently said that I expect that better, solid RS could be found to address this content. I don't anticipate what they might say, but it's a shame to see editors ignore core policy to grab a handy blurb out of a promotional university newsletter and elevate it with a word salad of recognizable institution names, and buzzwords. You appear to be knowledgeable in the field. Please find valid sourcing and notable qualified experts to address the question.]] 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Ive already shown you Akram's publications, the UNHR director is James Cavallaro, also a expert in the field of international law, the Cornell program is led by , who is, you guessed it, again a widely published expert in the field. You cant just say that the scholarship here isnt notable or noteworthy, what matters is that it is reliable, and it is reliable because of the people and institutions behind it. ''']''' - 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::This is, again, more equivocation, namedropping, and elevation of a non-notable author's self-published (PRIMARY) opinion, broadcast in a Univeristy house organ circulated to its stakeholders. There are many stronger sources and there are scholars whose views should be prioritized above those of an activist/advocate. Her worki stands on its own, but she is not a scholar and her opinions are not of such note that this encuclopedia should rebroadcast them when the mainstream media and peer reviewed publications or RS journals have not done so. That is our responsibility on this project. We don't simply publish the opinions of people whose work or opinions we may admire.]] 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::Susan Akram, as a simple Google search says, is a law professor and director of the rights clinic at Boston University School of Law teaching international human rights, and refugee and immigration law. That apart I have edited a bit in the article to make things clearer, there is literally no basis for objecting to the sources, neither her expert opinion nor the UHRU report itself.
	:::::::::No-one is really disputing that Akram alone should be in the lead so this entire RFC and this dialogue are just one oversized straw man designed to throw shade on the idea that Israel may be guilty of genocide.
	:::::::::What y'all need to do, instead of shooting the messengers, is accumulate a sufficient number of RS specifying that Israel is '''not''' committing a genocide in order to constitute a significant view in that regard as counterpoint to the already demonstrated significant view that Israel '''is''' committing a genocide. ] (]) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I have no opinion as to the allegation. Now, I see you've changed the article content before the resolution of this ongoing RfC. It's now quoting ''multiple'' self-published, primary sources, again highlighting non-NOTABLE Ms. Akram without independent RS indicating any WEIGHT for her conclusions. If your googling found mainstream RS citations to establish the NOTABILITY of Akram such as might justify these primary sourced opinions, pleaase provide them in lieu of the various ad hominem attacks and deflections. I am focused only on policy and sourcing and there's no basis for any claim that I am trying to do what various supporters of Ms. Akram have stated they're doing here - pushing article content because I wish to support a personal opinion.]] 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Happy to discuss that at RSN anytime but since it is not going into the lead anyway, it has nothing to do with this RFC. I have changed the article content but I have not changed anything in the lead, which is what this RFC purports to be about. ] (]) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Even if it were self-published, which it is not, it would clearly pass ]. {{xt\|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} ''']''' - 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''B''' Selfstudier's reasoning pretty much sums it up. ] (]) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C''' or an attributed statement. Interpreting consensus on a highly contentious topic across multiple (academic, legal and political) communities is a messy and somewhat subjective matter. While Akram is an expert, there isn't enough clarity and objectivity here to take a single expert's interpretation of consensus as established fact, and repeat it in wikivoice. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''B''' although I would prefer if a stronger source could be found to summarize opinion, it is a good summary of other sources that otherwise may be impossible to extract without WP:OR. (] · ]) ''']''' 03:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''B:''' This statement is already more than supported by the aggregation of sources on the page. The discussed source, alongside the UNHR, merely helps provide a more sourced basis for the summary wording, which is beneficial. ] (]) 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C''' Do not include, or only as an attributed statement. As per BilledMammal, xDanielx and FortunateSons. I would also add that when a person, even an expert, claims that the consensus agrees with his view, as is the case with Susan Akram, it is a somewhat doubtful testimony as it is self-serving. It is different when a person admits that his view contradicts the consensus because then the testimony is not self-serving. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
	'''Combination.''' I think it should be {{xt\|The international human rights legal community, ''many'' political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have ''concluded'' that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.}}. I believe it should be ''many'' political and legal experts, as it's more accurate than 'several' and is consistent with how Misplaced Pages frames things; if it was not many enough to be ''many'' and merely ''several'', then it'd probably be WP:UNDUE. And I think the ''concluded'' phrasing is better, as consensus implies they as a whole have consensus, not phrasing limited to the ones that do. I also support the phrasing of {{xt\|"The international human rights legal community, political and legal experts, and Holocaust scholars<s>,</s> all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip."}}. <s>There should be a comma before "all have consensus"</s>. ] ] 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
	:I support these suggested modifications. ] (]) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
	:The removal of the vague "many" and "several" would be no loss. ] (]) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
	::Good point. Agreed. ] (]) 16:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C''' and ]. Do not include. ] (]) 06:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C''' per SPECIFICO's reasonign. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, our sources should be ironclad. ] (]) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
	*:The sources are ironclad. SPECIFICO's reasoning makes a mockery of ] which places established academic experts near the top of our reliability pyramid. ''']''' - 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
	*::Nableezy, please review the ] section of our RS page to see your error explained more thoroughly. There are numerous PRIMARY and self-published sources, including blog opinions of grad students, where independent RS publications are required.]] 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Can you please tell us what self-published means? ''']''' - 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
	*::I'm aware of your continued opinion on this subject. That was mine. ] (]) 09:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
	*:::This whole RFC is completely academic after the rename, the lead will in effect explain how the title fits into the scope and the particular ref subject of this RFC is just one of several that will allow a statement in wikivoice. ] (]) 11:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
	*::::I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China. I expressed my opinion that I agreed with SPECIFICO's reasoning on this particular issue. The closer is free to take my opinion into consideration with the weight they feel is appropriate.
	*::::I do want to congratulate you and Nableezy on your apparent promotions to ]. For future reference, what is the proper procedure for me to follow when expressing future opinions? Do I have to ask for permission from one or both of you to express an opinion or do I need specific pre-clearance for the exact opinion that will be expressed? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
	*] '''Comment''' – {{ping\|A Socialist Trans Girl}} I'm pretty sure that the comma before ''all'' is not grammatically correct. ''']''' <span style="color:#096450">(''''']''''' ★ ''''']''''' ★ ''''']''''')</span> 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
	*:@] I believe you are correct. Apologies. ] ] 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
	*'''A and B''' per A Socialist Trans Girl (and Iskandar's tweaks). Combining both sentences seems appropiate given the recent article name/scope change and it's a proper summary of other sources in the body. Disagree with the UNDUE arguments - experts opinions are absolutely due and as shown by nableezy this has also been covered by secondary sources. - ] (]) 01:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
	*We absolutely need some statement summarizing academic discourse, hence I strongly '''oppose option C''' as a violation of ]. The article currently has an entire section on "Academic and legal discourse", "Cultural discourse" and academic opinions are throughout the article. Unless such academic opinions are being given UNDUE weight in the body (and there is no evidence of that), we need to summarize them somehow in the lead too.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
	*'''B (or A)''': I think B is worded better but A is similar enough I'd take either of them. I do think that there's very much sufficient sourcing for this statement, though of course it should also be present in the body. ] (]) 21:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
	*'''B (or A)''': Agree with both LokiTheLiar and SelfStudier ] (]) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C'''. Too weak of a source for the lede; it's an opinion piece in a university paper by an author who usually covers wine trail and honeymoon destinations. ] (]) 16:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	*'''C''' giving ] weight to the opinion of some non-notable person. ] (]) 09:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	*'''A''' or '''B''', both are accurate. --] (]) 07:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
	*I personally find the BU source to be exceedingly weak. On top of being a student newspaper, it's a primary source and not an independent source (as it's an interview from the university's own publication). The best it could be used for, under policy for non-independent sources, is a qualified statement of the interviewee's views. ~ ] (] • ]) 05:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
	*:No, even if Akram wrote this on her blog as an expert on the topic it could be used for a statement of fact. ''']''' - 11:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

			*'''No''' because it is not being widely reported by other secondary sources. In addition, estimates can be off and variable. For example in the ] infobox, the Misplaced Pages editors just reported the starvation deaths count from one news source, but estimates published vary from “” to (briefly mentioned by Time and reported by MEE ) ] (]) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Discussion===
	* It may need clarifying that a mention of the Stanford report has already been included in the article, and what the RfC aims to achieve is a better wording. The current suboptimal wording will likely remain if there's no consensus. Editors are welcome to propose further wording options for this RfC. — ] ] 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	* Given it's an opinion, why is there no option for attribution per ]? Ie, "According to the University Network for Human Rights", per the content in the body. Either way, have to agree with others that it doesn't seem due in the lead, unless covered by other reliable sources; the proposed sentences are just a regurgitation of of the body, not a summary of it. A lead summary would be something like "Certain scholars, A, B to C, consider it a genocide, due to..., disputed by X, Y and Z, because of...". As far as I can tell nothing in the "Academic and legal discourse" has been summarised in the lead, despite numerous paragraphs of content. It's better to work on summarising the content for the lead per ], rather than trying to pick out one particular report. ] (]) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:With better sourcing, I'd be willing to support. Or re-wording to satisfy a bundle of sources. ] (]) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:Thus far, we have no evidence that "UNHR" is a significant organization or that its title should be used to elevate one person's primary-sourced opinion.]] 08:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

			*'''No'''- My opinion is the same as xDanielx for rationale behind disputing paper. The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source (being self-published and non-independent) for such an extraordinary claim. I felt like an estimate shouldn’t be included in the infobox unless its reliability is very strong, and this clearly isn't it. The MJ article adds no analysis or commentary, so it fails to be more than churnalism restating the paper. ] (]) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Edit request ==
			*'''No'''. A PDF not published in an academic journal doesn't meet ]. Because there's no peer review, the letter and document cited for the death toll should be treated as ]s. Since the claim isn't supported by reliable sources, it shouldn't be in the infobox stated as fact. The MJ article, at best, would make this estimate ] with attribution in the body, not in the main infobox with WikiVoice. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{moved from\|] ] (]) 21:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)}}
	{{edit extended-protected\|Gaza genocide\|answered=yes}}

			*'''No''' this number is at best extraordinary and at worst implausible, and the sourcing is not even close to strong enough for sucha claim, per the arguments above.:] (]) 10:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	I would like to request that under the ‘Victims’ subheading Mike Spagat is properly introduced with relevant qualifications. His name is brought up in the 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence beginning with “Spagat analysed…” as a source but he has not been introduced (i am assuming he was introduced in a previous paragraph or sentence that has since been deleted).
	] (]) 19:11, 8 ~~August~~ 2024 (UTC)		*'''Yes but attributed''' We should make it clear it's an estimate but the other arguments for exclusion are non-persuasive. ] (]) 14:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:It seems hard to explain the source of this estimate (a joint letter from American physicians and nurses who had been operating in Gaza) without the content becoming too large for the infobox format.
			*:If we did include it, we should also include the 38 figure from health officials, and let the reader decide what to make of the massive difference. Omitting that information would seem like a major NPOV issue. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No, but can be later in the article with attribution''' It is just not good enough for the lead. It is in the right ballpark as far as I can see for the 'natural' deaths from disease, lack of medicine, destroyed hospitals etc rather than those directly killed, but this document just has a ? for all those and says almost of these died from famine! ] (]) 16:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' Available excess death projections do not include estimates for malnutrition/starvation because the aid restrictions leading to famine like conditions were not present when those studies were done, this newer study must be viewed as a first attempt at estimating excess deaths from this cause. I consider the report to be RS, but because it is the only such report so far, we should refrain from stating/implying it as a fact until additional RS become available. ] (]) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:That's why I support attribution and clarification it's an estimate. We shouldn't be stating these are the death toll ''in wiki voice'' but we should include the estimate. ] (]) 17:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes''' but with attribution ''']]''' 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''No'''. I originally found the report (due to Glenn Greenwald mentioning it in his YouTube channel, if I remember correctly), but despite really wanting the mass-killing of children to end, and also agreeing about that given the systematic killings of doctors and other healthcare workers, this deliberately makes it very hard to count the number of victims, after reading all of the arguments from both Misplaced Pages administrators and regular experienced members, I agree with Selfstudier about that it is likely not sufficiently verifiable information to state as a properly encyclopaedic infobox fact. It would feel intellectually dishonest for me to claim otherwise. I definitely think that we should add estimated death tolls from diseases and starvation to the infoboxes, both here and the main Israel-Hamas War article, if we find something more reliable and official though. ] (]) 19:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			*:Never mind. I abstain from my vote, as I also in good conscience do not want to do anything that might contribute to more innocent people being killed due to the full horror of the situation being officially severely understated. ] (]) 06:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - as stated above, it's an ] claim. Putting nonsense in the Infobox is extremely misleading, which I thought Misplaced Pages is supposed to avoid. However, the entire premise of the article is misleading, so what's a little starvation compared to a whole genocide? ] (]) 20:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Starving isn't quite the same as deaths from famine. The number of 'natural' deaths as they call them due to the war is about the same as the number of their 'martyrs' killed directly, and the main reason they die is because they are not recovering from illnesses or injury as they normally would because they do not have enough food. It is not just 'a little starvation'. Plus if the current business of supplies not going in continues it could go into full blown famine extremely quickly. ] (]) 22:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Also, at this point there is even a 297 page report from Amnesty filled with evidence for that this is an actual blatantly obvious genocide/ethnic cleansing. Incredulity is not a valid counterpoint to that. ] (]) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::<s>I agree there is a terrible war going on. And I have no doubt Amnesty has put together a book chronicling just how terrible this war is, substituting the word genocide for war, just as the word militant is a substitute for terrorist. This war would end immediately if Hamas released the hostages and surrendered. Israel did not start this war, and it is not committing genocide, no matter how long Amnesty's report might be. If there was a genocide going on, and a famine about to break out, why doesn't Egypt allow the civilians to come in where they can be protected and fed? If it were really a genocide, Israel would chase the Palestinians into Egypt to kill them, no? But no one believes that, do they? The premise of this entire article, and many others on Misplaced Pages, has ruined the trustworthiness and usefulness of this experiment in crowd sourcing and democratizing knowledge. It has proven an utter, and dangerous failure. It reminds one of ]'s ], where black is white and 2+2=5. ] (]) 19:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			::::If I must choose between a random person on the internet and Amnesty International, that's not really a contest, sorry. ] (]) 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm sorry but an individual editor's personal opinion regarding an assumed methodology by Amnesty International is not something we should entertain for editorial decisions. I will say this: unless the Amnesty report includes estimates for deaths by starvation it's not apropos to this discussion although it is certainly apropos this overall topic. I would caution @] to respect ] but I would also suggest @] raise the Amnesty report in threads where it is planned as a citation. ] (]) 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The Euro-Med estimate of about 51,000 'natural' deaths by late June is what I find reasonable and they have people on the ground, they didn'ty give an error estimate but it is probably quite wide. I haven't discussed the Amnesty report. <s>Expecting Egypt to assist Israel with clearing Gaza of its population is to expect it to help with genocide. If anyone should be looking after the civilians it is Israel by providing safe spaces in Israel, they would be perfectly withn their rights to search them before admitting them into camps. The civilians in Gaza are not Hamas they have just as much right to life as the people in Israel.</s> ] (]) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I think that it would be useful if you add the Euro-Med estimate instead in that case, especially if they have far more recent updated numbers available. It has been almost half a year since then after all. ] (]) 05:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::That report was . The last hospital in Northern Gaza was destroyed a week ago so I don't expect we'll get any good figures from there. And with the Israeli soldiers letting aid lorries be openly looted by gangs in front of them but shooting any police I don't suppose there is much hope for the people there. thinks it likely the Netanyahu coalition will continue in power till 2026 and Trump will support them like Biden has and Israel will be able to complete the removal of Palestinians from the occupied territories and Europe will eventually support America in recognizing the territory as Israels. ] (]) 10:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Is this actually relevant to the RfC? ] <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 17:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I was asked where I got the 51,000 from and I believe this RfC is about the starvation figures. The second cite has references to a few different estimates for the deaths at the very beginning including that one and its conclusion section calls the whole business in Gaza genocide. It also has cites which are about genocide. ] (]) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Well, we definitely do need good estimates for victims of starvation and preventable diseases, but the source that I found earlier was very unfortunately likely not sufficiently reliable. ] (]) 07:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' per ]. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' per Selfstudier. This is an extraordinary claim so needs exceptionally good sourcing. I don't think we need scholarship standard peer reviewed sourcing for an on-going situation, but for something so at odds with other reports we can't put this in an infobox. It looks like consensus is against inclusion, but if that changes I think it'd be essential it's clearly labelled something like "estimate per Gaza Healthcare Letters and placed next to the reported number (currently 38). In general, the Costs of War project might be considered reliable enough to mention in the body with attribution because they're based at a university, but I find them very un-impressive. Their report, authored by an assistant professor in Anthropology, says that "There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation", citing a source (the doctors' letter) that clearly doesn't say that but rather says that this is an estimate. Having looked at their earlier reports on Syria and Iraq, their methodology seems to be to try to find the highest number in the public sphere and simplify it into meaninglessness. If we mention the doctors' letter in the body, we need to give their methodology, which is to extrapolate deaths by the number of people estimated to be experiencing famine, per a very rough formula developed by the ]. ] (]) 14:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Closed rfc bottom}}

			== Infobox ==
	:{{Done}}: Done. Reason: Obvious correction per standard styles. -- ] (]) 21:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

			This article is about allegations and arguments about whether Israel's attacks on Gaza since 10/7/23 can be called a genocide. The infobox is about a genocide—so it corresponds to a topic different from its article, and it non-neutrally takes a side in the dispute described in the article. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Academic dissent ==

			:Would you like the infobox to be changed or removed? By dispute, do you mean ]? ] ] 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	Question: which, if any, major remaining scholars of genocide are still maintaining a dissenting or hold-out opinion on the genocide? Neier, Bartov, Goldberg and Schabas have now all come to a conclusion of genocide – several after the events of May – so who does that leave as undecided, non-committal or in outright dissent? Again, talking major scholars of genocide here, not the average Joe. ] (]) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, the article is about accusations and arguments, not a genocide. I'd say the infobox should be removed, since it does not correspond to the article topic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 00:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::One of the arguments includes deaths and injuries and other things mentioned in the infobox. Things like death toll is also mentioned in secondary sources . I don't think your suggestion has any basis in ]. ] (]) 16:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Unless the infobox is naming the death toll of the accusation(s), it does not correspond to the article's topic. From ]: {{tq\|An infobox ... summarizes key facts about the page's subject.}} <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The article ] includes the title as well as the first sentence(s). Idk what {{tq\|naming the death toll}} means, all of those killed in Gaza (at a minimum) are subject of the Genocide accusation. ] (]) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::No, Israel is subject of the genocide accusation. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes, Israel is subject to genocide accusations. Which is why the genocide infobox is appropriate on this page. ] (]) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::How? Genocide accusations are not a genocide. The infobox and article describe completely different phenomena. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I get that you just want to ignore the scope but that's not going to fly. This is just a variant on discussions we have had already. ] (]) 21:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I don’t know what you mean about ignoring the scope, but please don’t uncharitably read my intentions. How is the alleged genocide itself in the scope of this article? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 21:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tq\|but please don’t uncharitably read my intentions}} End of conversation, bfn. ] (]) 23:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Selfstudier has announced his departure! All others are encouraged to fill the Selfstudier-shaped hole in the discussion. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 00:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Looking at the infobox it directly includes Genocide under Attack Type. There's also the inclusion of a victims section separate to injured or dead, which includes buildings and homes despite it not being mentioned outside the infobox and lead. It also lists multiple sources that don't actually allege that these actions constitute part of a genocide(eg.]) , which is odd considering that there are probably sources that can be found that do so.
			:::::::::::::I think it needs to be trimmed down a lot because, as of now, it's bloated and contains way too much info. ] (]) 03:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			Not sure about removing the infobox, I think we should just change the title back to the more appropriately qualified {{tq\|Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza}} as it was before. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	:This is just a list of prominent (living) scholars in genocide studies who I've come across in reading genocide scholarship more broadly, beyond the 4 you mentioned:
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:{{strikethrough\|# ]}} – dead
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# Shmuel Lederman
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# ]
	:# Ernesto Verdeja
	:I will note, for Katz, there's a near 0 chance he will declare this a genocide, as he holds the position that throughout history there has only been one true genocide, the Holocaust. -- ] (]) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
	::Strange position, and certainly fringe. Out of curiosity -are you saying that Timothy Snyder disputes the genocide allegation? I am familiar with Snyder from the media (listened to one or two of his lectures), but was not aware he weighed in on this. ] (]) 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::Their positions are not specified afaics (other than Katz), which was not what Iskandar was asking for. How are we deciding "prominent" anyway? ] (]) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::That's what I thought. I can't find any significant scholarly pushback against the genocide position. Most searches seem very one-sided. ] (]) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::As I stated this is simply a list of prominent scholars I have come across, that is, they have written multiple books and papers covering the topic of genocide, and in near all cases across different genocides. Out of the list multiple of them have provided comments/assessments (such as Bauer, Berenbaum, Charny, Jones, Kiernan, Lederman, Levene, Segal, Üngör, Verdeja), mainly calling it a genocide, some claiming it isn't. -- ] (]) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::The request was specifically for dissent from what appears to be a consensus (ie that the IDF is either engaged in genocide or war crimes approaching that), not some random list of genocide scholars. ] (]) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I think Cdjp1 partly answered y’alls question when he commented on Katz. ] (]) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Ok, here’s the opinions with this list
	::::::::# ] – Signed the warning of potential genocide
	::::::::# ] – Signed the warning of potential genocide
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ] – Not Genocide
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ] – Not Genocide
	::::::::# ] – Not Genocide
	::::::::{{strikethrough\|# ]}} – dead
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ] – Not Genocide
	::::::::# Shmuel Lederman – "Genocidal violence, not Genocide per se"
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ] – This is what I could find from Moses on Gaza:
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ]
	::::::::# ] – Genocide
	::::::::# Ernesto Verdeja – (from November)
	::::::::-- ] (]) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::Thank you for putting this list together. If anybody is interested in splitting the list up and running down the missing ones, I'd be happy to chip in. ] (]) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::Re Samuel Totten, see Doesn't quite say it outright, pretty sure he's thinking it, tho. ] (]) 17:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::While we could quote the article, we can't make any assessment for what he's "thinking" behind the article. -- ] (]) 09:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Of course, I do notice however that those against tend to say so directly. ] (]) 09:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::One issue I've had with some experts who have said it is not genocide, is they specify not genocide per the UN convention, which is a different framework to what they normally employ in their work. But that is just the musings of one random editor.
	:::::::::::::For numbers, as per the list:
	:::::::::::::* Genocide = 9
	:::::::::::::* Not Genocide = 4
	:::::::::::::* Risk of genocide = 3
	:::::::::::::* Genocidal violence = 1
	:::::::::::::* Moses and Totten = 2
	:::::::::::::* No statement = 9
	:::::::::::::As is repeated across almost every discussion here, things change over time, so in the future I expect we may see comments from some of the others on the list, and we will see more academic work analysing Gaza as a case/potential case of genocide, from all different positions. -- ] (]) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::One issue I have with your list is it seems tilted towards historians as opposed to international law experts. Some of them like Bauer and Michael Berenbaum are really only known for studying the Holocaust, so I doubt they can be considered experts on genocide in general. The only expert on ] on your list is Schabas. (] · ]) ''']''' 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::As stated, this is a list of genocide scholars, that is those who have regularly published in the field of genocide studies, which stemmed primarily from the discipline of history, so having a over-representation of those who were trained as historians is not surprising. Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition both in it's ability to prosecute the crime of genocide, as well as a tool of analysis for determining cases of genocide. For a wider net of specialists and experts from a variety of fields see: ] -- ] (]) 14:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::: Addendum, on {{tqq\|Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition}}, you can see an example in the quote from Moses in the list above. -- ] (]) 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::Dadrian has been dead for several years so he won't be producing any opinion. (] · ]) ''']''' 05:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::Oops, Missed that, I'll strike it. -- ] (]) 09:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::Should we add and ]? ] (]) 01:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::@] while I do like their work in regards to the genocide, as that is not their primary training or work, I excluded them due to being peripheral contributors. ] (]) 07:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::@]: I disagree, particularly on Short. He's authored or co-authored a number of books and papersthat have each received hundreds of Google Scholar cites, e.g. "Redefining genocide: Settler colonialism, social death and ecocide" (254 cites). Compare with , or , all of whom are on the list.
	:::::::::::John Docker's work isn't as widely-cited as Short's, but still, Docker has publications in the field that are very much on point, e.g. the chapter he co-authored, "Chapter 1: Defining genocide" (93 cites) in Dan Stone's book ''The Historiography of Genocide'' (aside from Stone, the other authors of that book are familiar: Moses, Bergen, Jones, Kiernan, Straus, etc.; Docker's in good company there). Other examples: his book ''The Origins of Violence: History, Religion and Genocide'' (83 cites); "Genocide: Definitions, Questions, Settler-colonies" (66); "Raphael Lemkin's history of genocide and colonialism" (64); "Nakba memoricide: genocide studies and the Zionist/Israeli genocide of Palestine" (46). .
	:::::::::::I know GScholar cites aren't the end-all and be-all, but it seems based on "how widely cited?" that Short and Docker are no more peripheral than Verdeja, Lederman, or Üngör (and Short in particular seems significantly less peripheral than the other four). ] (]) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Add him to the list. I was just providing my reasoning, which as I mentioned right near the beginning is based from what I've read within Genocide Studies, so hadn't checked things like the relative stats on GS, or similar databases. -- ] (]) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
	::+], ], and ]. (I assume we're not including the Holocaust specialists like ] and ]?) ] (]) 04:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

			:Spinning up for ] -- ] (]) 19:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Lead sentence==
			::I'm not proposing a title change. While it would be unusual for an infobox title to diverge from the article title, we're already in unusual territory with a title that diverges from the actual scope (as reflected in the first sentence). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have improved the ] with the page title.
			:::] is title + first sentence(s) so no contradiction there.{{tq\|The title together with the lead section (ideally, the introductory sentence or at least the introductory paragraph) of an article should make clear what the scope of the article is.}} ] (]) 22:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	"{{xt\|The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. ... the page title should be the subject of the first sentence..}}"
	~~The~~ ~~previous~~ ~~version~~ ~~did~~ ~~not~~ ~~introduce~~ or ~~summarize~~ ~~the~~ ~~topic~~ ~~and~~ ~~was~~ ~~confusing~~ to ~~readers~~. ] (]) 19:17, 17 ~~August~~ 2024 (UTC)		:Since sourcing since the last round has only served to demonstrate an increasing consensus among the experts, that can't go anywhere. ] (]) 19:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:That’s just not happening. But you just reminded me that ] was used by some Move voters to argue for this new title. I’m sure if we had an infobox for the transgender genocide on that article we’d see the issue? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 19:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I reverted it. First, if you're going to change it to say in Wikivoice that Israel is engaged in an extermination campaign, you obviously need to get consensus on the talk page first before making such a significant change. Secondly, if you're going to do that, use an accurate edit summary/talk page post. ] (]) 19:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	::'''There is already a consensus that Israeli occupation forces are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza'''. Only Zionist religious fanatics and ultra-nationalists deny that a genocide is occurring. Over a month ago, the page title was moved from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" to "Gaza genocide" by '''consensus'''.
	::At the wikipedia pages about all other genocides, the ] in the lead introduces the page topic.
	::What you have done , is a ] in the lead sentence with a deceptive edit summary. There was no "POV change" as you claimed. ] (]) 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::I don’t really think “extermination campaign” should be used in th sentence because there is something called ]. This article is about genocide accusations not extermination. the article title did leave out the accusations part which is causing confusion. At least one scholar who disagreed with the genocide label said it could be ], not the legal definition of genocide. There are also other non legal genocide definitions which makes it even more confusing what the article scope is about. Anyways, extermination and genocide are basically the same thing, except according to law extermination doesn’t require intent. ] (]) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::The article scope is not confusing, the title is valid because it is used a lot in sources and then there is the accusation in court, and while it is possible to assess a genocide without a court decision, such a decision has not as yet been made, which does not mean that the article should be titled Gaza genocide (decision pending)). ] (]) 09:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::The reason I said it was confusing is because I see other editors posting comments and questions about it in at least three threads:
	:::::]
	:::::]
	:::::]. It may not be confusing to you, but it does appear to be confusing to readers sometimes. ] (]) 14:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Uh huh, except that the confusion seems to be more along the lines of don't like the title, rather than trying to understand the ]. ] (]) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Your comment on July 4 was
	:::::::: Yea, people are assuming the title = fact, which of course, it doesn't. ] (]) ]
	:::::::] (]) 15:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Yep, about the size of it. ] (]) 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::It seems to be two groups of people based on the comments in the talk page. The first group thinks the article is about allegations/accusations and they are wanting the title to reflect the allegations/accusations portion. The second group are people who do not think it’s accusations/allegations, and they want to change the scope of the article to reflect the current title and define Israel as committing genocide. It seems the second group is more confused or wanting to change the article scope rather than the first group wanting to make the article title more precise to clearly reflect the current scope ] (]) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::If that's the case, then they cancel each other out and should just leave it the way it is. Maybe we should put a hidden note in the text explaining title/scope but I would wait for MR to conclude first. ] (]) 18:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::] I sense a new move request coming up. ] (]) 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::Well, there's also a group of editors, me included, who have observed the terms ''Gaza genocide'', ''Genocide in Gaza'', and similar being widely used in multiple reliable sources and who thus believe that the term merits a Misplaced Pages entry (without prejudice to future legal determination, etc.). — ] ] 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::MR has now been concluded and the move endorsed. ] (]) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{od}}
	:::I propose the folllowing statement to be inserted as the ] of the page:
	:::QUOTE
	:::{{talkquote\|"'''Gaza genocide''' refers to the ongoing extermination campaign carried out by the ] against the ] during ] and ] amid the ]."}}
	:::END QUOTE ] (]) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::And no one here is going to agree. There is no consensus whatsoever for this. --]] 02:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::Can't state that as a fact and an opinion (or even several of them) would not be due for the lead. ] (]) 10:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

			== Remove ICC from article? ==
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 ==

			Considering that genocide hasn't actually been alleged for the warrants, I believe this part of the article to be ] (and arguably synth, with the exception of the Just Security article, which is probably just undue). I have removed those sections and am starting this discussion in the spirit of ]. ] (]) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{Edit extended-protected\|Gaza genocide\|answered=yes}}

	{{multiple image\|perrow = 2\|total_width=300
			:@] the more limited addition is good, thank you. However, the Amnesty additon to the lead is undue IMO, as I don't see the significance for it being placed in this part of the lead, compared to other organisations. Could you elaborate why you think that is? ] (]) 10:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| image1 = Damage_in_Gaza_Strip_during_the_October_2023_-_01_(cropped).jpg
			::Would have thought that was obvious, it's Amnesty not just any old NGO, for example:
	\| image2 = Fars_Photo_of_Casualties_in_Gaza_Strip_during_2023_War_05.jpg
			:: "They’re part of a growing list of genocide scholars and international law experts now using that word to describe Israel's actions. And while Amnesty International was the first nongovernmental organization to call it genocide, other groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Israeli group B’tselem have meticulously documented the country’s alleged war crimes, including using starvation as a weapon of war, committing torture and sodomy in Israeli prisons, deliberate attacks on civilians, among other charges."
	\| image3 = Fars Photo of Casualties in Gaza Strip during 2023 War 03.jpg
			:: "the first of its kind by a major human rights organization" ] (]) 10:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| image4 = Dead infant in Kamal Adwan Hospital 28 june 2024.jpg
			:::Of course, I'm just not sure whether or not Amnesty has a unique rank compared to HRW et al, meaning that we will either end up with a list or later removal if they should join the claim. It just seems like a case of recency bias to me, better suited to the body (or a lower part of the lead, if you want to change the structure). ] (]) 10:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| image5 = Death of Mohammed Assaf due to starvation 1.jpg
			::::I am still checking if other ngos have called it genocide or whether Amnesty is the only one of the majors. If the other principal NGOs get on board later on, then we can change it to "major ngoss" or something of that sort, there are many ngos so just saying ngos is not particularly informative. Recent or not, it is significant. ] (]) 11:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| image6 = Al-Tabieen school massacre 05.jpg
			:::::I think just keeping it as is was would be better, but this is okay ] (]) 12:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| footer_align = center
			::::::Afaics, besides Amnesty, only the ] (FIDE) has called it a genocide, they are a federation of hros and ngos, so I tweaked it a little. ] (]) 13:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| footer = '''Clockwise from top left:''' {{flatlist\|
			:::::@], are you aware of the new HRW ?It’s your edit, so do you mind switching that to this now, based on the HRW statement? I think either “major rights organisations” or “major NGOs” work here ] (]) 07:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip
			::::::Let's wait a bit for the RS to settle down, glancing through the reports so far, HRW has not quite actually just called the whole thing a genocide but has said that an act of genocide was committed (assume Article II of convention but focused on water deprivation) and then separately of crime of humanity of extermination (what Dief was accused of by the ICC but not Netanyahu/Gallant).
	* A man carries the body of a Palestinian child killed by the shelling
			::::::The CNN report says "HRW says Israel’s actions amount to acts of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)" which is of interest as it links the ICC directly but it doesn't tie Amnesty and HRW together specifically. What I am looking for is RS saying something like major hr orgs/ngo or similar have ...., have you seen any such? ] (]) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Dead infant in Kamal Adwan Hospital
			:::::::Agreed on the content, HRW is significantly more measured.
	* Bags filled with body parts of Palestinians killed by rocket strikes in Al-Tabaeen school
			:::::::Not perfect, but Spiegel , Guardian and FT mention them in context of each other? ] (]) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Child dead due to starvation
			:::::::Got JPost , this should work? ] (]) 11:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Palestinian body parts in plastic bags
			::::::::That's , not quite, that's talking about the use of the word genocide for both but then specifies Amnesty separately (which is I think actually an accurate way of expressing it). ] (]) 11:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	}}
			::::::::Now we have saying "The rights group was the latest among a growing number of critics to accuse Israel of genocidal acts in its war in Gaza", that seems like another useful statement.
	}}
			::::::::"Genocidal acts" rather than "genocide" may be a way around the conundrum but I also think we now have enough rs for "a growing number" or some such. Let's do the body first and then see. ] (]) 11:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sounds reasonable, thanks ] (]) 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			I'd say Amnesty International is due in the lead, per NYT source. Its report is also a ]. It's good to have secondary sources in the lead.

			Description of Amnesty International from in Amnesty International entry: {{tq\| Widely respected, and awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1977, its monitoring of human rights issues through Amnesty International Reports has provided information widely used by policy makers and political scientists.}} ] (]) 16:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Of course the amnesty report should be in the lede. ] (]) 20:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Revert re weaponization of antisemitism ==

			{{Re\|Bobfrombrockley}} Time ref says "That’s woefully misguided—and dangerous. Indeed, the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza, which has left at least 35,000 Palestinians dead in the in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, wounded tens of thousands more, and forcibly displaced nearly 2 million Palestinians who now face famine conditions. The conditions in Gaza are such that many scholars have said that the situation amounts to a genocide. Ultimately, the weaponization of antisemitism intensifies the discrimination and exclusion against vulnerable communities in the U.S.—including Jews." ?

			Kindly self revert. ] (]) 23:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			:The preceding sentence is "As Gaza solidarity encampments take root at dozens of campuses across the U.S., many Democratic and Republican lawmakers—in addition to President Joe Biden—have accused protestors and colleges of rampant antisemitism." Segal does not call the genocide allegation antisemitic. ] (]) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Sorry, I mean Segal does not say the lawmakers who make the antisemitism allegation call the genocide allegation antisemitic. His point is about anti-Israel protest in general being called antisemitic, not about the genocide allegation being called that. ] (]) 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Pardon? "Indeed, the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza, which has left at least 35,000 Palestinians dead in the in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, wounded tens of thousands more, and forcibly displaced nearly 2 million Palestinians who now face famine conditions. The conditions in Gaza are such that many scholars have said that the situation amounts to a genocide."
			:::How can this be read as anything other other than what was in the article before your revert? Viz, " While Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic others argue that this is a weaponization of antisemitism, intended to shield Israel from such allegations.
			:::I will rearrange things so that a) the weaponization assertions are in the body and b) There is an appropriate summary in the lead. ] (]) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Segal says blanket accusations of antisemitism in general are shields for criticism of genocide. He doesn’t say the use of the term genocide is called antisemitic. ] (]) 08:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:By the way, I really don't think this belongs in the lead at all. It's not in the body. Segal would be a strong source if he said this, but our other sources are weak.
			:I would move it to the body, but I'm not sure which section it fits in. ] (]) 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This passage doesn't explicitly state that "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemetic" and, perhaps more importantly, there actually isn't a section or any content on the "weaponization of antisemitism" outside the lead. ] (]) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Both versions of the sentence try to give some kind of balance between the two arguments but there isn't any sort of pro-Israeli argument included in the article,(not arguing for inclusion of this either way) which makes the inclusion of this sentence in the lead look odd. ] (]) 03:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Replied above already. ] (]) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Fair, but it shouldn't be included in the lead until it's included in the main body of the article. ] (]) 03:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This report has something which might be relevant 'David Mencer, an Israeli government spokesman, has told Sky News that Amnesty's claim of genocide against Israel is "a classic example of antisemitism" and "Holocaust inversion"'. ] (]) 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agree. ] (]) 00:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This idea that sources must explicitly call the genocide ruling "antisemitic" <s>is twaddle</s> lacks any basis, that's not necessary at all, all that is required is evidence to show that antisemitism is weaponized in the context of the Gaza events. If anyone want's clarity on Raz Segal views see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c1Bj6OOwQI (or, together with Adam Horowitz, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYDulaqTPSE) and there is plenty more sourcing available, which I will be adding in due course to make it clear that this is not just a passing fad or something of that sort but something important, ongoing and real. ] (]) 13:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If our claim is that some have said that "''accusations of antisemitism'' are weaponised in the context of the Gaza events" then of course Segal is an excellent source. But the claim was "''calling the genocide allegation antisemitic'' is to weaponise antisemitism then we need someone who says that. This article is about the genocide allegation; we have other articles on the Gaza events in general where we can add such information if due. ] (]) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I already changed the Guardian ref, they called the court antisemitic and others have called the judges antisemitic, etcetera, slicing and dicing is not going to get away from these facts, which are straightforward examples of weaponized antisemitism wrt to the ], however that may be referred to. ] (]) 17:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Also, {{u\|Selfstudier}}, I don’t think “twaddle” is acceptable language among editors. You can say I’m wrong without insulting me. ] (]) 18:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Struck and replaced with "lacks any basis", trust that's better. ] (]) 18:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Thank you. ] (]) 19:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			I don’t understand the removal of Matthew Bolton for having nothing to do with antisemitism. The book is called “Antisemitism in Online Communication: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Hate Speech in the Twenty-First Century” and the chapter is about the debate over whether the genocide accusation is antisemitic. It couldn’t be more relevant to the section, is peer reviewed, and is based in serious research (in contrast to the op eds we cite now). ] (]) 19:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:The quote "The claim that Israel has, is or intends to commit genocide upon the Palestinian population across the Middle East is one of the most incendiary charges that can be made of the Jewish state" doesn't even mention antisemitism. ] (]) 19:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I think, given the context, that it's reasonable to assume this is referring to antisemitism. I can see just lines above you saying: {{tq\|This idea that sources must explicitly call the genocide ruling "antisemitic" lacks any basis, that's not necessary at all, all that is required is evidence to show that antisemitism is weaponized in the context of the Gaza events.}} ] (]) 00:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Evidence, not assumption. In any case a different quote has now been provided so this is moot. ] (]) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			== revert of revision 1262894317 without any explanation ==

			Earlier today I made an edit, adding several sources, including Amnesty Israel, criticizing the methodology of the latest Amnesty International report.

			I see now that my edit has been by @], without providing any explanation, and I would like to understand the reason why. ] (]) 18:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Multiple sources did not support the statement you had written, many were poor quality, and the grammar and sentence structure of the statements (not to mention their formatting) were sub-par, so a reversion was the easiest action. As an example, the Fox News article that mentions the ASU professor does not support the statement that he believes Amnesty "made up" a definition for genocide, but instead he believed the evidence for potential genocide as presented by Amnesty, did not meet the the requisite bar for a determination of the crime of genocide. -- ] (]) 18:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You are right about the Fox News article - it needs to be replaced by a link to his opinion column in WSJ, where he explicitly talks about "bogus genocide definition".
			::https://www.wsj.com/opinion/amnesty-international-responds-on-genocide-israel-gaza-49a972b5#:~:text=Amnesty%20International%E2%80%99s%20report,disprove%20such%20intent.
			::I've double-checked the other 3 sources, and they all talk about Amnesty redefining genocide.
			::Before I make a revert and replace the link, any other suggestions as to how this edit can be improved? ] (]) 19:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::, Honest reporting and Fox, just make sure we keep "vexatious". ] (]) 19:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::can you elaborate? ] (]) 07:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The opinion one and Honest Reporting should go. What does Fox add? Also it would be much better to at least give the reason Amnesty Israel gave for alleging the grounds were changed. ] (]) 20:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::While Fox is not reliable for facts here, I don't see the issue with citing them for an attributed statement by a law professor. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::As previously stated, the Fox article did not contain the statement added to the article. -- ] (]) 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That law professor is a senior member of ] which I think should be mentioned if he is mentioned. ] (]) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Fox can't be used (see the ]). ] (]) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I would have thought politics for Fox as far as RS is concerned would mean American politics. It does seem very political in America though, so I suppose this does come under that. ] (]) 23:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::It's only for an expert quote though, Fox isn't the source of any interpretation or factual claims. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::As has been repeatedly stated, the core issue with the Fox piece was that the quote ''did not'' appear in the Fox article. -- ] (]) 19:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::1. Amnesty Israel didn't claim the definition was changed, but that the conclusions of the report were "predetermined" ("From the outset, the report was referred to in international correspondence as the ‘genocide report’, even when the research was still in its initial stages”) and that their own analysis did not find that Israel’s actions met the definition of genocide
			::::2. Why do you think that Honest Reporting and prof. Orde Kittrie's opinion piece shouldn't be mentioned? ] (]) 07:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::According to the opinion I linked above, AI "quickly rejected the report, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of "special intent"". The court will decide that, apart from which scholars and others may still argue, and do argue, a genocide independently of whether the convention high bar for intent is met. AI was also at odds with its parent over their apartheid report so this is nothing new for them, at least they admit there are serious crimes being committed in Gaza and this admission should be included. As for ], "an Israeli media advocacy group. A pro-Israel media watchdog, it describes its mission as "combat ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel", a bit beyond mere bias, that. The prof is OK for his attributed opinion. ] (]) 10:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::1. I agree that the "insufficient evidence" part is less relevant here - the key part is their claim about "predetermined conclusion".
			::::::2. Regarding ] - as you said it yourself, "bias≠unreliability", and the fact that their are a pro-Israel media watchdog makes them ], but doesn't automatically disqualify them, unless, of course, there is evidence that they published misleading and/or false information. ] (]) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::] == unreliable. ] (]) 11:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::A single instance, in which an involved party criticized by HR made some accusations against them is hardly a conclusive evidence indicating unreliability. ] (]) 12:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::AI say they were not involved with the report so Idk how they can say that the conclusions were predetermined, that's also a pretty extraordinary claim, is anyone else saying that?
			:::::::If HR was at RSN right now, I would argue that extreme bias affects reliability, an argument I have made before and have no issue with making again, essentially it's an independence argument, {{tq\| the level of independence from the topic the source is covering}}, if you are consistently taking a side and in this case, admitting that's what you do, then how can you be considered reliable? ] (]) 11:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::1. According to the "Haaretz" article, while not directly involved in report preparation, AI have been be exposed to internal correspondence about it:
			::::::::{{tq2\|"From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the 'genocide report,' even when research was still in its initial stages," the Jewish employees reveal.<br/> "This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled 'genocide report' and then to have to conclude that it is 'only' about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations."}}
			::::::::2. I partially agree with you - an extreme bias/partisanship definitely CAN affect reliability, which means that partisan sources should be treated with more a priori suspicion than non-partisan ones, but, still, unreliability cannot be directly deduced from partisanship alone.
			::::::::Also, if we decide to exclude partisan sources, this should be equally applied to both sides and, in case of Gaza war, this would mean that extremely partisan sources, such as ], ] or ], just to name a few, shouldn't be used either. ] (]) 13:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I just explained that I am not basing the claim on partisanship alone. ] (]) 14:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Then, perhaps, I misunderstood your argument.
			::::::::::You said "if you are consistently taking a side and in this case, admitting that's what you do, then how can you be considered reliable" - this sounds like a description of partisan advocacy.
			::::::::::Did you mean something beyond that? ] (]) 16:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The part I quoted from ] "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". ] (]) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::So you're saying bias implies non-independence? This seems like a novel argument which doesn't reflect how the relevant policies are normally applied.
			::::::::::::We should certainly be careful about any statements in wikivoice based on biased sources like HR, but the material in question were appropriately attributed. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::{{tq\|So you're saying bias implies non-independence?}} Where did I say that? ] (]) 18:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::{{tq\|essentially it's an independence argument}}. If that's not what you meant, can you clarify what the argument is exactly? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Take HR to RSN and I'll explain it there (again). ] (]) 10:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::If you will read it what was said was it once <u>again</u> trafficked in falsehoods. Not just once. These various pressure groups need careful treatment and need to earn a reputation as reliable since they have no real oversight. As to Orde Kittrie as the article said he is a senior fellow at the ]. Another Israeli pressure group. He is a professor of law but his connection to that needs to be made clear. Lawyers tend to just argue their case and his bias is manifest. Anyway don't we need a clear statement about what the case is? ] (]) 12:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::1. The word "again" refers to HR repeating the same claim about Yousef Masoud, not to some separate incident. Also, see . I do agree with your general attitude towards pressure groups though.
			::::::::2. I have no objection to mentioning Kittrie's affiliation with FDD. ] (]) 13:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::As we now have a better source on Kittrie, I've added him as an example of the claim. I referred to him using his signature in the cited article, that is as a senior fellow of the FDD. -- ] (]) 15:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I think the fact that he's also a legal expert - a professor of law, whose research focuses on international law - is also an important detail that should be mentioned. ] (]) 16:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I see that, once again, you made several changes to my edit, without bothering to provide any explanation:
			::::::::::- First of all, the word "falsely" you added before the description of the claims made by Ostrovsky and Kittrie is a gross violation on NPOV - the opposite point of view is already reported in the next sentence, and adding your personal opinion about Ostrovsky/Kittrie claim is absolutely out of place
			::::::::::- Second, replacing the word "experts" with "professionals", when describing Ostrovsky/Kittrie claim, whereas the opposite side is describe as "experts" is another violation of NPOV. We are describing a controversy among legal experts and should provide a neutral balanced report of the claims made by both sides, without trying to inject own own personal views in the description.
			::::::::::I'm reverting those two changes you made and I kindly ask you that if you have any objections to the way my edits are phrased to first discuss this here. ] (]) 11:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Short explainers were given, your choice not to read them is not my problem. -- ] (]) 13:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::The only explainer I see is "not how you format" ] (]) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The J7 can't be included, per all the articles I've looked at from the Algemeiner, ADL, and the J7 member groups, as none of them state that the preliminary ruling was antisemitic, but that it would be used as justification by antisemites. -- ] (]) 13:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Not sure I understand how J7 are related to this discussion. ] (]) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Think it was meant for the antisemitism section, I already removed J7 anyway. ] (]) 14:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{ping\|Selfstudier}} please format the sources you add, bare URLs are very much below standard. -- ] (]) 15:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I was distracted before I ran Refill, done now. ] (]) 15:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Merci beaucoup -- ] (]) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{strikethrough\|J7, citing the ADL's publication of their statement, was in the reversion. Since I've now got round to digging through them specifically, I thought it pertinent to report what I'd found.}} So, while the Declassified UK article makes the claim of the J7 supporting the accusation that the ICJ prelim ruling was antisemitic, I believe that is (at least by the letter of the source) wrong. You could use a variety of other points the J7 make against the ICJ prelim ruling, such as claims of ideological capture, believing propaganda, etc. -- ] (]) 15:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::My apologies, I got myself mixed up between reversions that had been made, you are correct DancingOwl, the J7 matter is not relevant to this section. -- ] (]) 15:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Why would we treat ] as a reliable source for... anything? They're an advocacy group, not a news organization.
			:::::::The fact that they accused journalists of ''"coordination with the terrorists"'' despite later saying they ''"had no evidence for the allegation"'' is atrocious behavior. Such careless misinformation even ''"led two Israeli politicians to threaten that these journalists be killed"''. ] (]) 18:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::It's certainly reliable for its own positions, which was how it was being used (with attribution).
			::::::::In the incident you refer to, HW was position a question, not making a claim. It's not so relevant since we would never use a ''question'' in a source to back a wiki statement. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Yeah, but why would their position be due for inclusion at all?
			:::::::::They aren't subject matter experts, they aren't exceptionally notable, & their article doesn't actually make any independently salient refutations of Amnesty International. It either repeats Amnesty Israel's position, repeats what unreliable sources like NGO Monitor says, or simply expresses outrage that Israel is accused of genocide at all.
			:::::::::Their inclusion among those who appose the report's findings doesn't materially add anything more then if we were to cite some dude off the street for their opinion on the matter. ] (]) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::You could say the same about AI themselves; both are NGOs staffed by mostly non-experts.
			::::::::::I'm not adamant about including HW in particular, but NPOV requires us to represent this viewpoint in some form or another. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::No, I don't think I could say the same about Amnesty International, as unlike Honest Reporting, Amnesty is a widely respected human rights organization cited globally.
			:::::::::::I'm in no way against including those disputing/critical of Amnesty's report, but that issue seems to've already been properly covered above with Orde Kittrie's article & Amnesty Israel's position.
			:::::::::::I'm just against adding Honest Reporting specifically as their inclusion wouldn't benefit the article. They don't bring much original, meaningful criticisms of the report themselves, so their inclusion would feel like we were scrounging around for anyone with dissenting positions on the matter, something I know isn't true. <sub>(Hope that makes sense)</sub> ] (]) 00:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::And I've just removed th opinion piece with Arsen Ostrovsky. It is an opinion piece, he hasn't the reputation of Orde, and he's an avowed Zionist rather than just some legal expert. Please try and find a better citation rather than just trying to stuff the article with this sort of ... stuff. ] (]) 13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::As far as I see, opinion pieces are commonly used as sources, with attribution, and the fact that he's "an avowed Zionist" in and by itself is not a sufficient reason for dismissal, but you are right about the prominence part, so I have not objection to the removal.
			::::::::::::I do want to add back the previously removed mention of the Amnesty Israel response - do you have any suggestions/comments, before I make the edit? ] (]) 13:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I think we have to consider what is due criticism here, particularly when we have AI's former chair "Amnesty Israel finds itself in the awkward position of being neither a source of legal expertise, nor providing a diverse human rights perspective of Israelis and Palestinians. It is just another place for Israeli Jews to express themselves." (among other things) and Amnesty itself "its Israeli branch is 'undergoing deep internal divisions,' with a series of resignations amid accusations that Palestinians in the group had been silenced. Those accusations are 'unacceptable and will be handled through Amnesty’s international democratic processes'".
			:::::::::::::It seems to me that an Israeli denial, even if proforma for virtually every accusation levelled at it, is due but the opinions of sundry nonnotables with clearly contradicted "vexatious" opinions are not. ] (]) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::1. I don't see how this criticism is relevant to the core claim made by Amnesty Israel that conclusions of the report were "predetermined" ("From the outset, the report was referred to in international correspondence as the ‘genocide report’, even when the research was still in its initial stages”). Regardless of the internal controversies within Amnesty Israel, this is a factual statement that provides important context about the report.
			::::::::::::::2. I also don't agree with the "clearly contradicted" part - after all, even the experts quoted in "The Journal" piece admit that “the test that the Court has developed is what is sometimes referred to as ‘the only reasonable inference test’” and that Amnesty interpretation is based on "ICJ '''dissenting view''' ... that this standard of only a genocidal inference is unrealistic", so the criticism of Amnesty's definition by Kittrie and others clearly has some merits. So, we have two opposing views expressed by experts in the relevant field, and the NPOV principle dictates that both perspectives must be represented. ] (]) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::All the RS I have seen do not describe the predetermined thing as AI's core claim, instead they refer to the intent matter, that is, a legal issue rather than some random opinion.
			:::::::::::::::The Journal piece is a factchecker and kinda points up the absence of them in the criticism.
			:::::::::::::::Both perspectives can be represented by Israel and Kittrie, I don't object to either of those. ] (]) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::1. In both and reports, the words "predetermined conclusions" appear in the headline:
			::::::::::::::::2. I thought your remark about "opinions of sundry nonnotables" referred to Kittrie - glad that we agree his opinion should be represented.
			::::::::::::::::3. The criticism voiced by Amnesty Israel is substantially different from Kittrie's - he's talking about legal definition, while AI voice criticism about the process that lead to report's conclusions - both aspects need to be addressed in the article. ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::] are not RS. To reiterate, I don't think AI is due to begin with and even if they were, it would only be wrt factual/legal issues and not wrt some process they were not even involved in.
			:::::::::::::::::It's a bit like IBM announcing a new corporate policy and some employees at the Nepal branch disagreeing. In the same way, we do not need to note AI endorsing previous findings already made by Amnesty, it's not due. ] (]) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::If we go with your IBM metaphor, the more precise description would be "IBM announcing a new corporate policy '''in Nepal''' and '''majority''' of employees at the Nepal branch disagreeing."
			::::::::::::::::::To take another, much closer example, consider the way ] is described in the ] article, in particular the part about response of Amnesty International in Ukraine. ] (]) 16:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::Suggest wait for other editors to comment. ] (]) 16:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::I think the predetermined is pretty content-free and not ] but I'm happy for a little bit about it to be in if AI really thinks that is a good argument. The business about them changing the definiton is as far as I can make out the main one. Considering the Rohingya case though I can see why Israel might have a bit of contempt for the ICJ. The whole of WW2 would fit inside that no problem and the result will just be a page in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::::The "Haaretz" article elaborates what they meant by "predetermined":
			:::::::::::::::::::::{{tq2\|"From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the 'genocide report,' even when research was still in its initial stages," the Jewish employees reveal.<br/>"This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled 'genocide report' and then to have to conclude that it is 'only' about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations."}}
			:::::::::::::::::::::I agree that the claim about changed definition is the most substantial one, but the "predetermined conclusion" claim provides important context about what could have led the authors of the report to seek alternative definitions of genocide and, as experts cited in "The Journal" piece admit, adopt "dissenting ICJ view" instead of the "standard of only a genocidal inference". ] (]) 07:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od\|:::::::::::::::::::::}}
			:Well they are a human rights organisation and that's the allegation they were investigating. And you agree it is not primary - and I don't see non-Israeli papers considering it of interest. So perhaps it could be given its due space which isn't much. There's an Irish expression for what they're doing 'putting on the poor mouth', and it isn't appropriate afer tens of thousands of people have been killed. ] (]) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The discussion about reasonable inference has been ongoing for some time, https://www.ejiltalk.org/karadzics-genocidal-intent-as-the-only-reasonable-inference/ and has absolutely nothing to do with {{tq\|alternative definitions of genocide}}. It's right there in the Amnesty report (p.105). ] (]) 12:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I didn't say that the discussion is new - the ICJ dissenting opinion mentioned previously is just one example of such discussion. However, this doesn't change the fact that, by Amnesty's own admission, the test they are suggesting to use for determining whether genocide had been committed is different from the standard of proof adopted in the past by the ICJ majority. ] (]) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Nope, they are making a legal argument "And so Amnesty International is setting out a path for how you can, in fact, arrive at a finding of genocide while still adhering to the language of the Genocide Convention and the court’s own test for establishing genocidal intent." <- Secondary source (Becker), no editor OR here. ] (]) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This is Becker's interpretation, and on the other hand, Kittrie describes this line of argument as {{tq\|"bogus genocide definition"}}, Amichai Cohen and ] - as {{tq\|"attempt to move the normative goalposts regarding these evidentiary standards"}}<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Cohen \|first=Amichai \|last2=Shani \|first2=Yuval \|date=2024-12-16 \|title=A “Cramped Interpretation of International Jurisprudence”? Some Critical Observations on the Amnesty International Genocide Report on Gaza \|url=https://www.justsecurity.org/105790/critical-amnesty-international-gaza-genocide/ \|access-date= \|website=Just Security \|language=en-US}}</ref> and ] says the following:<ref>{{Cite news \|last=Collini \|first=Francesco \|date=2024-12-08 \|title=Amnesty International has not acted entirely honestly from a legal perspective \|url=https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/genozid-vorwuerfe-gegen-israel-in-gaza-jurist-nennt-sie-juristisch-nicht-ganz-redlich-gearbeitet-a-1bf96b65-e5ac-4c44-a9bd-c5607f34c2db \|archive-url=https://archive.is/SZAQn#selection-2599.112-2599.498 \|archive-date=8 Dec 2024 \|work=Der Spiegel \|language=de}}</ref>
			:::::{{tq2\|"...if Amnesty International says I am now examining whether Israel has committed genocide, then I must, in all honesty, base my decision on the '''current legal situation'''. I cannot first draw up my own rules of evidence and then apply them to the Israel-Gaza case. But that is what the organization did. Amnesty International's work in this respect was legally sloppy and not entirely honest."}} ] (]) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::To reiterate, none of this is new https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/magazine/genocide-definition.html ] (]) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Think of it this way, why are so many experts saying it is genocide when they know about the inference thing already? ] (]) 15:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Talmon addresses this point exactly when he says, before the quote above, that the legal debate regarding relaxation of the standard of proof is entirely legitimate, in and by itself, but when examining whether Israel has committed genocide, the decision must be based on the '''current legal situation'''.
			::::::::The experts you refer to conflate those two discussions, and Talmon criticises this by saying {{tq\|"I cannot first draw up my own rules of evidence and then apply them to the Israel-Gaza case.}} ] (]) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Makes no difference, this is just a reflection of the discussion that's already been had, there is a minority position and a majority position and the sources you give are in the minority position, all the top experts don't agree with it. ] (]) 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Not sure what are you basing you claims about majority/minority positions on.
			::::::::::The current legal standard is the majority ICJ position and the view that Amnesty are promoting is based on ICJ dissenting opinion.
			::::::::::And someone like the former Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee ] that I quoted above definitely counts as "top expert", so your claim about "all the top experts" is factually incorrect. ] (]) 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tq\|Not sure what are you basing you claims about majority/minority positions on}} Like I said, the discussion has already been had when we established the article title. In terms of the article here there is a consensus to call it a genocide based on expert sourcing. That consensus is unlikely to alter regardless of what ultimately happens in court just as Israel would in all likelihood dispute the result if it went against them.
			:::::::::::If you want to analyze only the legal positions, then ] is a better place for that. ] (]) 16:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I'm not contesting article's title and/or experts' opinions it's based on.
			::::::::::::My comments refer exclusively to Amnesty's report that framed genocide claim as a legal position, and to the responses of different legal experts to report's conclusions/methodology. ] (]) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::And I said that if you only want to discuss the legal positions, then there is a better article to do that in. Amnesty is just another expert source, a pretty good one, reliable for facts and attributable for opinion. They say it is a genocide, that a few lawyers disagree is hardly a surprise. ] (]) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Here is just security hot off the press https://www.justsecurity.org/105629/amnesty-international-gaza-genocide-report/
			::::::::::::::Re Talmon, "Unsurprisingly, the report has received criticism from a variety of sources. One line of criticism alleges that the report applies “an alternative test not based on the established jurisprudence of the ICJ.” This criticism reflects a misunderstanding...."
			::::::::::::::Amnesty International could have taken a different approach. Amnesty could have applied the lower standards of proof commonly applied by international fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry, such as "reasonable grounds" or "balance of probabilities." The report more than satisfies these standards. Alternatively, Amnesty could have limited itself to finding that there is a serious risk that Israel is committing genocide. Such a serious risk triggers the legal obligation of all States Parties to the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide in Gaza (which the report also urges). The report more than satisfies this standard. The legal duty of all States to prevent genocide in Gaza is clearly engaged. Instead, Amnesty chose to hold itself to the highest standard of proof known to public international law. This choice likely reflects Amnesty’s confidence in its evidence and legal analysis, as well as its understanding of the gravity of its accusation." ] (]) 17:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::I'm not sure what we are arguing about :)
			:::::::::::::::We have established that there is a debate among legal experts about the validity of Amnesty's approach and this debate is currently reflected in the article.
			:::::::::::::::As far as I'm concerned, we have reached a reasonable balance - I would prefer to have Amnesty Israel position mentioned as well, because controversy within Amnesty sounds like an important part of the context, but if everyone else thinks it's undue, I won't insist. ] (]) 17:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::{{tq\|I'm not sure what we are arguing about}} We are arguing about your assertion that Amnesty is making stuff up. They're not. ] (]) 17:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::This is not my assertion, but assertion of several legal experts, quoted above - I just wanted to make sure that their point of view is reflected in a balanced way in the article, as per NPOV principle. ] (]) 17:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Yes, I saw your edit, I will remedy the overstating of a minority viewpoint in due course. ] (]) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::I would really appreciate it, if you could provide evidence from RS, showing that this is, indeed, a minority viewpoint among legal experts commenting on Amnesty's report, before "remedying" anything. ] (]) 21:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::I don't require your permission to edit. ] (]) 22:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::::I didn't say you need my permission, but I do think that making veiled threats to "in due course" make changes you clearly expect to lack consensus is not the most good-faith way to proceed. ] (]) 05:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::::I'm sorry, saying that I will edit is a {{tq\|veiled threat}} and {{tq\|not the most good-faith way to proceed}}?
			::::::::::::::::::::::In what world? ] (]) 09:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::::::In a world where we are having a discussion about an issue that we view differently, and then, instead of trying to reach a consensus, you just say that, despite this disagreement, you intend to make some changes "in due course", which I hear as "when I feel like it, regardless of what you think about it".
			:::::::::::::::::::::::If I misinterpreted your intention, feel free to correct me, and I'll be more than happy to take it back. ] (]) 10:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::I see that you removed the "former Chair of United Nations Human Rights Committee" before Yuval Shani's name, dismissing it as "puffery".
			:::::::::::::::::::I believe this detail is significant as an indication of his notability. Furthermore, he is also a law professor and a former Dean of the Law Faculty at Hebrew University, not merely a 'rights lawyer,' as you chose to describe him, so your - rather petty, I must say - attempt to somehow downplay his expert opinion is really regrettable. ] (]) 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::I provided the wikilink that you omitted, not only is that a better indicator of notability, all relevant info is at the wikilink including the "when" of "former", see ]. I have no objection to changing rights lawyer to law professor if you prefer. ] (]) 22:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::::The wikilink was already there, but it was broken due to me misspelling his name - thanks for fixing that.
			:::::::::::::::::::::] refers to events, not people's positions.
			:::::::::::::::::::::Similarly, ] is absolutely irrelevant characterization for a factual statement stating person's former title. ] (]) 05:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::::Since you are a relatively new editor, I will just overlook the fact that you seem to be unfamiliar with WP practices in this respect. We don't puff up descriptors with titles and what not (we are not writing a CV) because {{tq\| this detail is significant as an indication of his notability}}. So we say historian, academic, lawyer, professor and so on, nothing more. Just look at a few articles to see this is the case. ] (]) 09:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::::::This is a fair point, though I must say that this standard doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
			:::::::::::::::::::::::Even in this article, additional bio details are provided for some experts - for example:
			:::::::::::::::::::::::- Michael Fakhri is described as {{tq\|"law professor and United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food"}}
			:::::::::::::::::::::::- Devi Sridhar - as {{tq\|"the chair of global health at the University of Edinburgh"}}
			:::::::::::::::::::::::In any case - point noted, always happy to learn and improve. ] (]) 10:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq\|doesn't seem to be applied consistently}} True but those are good examples of unnecessary puffing up imo, it just leads to competitive padding of descriptors as editors unnecessarily try to make one source look better than another.
			::::::::::::::::::::::::For example, at ], reverted commentary originally introduced by a sock, goes "Michael Waltz, set to become US national security adviser under President-elect Donald Trump", "US defense lawyer and professor Alan Dershowitz" and "Canadian politician and human rights advocate Irwin Cotler" while Kahn is "merely" an ICC prosecutor (rather than international criminal law and international human rights law specialist, former Special Adviser and Head of the United Nations Investigative Team to promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Daesh/ISIL in Iraq (UNITAD)). ] (]) 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Strictly speaking, genocide is not an "allegation", but '''a conclusion''' about a pattern of action and, more importantly, the intention behind this pattern of action. Starting with the conclusion before the pattern of actions has been properly investigated is exactly the "predetermined conclusion" Amnesty Israel are talking about.
			::Also, note that Amnesty Israel are not disputing the claim that war crimes had been committed, but only whether those crimes cross the genocide threshold or not, and their criticism against Amnesty International is that the conclusion that the threshold has, indeed, been crossed was predetermined in advance. So I don't see what "isn't appropriate" with their claims per se, which in no way justify Israel, but only criticize the way the report's authors conducted their investigation.
			::Finally, I don't see how the fact that non-Israeli (or, non-Jewish) papers are not "considering it of interest" is relevant here - "Haaretz" is considered to be a reliable source, and in any other circumstances interest or lack thereof from other papers wouldn't have been brought up as a relevant consideration, so it's not clear why this case should be treated any differently. ] (]) 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If you think it's relevant, then take it to RSN for an opinion. My position is simple, it's undue and AI's opinions in general are only due to the extent that other mainstream independent RS have reported them. ] (]) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'm pretty certain that covering that and not covering the main point about the change in definition would be undue. ] (]) 15:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::A thing that strikes me as peculiar is if AI were involved from the earliest - why did they not suggest a better name if they thought it was so prejudical? ] (]) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::They weren't involved, it's just internal gossipy stuff according to some AI members. ] (]) 15:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{reftalk}}

			== Ireland to intervene ==

			Apologies if this was discussed already but I couldn't find it. is intervening in the case and asking for the definition of genocide to be made less narrow. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Similar to when Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Britain and the Maldives intervened in the genocide case against Myanmar, arguing that the current requirement for proving {{strikethrough\|specific}} ''special'' intent was to stringent and hampered the application of the law. Seeing more countries lend their weight behind the criticisms of the Genocide Convention that genocide scholars and legal experts/scholars have been making for decades. -- ] (]) 22:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Maybe it is similar. I don't know enough about Myanmar. The ] article says it was described as a "textbook example." So that doesn't really square with the idea that they're having trouble proving that case. I wouldn't want to wade into something I'm not familiar with without doing the proper research. But for this article given that we mention stuff like the German lawsuit and the Australian legal proceedings, and the South African thing is discussed, the Irish intervention seemed like it will probably have relevance to the article, though it's still recent. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq\|textbook example}} much as how multiple sources, including leading experts in the field have called Gaza a "textbook case". The aforementioned group of countries wanted to step in, as they were worried of seeing results in the court case similar if not worse than the ICTFY, which set some rather interesting precedents, such as people being able to be victims of genocide, when the genocide in question was ruled not to have occurred. -- ] (]) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Just as a further note of interest, most of the countries that have intervened in the Myanmar case to make it "easier" to ascertain {{strikethrough\|specific}} ''special'' intent, have provided a variety of statements indicating the exact opposite in regards to the Israel case. While this has been pointed to in some relevant sources that we cite for other information in this article, this note I don't believe merits inclusion. Maybe it could be included in another article, but someone else would need to pursue such an action if they so desired. -- ] (]) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Complicity ==

			I like to check every once in a while this article about this very serious topic, to see what aberration will I find this time. Last time it was an accussation that my country, Romania, was supposedly complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Now I found that "European Union states" are complicit. The only source for this was an Amnesty International report concluding Israel was committing genocide . It barely discusses complicity by other states, mentioning the word once: "States that continue to transfer arms to Israel '''are at risk''' of becoming complicit in genocide". It's not even a direct accussation, it is not elaborated on, it does not appeal to other authors and experts, it is not the focus of the report.

			Handing over accussations of complicity in genocide to countries and even cabinets, which carry the names of individuals (]), is a pretty serious issue. This is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see on an infobox cited with 10 sources. Can we really not put some more effort in such an ] claim such as that the United States, the United Kingdom or Germany may be supposedly complicit in genocide in 2024? I am not asking for them to be removed, I am not even tagging the infobox, but I am asking for some professionalism. Stop pointing fingers while empty-handed. This is a highly watched article, put some actual effort in pushing your case, and if you can't, remove it. ] ] ] 01:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Though I would really rather have the mentioned cabinets removed. It is practically reducing the complicity accussation from an entire country to a reduced number of individuals. Individuals who have nowhere as near of a level of attributed responsability as Netanyahu or Gallant. Now that, that should be very heavily sourced before even being proposed for inclusion. ] ] ] 01:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Have you read ]? ] ] 01:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes. There is nothing about the European Union there. ] ] ] 01:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Okay. I didn't say that there was. ] ] 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Did you even read what I wrote before replying? This is the edit that prompted my comment . ] ] ] 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, I saw that edit before I left my comment. I agreed with it, so didn't revert it. I asked you whether you read ] mostly because you said:
			:::::{{tq2\|Can we really not put some more effort in such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim such as that the United States, the United Kingdom or Germany may be supposedly complicit in genocide in 2024?}}
			:::::There are multiple sections on this subject with dozens of sources at ]. There's no acknowledgement of that in your first comment. ] ] 02:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::The sources should be in the infobox in the first place. That something is mentioned in the article doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the infobox. Let us see the sources, and then we can judge their value and the weight of their claim and whether it should be included in the infobox. And if editors find the listed supposedly complicit countries next to six academic sources for each, maybe they'll think twice before adding a random country to the list again.
			::::::Actually, this whole segment of the infobox is quite exceptional for Misplaced Pages practices. We have an entire article on ] which argues some level of complicity, but ]'s infobox does not have such a segment called "Potential complicity". The case on the direct perpetrator of this hasn't even ended, and we are quick to jump and list countries and people that have allegedly helped them commit genocide as a certain fact. ] ] ] 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Essentially, this all comes under the heading of "third states" responsibilty, required by the convention to actively (within reason) prevent genocide. If they do not, then they may be complicit, it's not that complicated. is not that difficult to locate. ] (]) 11:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The burden on reading and citing sources is not on me, given my apparent position. ] ] ] 12:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I tend to agree with Super Dro that the EU as a whole aren't complicit simply on the vague say-so of Amnesty, and it's a stretch to even say that the source supports the statement in the article. Actually, I've been recently thinking that Amnesty and other orgs who appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict, presumably in some small part also to raise more money for their orgs by talking up a cause celebre, should be considered advocacy org think tanks or advocacy charities with a bias that should generally be attributed as treated as ] when they are weighing in like this without any real new substance in their report. Similar to how we use SPLC or the ADL but don't treat them as similar to more neutral sources like reputable news or academic sources. Anyway, unless there are better sources I'd say remove this. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::AI recent RFC is green, need to distinguish between factual reporting, which AI is very good at and when they are engaged in advocacy. Attacks on Amnesty reliability are rarely made based on the evidence, {{tq\|appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict}} being more the usual thing. ] (]) 11:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			* I was writing a comment justifying why in the end I was going to tag the potential complicity segment of the infobox as undue, but {{u\|Elshad}} has removed it . I expect that to be reverted, so I will continue.
			:Reading the United Kingdom subsection, there is not ''one'' single source that is directly accussing the UK of genocide complicity. The entire subsection is lawyers, NGOs and human rights groups saying the UK ''may risk'' being complicit, or individuals who are actually not making use of the word genocide.
			:Regarding Germany, there is Lena Obermaier writing for a socialist magazine, not very solid. Then there is a mention of German lawyers sueing Scholz and his cabinet, and Nicaragua's sue against Germany. This is at least something more than the UK, but they are ongoing cases without a resolution. The subsection completely lacks academic sources.
			:Why should we list these two countries and their governments as supposedly complicit in the infobox, when their respective subsections lack accussations with certainty? I don't see credible sources arguing in long papers why these two countries may, in fact, be complicit, nor do I see direct accussations from international organizations. The infobox uses the wording "Potential complicity", but having countries listed on the top of the article under such a segment has its obvious effect on readers. Considering the claims have a weak substantiation in the article, I do not think allowing this effect is appropriate. ] ] ] 12:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::By the way, the section on the genocidal actions is titled "Alleged genocidal actions", and that of complicity, "International complicity", treating it as uncontroversial fact. I have renamed it to "Alleged international complicity". I am open to other titles such as "Discussion on international complicity" or other alternatives, which do not treat complicity as an already certain fact. ] ] ] 12:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Smallangryplanet}}, I reverted you, and invite you to discuss here the header of the complicity section. As I said, I am open to discuss alternatives to "alleged", but considering the name of the second section of the article, I don't think it should keep the header I changed. ] ] ] 00:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide, and there is consensus that referring to it as "Gaza Genocide" does not have to include "alleged", but at any rate the complicity component is not alleged. I also removed some of the text that referred to alleged or unconfirmed complicity, making the header "International complicity" accurate. ] (]) 11:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq\|The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide}} this implies that whether there is a genocide is the only controversial part, and that if we consider there to be a genocide, we must necessarily also consider the perpetrator to have accomplices, for which there is no reason. The section is filled with hypothethical language, at least for the UK and Germany, that Israel has accomplices in genocide is not uncontroversial fact. Nicaragua has started an ICJ case against Germany on the topic of facilitating genocide, your interpretation presents the ongoing case as having a verdict already. ] seems to be a defined thing in international law. Does any help provided to Israel's war effort fall within this legal space? I doubt sources say this. ] ] ] 11:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{u\|Selfstudier}}, thanks for the header rename, it's an improvement. ] ] ] 12:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I think @]'s header rename resolves this portion of the dispute. Thanks for that! ] (]) 17:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			{{od}}
			There are sources for this. Besides Amnesty International link:
			* {{tq2\|“A failure by states such as Germany, the UK and the US to reassess how they are providing support to Israel provides grounds to question whether those states are violating the obligation to prevent genocide or could even at some point be considered complicit in acts of genocide or other violations of international law,” Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin who has previously worked at the ICJ}}

			*

			* {{tq2\|The transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk State complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, UN experts said today, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately.<br/>In line with recent calls from the Human Rights Council and the independent UN experts to States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, arms manufacturers supplying Israel – including BAE Systems, Boeing, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh, Rheinmetall AG, Rolls-Royce Power Systems, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp – should also end transfers, even if they are executed under existing export licenses.}}

			* ]: We don't have any ] sources about this yet, but complicity is mentioned pretty early in this ] source. : {{tq2\|Genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances, including purported self-defence.32 Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states.33}}

			"Potential complicity" already avoids saying these states are complicit in Wikivoice ] (]) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think the only case in which a country should be presented as complicit in genocide is if there is consensus on sources, not if it's only "potential". This is a pretty low threshold in which we could theorically put many countries. No other country is treated at Israel's level regarding engagement in genocide among sources, to my knowledge at least. The sources you listed use wording "could", "may" and "risk", without direct accussations. I am not sure but I doubt this article was moved to its current title based on sources with such wording. ] ] ] 00:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't think America will ever have a consensus in its newspapers that they are helping with genocide! ] (]) 13:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You can think whatever you wish. We don't need to use American media to talk about the actions of the United States anyway. I don't get your point. ] ] ] 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			{{od}}
			{{u\|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, we do not require there to be consensus among sources to add content in Misplaced Pages (unless it is ]). Maybe you are confusing this with ], which is the decision-making process in Misplaced Pages.
			The relevant policies here are ], ], and ] overall. ] is satisfied. The sources above are reliable (and these are the best type of sources available at this time I believe. I don't think there are any peer-reviewed, ] that are published on non-predatory high impact journals yet). Here's another source, :
			:{{tq2\|Thus, the failure to issue the second and third measures requested by South Africa is baffling, particularly in light of the continued supply of more deadly arms shipments to Israel from states with strong financial, military, and political links with Israel, chief amongst them the US, despite the UNSC ceasefire resolution 2728.Footnote166 When analysing the commission of genocide in Gaza, the reasonable conclusion is that the US is a major enabler and partner in crime to Israel.Footnote167 In the words of a leading Israeli commentator: “without arms and ammunition from the US, we would have had to resort to fighting with sticks and stones long ago.”Footnote168 In light of the reservations that the US attached to its ratification of the Convention,Footnote169 requiring its consent to allow ICJ jurisdiction,Footnote170 this importance is heightened in the proceedings that Nicaragua instituted in the ICJ against another state, Germany, in relation to its complicity in Israeli genocide.Footnote171 Moreover, even after the second ICJ provisional measures, the UK announced that it will continue to licence arms’ exports to Israel.Footnote172 Continued arms supply and the suspension of financial support to UNRWA clearly illustrate these states’ failure to discharge their duty to prevent.Footnote173}}
			Argument for ] is above. The wording is neutral ("potential complicity"). We are not saying these are definitely complicit. We are following the sources. Overall ] is satisfied.

			Unless a '''valid argument''' (based on sources and/or ]) is provided, I'm going to restore this material. Given the above source I'll only add US, Germany and UK. ] (]) 16:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:We need a consensus among sources for ] claims such as that these three countries are complicit in genocide. You are proposing to restore a disputed exceptional claim that isn't even presented as certain. I will tag the content upon restoration. ] ] ] 16:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't think the argument that supplying arms may make you complicit is ]. Also, if you go to the policy you cited, none of the bullet points seem to apply. This has been covered by "multiple mainstream sources". Complicity is in secondary sources. Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit?
			::The only appropriate tag would be <nowiki>{{Template:Better source needed}}</nowiki>, requesting a secondary source for the countries mentioned. But this is a recent and ongoing event, so it'll take time for those type of sources to emerge. ] (]) 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, please explain the relevance tag you put. Complicity is in secondary sources, so it is relevant. See above. Provide a valid argument based on sources and/or ] please. ] (]) 19:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Complicity is nowhere. I am disputing the existence of consensus among sources that Israel has accomplices in genocide, and I am disputing the relevance of adding specific countries to the infobox when the accussations are only potential and non-direct. ] ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I do believe the claim that the US, UK and Germany are complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip is an exceptional claim. {{tq\|Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit?}} yes, most of the sources I've seen here use language employing "could"s, "may"s and "risk"s. ] ] ] 19:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::What do you mean {{tq\|Complicity is nowhere}}?
			:::::Complicity is mentioned in this ] source:. There's obviously another ICJ case against Germany.
			:::::Are there any sources that say these countries are definitely not or unlikely to be complicit? ] (]) 19:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Am I missing something? This is all page 4 says: {{tq\|Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states.}} No third states that may have violated these obligations are mentioned. That an ICJ case against Germany is currently open does not increase the argument's strength a lot in particular, as obviously we don't know what will the veredict be yet. The ICJ hasn't made any pre-veredict comments either, as, if I am not wrong, has happened with South Africa's case.
			::::::I doubt such sources exist. I am not disputing the existence of allegations against these countries. I am disputing whether they're relevant enough to specifically mention them in the infobox. I propose to mention the existence of allegations of complicity by third states in the Accused parameters, as a fourth bullet point. But the mention of specific countries sets a pretty low bar that can be exploited to include random countries, so long as one source establishes concern on a risk of complicity over a country that is otherwise undiscussed in this regard among reliable sources. Because one source would not suffice, in my opinion, to give credit to an exceptional claim such as genocide complicity. ] ] ] 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::There is not one source. Multiple sources are there.
			:::::::{{u\|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, are you disputing ], or ] (based on ], or both? ] (]) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I've already expressed what do I disagree with. Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations. What criteria would you set, Bogazicili, to avoid the inclusion of fringe claims in this part of the infobox by other users who may be incited by seeing three countries already listed? ] ] ] 20:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I'm not asking your personal opinion. I'm asking you to reference a specific Misplaced Pages policy. I need a blue wikilink in your response. If the concern is about DUE, I can direct you to ].
			:::::::::Note that ]. ] (]) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::You seem to be either attempting to disregard my argument based on a lack of appeal to a specific Misplaced Pages rule, or attempting to get me to cite a specific Misplaced Pages rule and then state it does not support my point. You have an editor who has expressed a concern, and even a proposed solution; if you are unable to discuss that concern or a potential middle ground, you should disengage from the discussion.
			::::::::::I have not expressed any personal opinion, nor engaged in a forum discussion. ] ] ] 20:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::This is the personal opinion part: {{tq\|Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations.}}
			:::::::::::Unless a valid rationale is provided, I'm going to remove the tag. You added the tag, so you need to provide the valid reasoning. Your personal opinion about setting a bad precedent is not a valid reason.
			:::::::::::This isn't the ] ] (]) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::'''I recommend other users to express their opinion on this dispute''', as discussion with this user is completely unfruitful.
			::::::::::::Obviously, if I find myself in disagreement with a bunch, I will back down and accept the current text and my tag's removal, as, for all those wanting blue links, a ] will have formed against my position. So, do you think it is warranted to mention specifically these three countries as complicit? Based on what, these specific three? Why not previous inclusions like Australia, "European Union states" or Romania? Maybe because these three are more often mentioned in secondary sources? May we reflect this with some heavy citing, discouraging any users from potentially adding any other fringe claim again along these currently lightly-cited (previously uncited) ones? Or will I come back to this page in some months, and see that Hungary is complicit of genocide in the Gaza Strip ? Sorry for the rhetorical tone, but I think it gets my point across. ] ] ] 20:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::To the contrary I find an accusation of those three countries in particular being complicit in a genocide to not be extraordinary in the least ] ] ] - however an historical record of participation in genocide isn't what's needed here. What is needed is reliable secondary sources which, per @], have been provided. ] (]) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::To appeal to the past, and link the Holocaust, as evidence of something happening in the present, is a pretty weak argument unworthy of consideration. ] ] ] 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I also linked to the ] and the ] because my point is that complicity in genocide is not, exactly, extraordinary for any of these countries, all three of which have committed at least one, if not more than one genocide. See also: ] and ]. ] (]) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::My dispute, specifically, is that you are describing complicity per ]. Of course reliable sources should provided for complicity in this event which is increasingly being described in reliable secondary sources as a genocide. However it's not extraordinary for the USA to be involved in a genocide. They do so often enough in other theaters. ] (]) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::One way of looking at this is whether it would be possible to create, for example, an article ], looking at the refs in the article, there is at least enough for a stub and there exist I think, other sources in addition, like the one I gave above already, or
			:::::::::"In light of the above, Israel might be committing the international crime of genocide, by killing civilians in Gaza; deliberately inflicting serious bodily and mental harm; and imposing conditions of life to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza. However, the US has continuously supported Israel’s war efforts via diplomatic and military assistance, with knowledge of a plausible genocide being committed in the territory since at least January 2024. This may render the US internationally responsible for not merely failing to prevent genocide but also being an accomplice to the crime of genocide in Gaza."
			:::::::::Accusation of course but if the sources are there to back it up, then we should show that, I am not that fond of infoboxes because they frequently produce tedious disputes, but as long as we make clear that it is still an accusation and show proper sourcing, I don't see a problem. ] (]) 15:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The Irish potato famine was not a genocide. The article you link makes it clear that the vast majority of historians reject this view, and so should not be linked here. ] (]) 17:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}} Another ] source which discusses complicity: ] (]) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Airwars report ==
	Please replace '''the single image in the infobox''' by '''a ]'''

			Airwars have released their report on Gaza: -- ] (]) 15:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	I think this single image undermines the reality of what's going on in Gaza considering that we got in Commons many precious pictures that illustrate the situation well and I think it would be a shame if they remained unused.

			== Any other possible reason requirement for genocide ==
	I'm not insisting on using the exact same pictures with the exact same captions in the example I provided, I'm just saying that such a subject needs definitely more than one picture to illustrate it while taking into consideration ] and ] — '''] '']''''' 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

			This article does not say what the Israeli branch of Amnesty is disputing with Amnesty International. As far as I can see Amnesty International is saying they believe genocidal intent is evident but is calling on the ICJ to clear up exactly what does establishing intent mean - they say a narrow reading would mean it cannot be established if the aggressors just say they have another reason whatever else they say or happens. Is this actually the dispute or how can it be phrased? see
	:@] Thank you for your effort. I support updating the infobox, and I have no objections agains these images except for the assurances, if at all possible, that the childrens' families don't object to these photographs being posted on Misplaced Pages. Copyright is one thing, and ] is quite another, and here I'd really would like to make sure that Misplaced Pages respects it and doesn't add to parents' trauma.
			{{Cite news \|last=MacRedmond \|first=David \|date=11 December 2024 \|title=Why is Israel accusing Amnesty International of inventing its own definition of genocide? \|url=https://www.thejournal.ie:443/amnesty-international-invented-definitiion-of-genocide-israel-gaza-6568231-Dec2024/ \|access-date=12 December 2024 \|work=] \|language=en \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241211193111/https://www.thejournal.ie/amnesty-international-invented-definitiion-of-genocide-israel-gaza-6568231-Dec2024/ \|archive-date=11 December 2024}} ] (]) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I think Becker explains it well, the formal issue will be argued and decided in court. ] (]) 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	: I'll also wait for other editors to opine on the matter. Cheers, — ] ] 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
			::Note that this issue is not specific to just Israel:
	::Sadly I don't think it is possible to verify whether those children's families accept using the photographs in Misplaced Pages or not (I'd assume they don't).
			::{{tq2\|DER SPIEGEL: You have consistently been an advocate of a narrow interpretation of the term "genocide." When you represented the country of Myanmar before the ICJ, you also presented arguments for why the country is not committing genocide against the Muslim Rohingya minority. As such, your argument that the manner in which Israel is conducting the war in the Gaza Strip could constitute genocide is surprising.<br/>Schabas: International law is constantly evolving. It’s not just about what is in international treaties, but also about the legal interpretations expressed by states in their official statements over the years. That is what courts look at. In the early 2000s, the judges at the Yugoslavia tribunal and the ICJ, for example, chose a narrow interpretation – rooted in the Convention’s drafting process. I thought to myself: Okay, this Convention will never lead to convictions. But it seems that countries are no longer following this narrow interpretation. In the case of Myanmar and others, they have shown that they are now interpreting genocide more broadly. I believe it is likely that the judges will be carried along in the wave of broader interpretation.}}
	::Thank you for reminding me of this, I retract my request til at least better pictures are available — '''] '']''''' 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
			::Not sure if the above also needs to be added into the article to explain the definition issue. ] (]) 16:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] Thank you. I'm sure more suitable photographs will gradually become available. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on the Commons and come up with an updated collage in a while. — ] ] 20:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	:~~] '''Note:'''<!--~~ ~~Template:EEp~~ ~~-->~~ ~~The~~ ~~edit~~ ~~request~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~retracted~~. ] (]) 23:37, 16 ~~August~~ 2024 (UTC)		:::I think it should. It explains a lot about what the article is about. ] (]) 20:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}} There is now more information on this.
			:
			{{tq2\|The question of the threshold for establishing specific intent is subject to ongoing debate, and some states have cautioned against a narrow interpretation that is impossible to meet. The narrow approach would require that genocidal intent be the “only reasonable inference” from the situation at hand. However, many states support the broader interpretation of the ICJ in Croatia v. Serbia, which emphasised the importance of reasonableness in the Court’s reasoning, and highlighted that the “only reasonable
			inference” test should only be used when drawing an inference from a pattern of conduct, not where other methods of inference are also present.<br/> In The Gambia v. Myanmar, a group of states (Germany, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) argued in favor of a balanced approach, in line with the ICJ’s interpretation in Croatia v. Serbia. This aligns with South Africa’s construction of Israel’s genocidal intent before the ICJ. Yet, Germany has now indicated that it will intervene in support of Israel in the current proceedings at the ICJ. It is difficult to see how Germany could do so without arguing for a narrow interpretation of specific intent, which would mean backtracking on its previous position. If the ICJ accepts and adopts the position of the group of states construction in The Gambia v. Myanmar, it would become binding and preclude Germany from arguing for a narrow interpretation}}

			I think something about this is definitely DUE in the article. ] (]) 15:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Citations and Update ==

	We should ~~attempt~~ ~~to add~~ ~~more~~ ~~citations~~, ~~and~~ ~~update~~ the ~~death~~ ~~toll~~ ~~over~~ ~~time,~~ ~~since~~ the ~~brutal~~ ~~genocide~~ ~~and~~ ~~mass~~ ~~murder~~ of ~~Palestinians~~ ~~has~~ ~~not~~ ~~ended~~. ] (]) 06:06, 19 ~~August~~ 2024 (UTC)		:Well, we should be clear about it, this refers mainly to the ] and the arguments being or that will be made there. Also see ] below and the discussion around Amnesty legal argument. ] (]) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Indeed it is about the legal case, so can be added into this section: ]. Maybe a sentence about this since it is mentioned in a secondary source. ] (]) 16:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I support the adding of any citations, but the section on your user page saying "We can also remove Pro-Zionist statements on Misplaced Pages, The Pro-Zionist editing lowers the credibility of Misplaced Pages and makes it less reliable" leads me to seriously question your dedication to the maintaining of a politically neutral, factual encyclopedia. <span class="_nowrap" style="color: #000000; white-space: nowrap; text-decoration-skip: ink;">—] / ]</span> 19:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|User:AndreJustAndre}} this is the interesting note on the position of these countries I mentioned in the ] section. -- ] (]) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Gideon~~ ~~Levy's~~ ~~analysis~~ ==		== Non-noteworthy opinion ==

			I support NadVolum’s
	{{Ping\|Buidhe}}
			removing non-noteworthy opinion. I think there are still a few more such that could also be beneficially removed. I see Jonathan Cook in Middle East Eye (three op eds), Owen Jones, Seraj Assi in Jacobin, Rob Ferguson in the SWP’s magazine, Tony Lerman in Declassified. I’ve removed a couple of these and they’ve returned with no edit summary explanation. I think non-noteworthy opinion devalues the scholarly and other RS content we otherwise lean on here. ] (]) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:If they have WP articles, they are notable. They may not be expert for the context, ] is, so this list is based on what, exactly? ] (]) 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hello.
			::And I also felt as well as not saying much and it being an opinion piece and he's not notable since Arsen Ostrovsky is a Senior Fellow Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy, which was not noted in the inclusion, his contribution fell under ]. Which while not a policy did seem like padding compared to the rest. ] (]) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Being notable enough to have a WP page doesn’t make someone noteworthy in this article. I agree Lerman is more relevant than the others on my list, particularly on the topic of antisemitism. But he’s here in an unreliable/fringe source. Given the vast (probably excessive) number of references here, I would have thought we’d want stronger not weaker sources. ] (]) 07:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::And that what Lerman says about the two examples mentioned is clearly factually incorrect shows why Declassified is not an RS. ] (]) 07:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I would note that Boulton is non notable (no wl), a recent PHD and that the book being cited is "A Guide to Identifying Antisemitism Online". ] (]) 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Bolton doesn't have a WP article (nor do many of the people we cite in this article) but he's a heavily published ] (]) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: suggests that Declassified is an RS. Israeli officials commenting on the genocide accusations apparently can't help themselves but accuse all and sundry of antisemitism, whether it has anything to do with Jews or not. "The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people". OK then. ] (]) 09:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I agree with @] that Anthony Lerman's inclusion is due as a subject matter expert, but I also agree that citations to Owen Jones, Seraj Assi, Jonathan Cook, & the like aren't necessary.
			:However, I see no issue with some staying in the ''"Further Reading"'' section. ] (]) 21:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Short description (again) ==
	Is it really a good idea to remove the following text from this article? It seems to more properly explain the context for immediately preceding statistical opinion poll information in the sense that most Israeli citizens genuinely are not remotely well-informed about the ongoing atrocities performed by their government and military, as otherwise a reader of this article might get the false impression that 94% of Israeli citizens consciously and deliberately support genocide.

			Regarding : I have gone ahead and reverted it. Per the ], I gave other editors ample time to express their objections to my short description proposal. As I mentioned before, a short description of "Accusation of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza" is ambiguous (is the accusation being leveled against Palestinians?). In contrast, the short description "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" is far less ambiguous and is a description of this article's content. Again, if anyone has comments/concerns/thoughts on this issue, feel free to raise them here. ] (]) 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=1241439417&oldid=1241344412

			== Reverts re critiques of Fassin and UK Labour MPs ==
	] (]) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

			A few of my edits reverted in with which I disagree.
	:{{u\|David A}} I have my issues with the opinion polls; it doesn't seem like the source connects them to the "Gaza genocide" topic and if included they should probably be in another section. The quote from Levy also doesn't mention genocide so it may be more appropriate to include in another article. I definitely think there is room for a different article about Israeli perceptions of the war/genocide, but per ] this one needs to be based on sources that are explicitly about genocide. (] · ]) ''']''' 06:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
			#Why do we need details of the UK Labour Party disciplining "several" (our citations indicate three) MPs and candidates "for comments they made against Israel"? ] did not mention genocide in the comments (which involved the "river to sea" phrase) for which he had the whip removed (it was later returned when an investigation found he hadn't broken any rules. Nor did Graham Jones (he said British people shouldn't be allowed to serve in the IDF or any foreign army) or Azhar Ali (he said October 7 was a false flag). Moreover, that all happened when Labour was in opposition, so completely irrelevant to UK complicity. I'm sure we have an article where this belongs, but this isn't it.
			#{{tq\|Illouz seems inappropriate to cite here considering how her opinion has changed in the months since this first interview}} - I don't see why that's a reason to remove her opinion. She is as least as qualified as Fassin to comment on this topic; if she changed her position on Fassin we can say that rather than remove her because of that.
			#Bruttmann may be the only one of the three critics cited to question Fassin's expertise, but nonetheless he does exactly that, so I don't understand the grounds for removing that.
			] (]) 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			:1. 100% agree, also neither the BBC or Guardian article mentions genocide nor suggests complicity in any kind of Israeli actions(criminal or otherwise) as a result of doing this.
	::Well, I think that the opinion polls should definitely be displayed in some prominent Misplaced Pages page about the Israeli government's war crimes, as they show the Israeli public support for the ongoing military campaign and the deliberate starvation of the Palestinians respectively, but you are much more experienced regarding writing this type of article than I am, if you wish to move the information elsewhere, but again, it seems highly relevant to prominently include somewhere. ] (]) 07:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
			:2. I don't know what they're referencing in terms of her opinion changing, but you could do that, although that might be putting undue weight on one opinion.
	:I've replaced it with an where Levy said much the same thing. Genocide is explicitly referenced. ] <small>]]</small> 07:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
			:3. Looking at the edit summary you've linked and the article now that seems to still be in the article, it hasn't been removed.
	::Thank you for helping out. ] (]) 08:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
			:@] Pinging editor who reverted ] (]) 01:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	== University Network for Human Rights ==
			::1. Removed the note, there is of a Labour MP being disciplined for calling Gaza a genocide, but probably undue for even a note.
	According to a https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/ this is a supervised student training project (which explains the absence of author names). I think this should at least be clarified in the text, and it should be placed in a less prominent position. Frankly, where it stands at the moment, I think it could be deleted without much impact on the flow and logical coherence of the article. --] <small>]]</small> 09:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
			::2. Per the expert opinions list, Illouz has released a couple of pieces since her initial one, each time moving towards a position that this is more likely a case of genocide (stating there is clear incitement from some political figures and sections of Israeli society, stating the requisite intent may be there)
			::-- ] (]) 08:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks everyone. Osamor wasn’t disciplined for calling it a genocide (I believe many Labour MPs have) but for the apparent Holocaust analogy. Does Illouz speak about Fassin in her other texts? ] (]) 09:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Improper attackt types in Infobox ==
	:That's a part of the discussion at BU RFC above. Why delete it? ] (]) 10:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
	::It makes the article assailable. And it doesn't say anything that stronger sources aren't saying as well. Incidentally, the German translation of this article was ] yesterday, citing "egregious quality problems". (I argued against deletion.) This source didn't come up in that discussion but I recall it was found too weak in a previous discussion in German Misplaced Pages because of its lack of a named author. There is not much you can say in response to such criticism. Britannica or other scholars wouldn't prominently cite an undergraduate und graduate project, even if it was supervised and a joint project of leading universities. At least we need to identify it as what it was. ] <small>]]</small> 09:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::The report itself, discussed by a qualified expert in the BU today, carries the UNHR name as well as the law schools. I find it difficult to imagine that those law schools would have permitted the use of their names, inclusive press releases, without a proper scrutiny of the material, which on the face of it, looks to be professionally prepared. The lack of named authors is because the material has in effect been endorsed by those institutions. OK, I can see why some might disapprove of ] but he is an HR expert and they are camped out at Wesleyan, again, I don't think that would be allowed without a proper scrutiny. If their report were saying anything exceptional or out of line with other sourcing, that would be something else but it isn't and it is a convenient summary with many useful references. I don't mind if it is not in the lead but removing it altogether makes no sense at all.
	:::I wouldn't pay too much attention to what German WP is doing either, tbh. The "Staatsräson" thing has the entire country behaving in a peculiar fashion as regards Israel (with the possible exception of the FO). ] (]) 11:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::Agreed on the peculiarity of German discourse. As someone in the Guardian , ] wouldn't qualify for the ] in Germany today; she'd be accused of antisemitism. ;)
	::::I am actually considering starting an article on German anti-antisemitism because there has been substantial commentary that it's gone completely off the rails. (The German Misplaced Pages is not unaffected by this. Just look at the length of the antisemitism section in the German WP biography of ] ... bizarre.) As ] once pointed out in a ] even before the present Gaza war started, right-wing elements of German society have started using antisemitism charges as cover for anti-islamic sentiment, using the fact that the substantial muslim (mainly Turkish) minority in Germany has tended to take a dim view of civilian deaths in Gaza.
	::::Still, all that said, I am wary of having the University Network for Human Rights report do any heavy lifting in this article. I don't see significant citations for this particular report in Google Scholar (the only good one is, as it happens, in another article on German anti-antisemitism, namely , '']'', Volume 57, Issue 1; this is a Misplaced Pages Library link). It hasn't attracted press coverage either. (A 2019 University Network for Human Rights report on Yemen at least generated articles in Newsweek and the Washington Post.) ] <small>]]</small> 14:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::Selfstudier, that rationale does not address any of the many defects in that source. As has been said, why use a non-compliant self published source in a house organ when there are valid sources available on the matter?]] 22:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Referred to RSN for an opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/about ] (]) 09:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::OK, the feedback suggests that altho this source might well be considered reliable in ordinary circumstances, there is a concern that for this particular article, citing UNHR directly might subject the article to external criticism. I think the material directly cited to them should be replaced with other sourcing, if available. That does not mean that references to UNHR by other RS are affected, however. ] (]) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I have removed three direct cites to UNHR. It doesn't affect the article at all and will perhaps put paid to the nonsensical objections in the ongoing RFC about BU, which has nothing directly to do with UNHR, if Susan Akhram wants to mention them, as an expert in her own right, she is entitled to do that. ] (]) 16:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

			Multiple attack types are either making statements that go beyond what we should say in our own voice (genocide, without alleged), not part of the standard genocide terms (ethic cleansing, torture, sexual violence) or are not appropriate in this case (]). It should be trimmed down to those that are actually broadly alleged, that being ], ], ] and ]. Anything else is undue. In addition, the source about rapes doesn't actually make the claim and is therefore synth. ] (]) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Possible position from Denmark ==

			:I see no issue with this change. -- ] (]) 10:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm not sure whether this is the right place to place this information, but the table on the article page has a list of countries and their position on what happens in Palestine. Here is information regarding the position of the Danish government. I don't want to edit the article, as this is beyond my qualifications.
			::Great, thank you. Just FYI, I'll wait a bit for others to respond, just because this change was reverted before. ] (]) 10:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Genocide is also alleged by multiple reliable sources, and I would consider removal of that highly problematic.
			:::However that entire field needs a note such as "The following are alleged:" ] (]) 14:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I think genocide can stay as an allegation, even if it’s technically tautological (after all, any genocide would include the attack type genocide). However, it seems to be commonly done on similar articles, so no serious objection from my end to keeping this one as well. Do you mind the removal of the other ones as well, or are you ok with those? ] (]) 15:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I don't know yet, I have to review the sources. Did you review the sources and find out that other types are not mentioned? ] (]) 15:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I support the changes as well. ] (]) 15:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It’s a bit of both; sources primarily discuss actions that have or are likely to cause significant causalities, and don’t generally discuss torture, targeted killings etc. as acts of genocide. Even sources that do mention those (example: Albanese) do so as a minor point to draw a general picture of mistreatment (for torture) or the possibility of it counting as either an action or an indication of intent (for cleansing). Those topics have a place in other ], or potentially in the body, but according to my reading of the sources, they aren’t due for the Infobox. ] (]) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:<small>Pings: @] for reversion, @] for potential synth.</small> ] (]) 11:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Potential synth? My edit is sadly abundantly supported by RS. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. What do you mean? ] (]) 19:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I have had the same issue in the past, don’t worry; the issue isn’t the occurrence of sexual violence, the synth/potential coatrack issue would be that the source doesn’t claim that it’s genocidal. (unless I missed that?). ] (]) 19:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I can add sources that do, if that would help? ] (]) 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I still think it’s undue for the lead, but yes, that fixes the synth issue for the body, thank you! ] (]) 19:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Ah sorry I'm confused again (it's been a long week already...) I thought this was about the infobox itself, not the lead or body? ] (]) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::That’s maybe poor phrasing: there are two separate issues: which content should be in the infobox, and that there was a sourcing problem within the infobox. This solves issue two for your content, so it can definitely stay (in my opinion), it’s just a question regarding whether or not it’s due for the lead or just the body. ] (]) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Ah, okay, that makes sense - thank you for clarifying. I think it can go in the infobox + body, I'll make that edit. I don't want to set precedent for it ''never'' being in the lead, so I'll say here that I think there could come a time where it is due for the lead, even if we leave it out for now, and this conversation shouldn't be used as evidence or justification for not adding it there in future. ] (]) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Of course, thank you; for example, if it’s widely analysed or ], it will be obviously due for the lead/infobox ] (]) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I don't really think these changes make sense. Genocide is generally regarded to be inclusive of and built upon "lesser" acts of group-directed violence. Removing mentions of torture and sexual violence is not in line with the way that other genocides are covered on-wiki or with the broad consensus in the field. I'd consider ] a strong contemporary and comparable example that demonstrates this point. A close reading of certain wiki policies may provide some justification for your edits, but I think they ultimately buck common sense and the broader mainstream scholarly understanding of genocide. I think that rather than trying to remove this material, we should focus on finding a better source and/or a larger number of sources that explicitly connect institutional sexual violence and torture to the allegations of genocide. If those sources aren't available now, they will likely emerge as we begin to gather a more historical view of these events. ] (]) 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That’s a good contemporary example, but it’s not comparable: during the ] (and similar contemporary cases, potentially even including Ukraine), torture and sexual violence were one of the primary means of perpetuating the crime, which is not the case here: during the Israel-Hamas war, it seems like (]) that both sexual violence and torture are relatively rare, affecting a significantly smaller part of the population compared to the other alleged actions. It’s possible that later sourcing will broadly connect those acts to the allegations of genocide, but for now, this isn’t the case, both due to a lack of sources and because of the limited evidence that there is special intent to destroy (compared to the “normal” justification for such acts, as seen during the ]). If this becomes a majority view in a month or a year, I’ll support its inclusion, but this isn’t the case for now. ] (]) 17:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Genocide is a crime against humanity is a war crime so yes, I think "built upon" is as good a way to express it as any. The special intent thing is theoretically applicable at ICJ level but won't impact on whether others call it a genocide so that's something of a red herring. It's not difficult to find "while Amnesty International was the first nongovernmental organization to call it genocide, other groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Israeli group B’tselem have meticulously documented the country’s alleged war crimes, including using starvation as a weapon of war, committing torture and sodomy in Israeli prisons, deliberate attacks on civilians, among other charges." ] (]) 17:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, and I’m not opposed to mentioning them in the body for context, they’re just undue for the lead. For example, we don’t mention them in the box for ], ] or ], despite known occurrences and a likely higher frequency. There is just a lack of strong sourcing for “torture/rape as means of (allegedly) committing genocide” instead of “torture/rape while (allegedly) committing genocide” for this case, and as long as it isn’t broadly discussed, it’s not due here. ] (]) 17:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Amnesty's recent investigation, which concluded that Israel is committing genocide, explicitly links Israel's practice of incommunicado detention, torture and sexual violence in prisons to its conclusion that a genocide is taking place. From section 7.1.4 on page 233:
			:::{{tq\|As another indication of intent, Israel was responsible, during the nine-month period under review, for a pattern of incommunicado detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ill-treatment), including sexual violence, of Palestinians from Gaza, according to documentation by Amnesty International and other organizations. Genocidal intent may be inferred from evidence of “other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group.”961 This pattern of incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment underscores the systematic dehumanization and mental and physical abuse of Palestinians in Gaza and may also be taken into account with a view to inferring genocidal intent from pattern of conduct.}}
			:::IMO this should be more than enough to justify inclusion of the material at any level in the article. ] (]) 02:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Actually no, but this is a common misconception: this specifically cannot, because that would be the wrong section. This source would be potentially due for genocidal intent, and attack type is part of the act category. This of course isn’t a problem for the body, but it is for the infobox. To stick with the obvious example, ] isn’t listed as an attack type for ], despite the fact that the widespread beliefs and actions by German and other citizens and officials can obviously be used as an indicator for intent. ] (]) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Amnesty is saying that the pattern of abuses (an action or attack type) is evidence of genocidal intent because that pattern fulfills the criteria by which genocide is defined. In plain language, the abuses in Israeli prisons are both a part of the genocide, and support the assertion that genocide is taking place. I don't think the distinction you're making makes sense. Moreover, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any example in history where a source asserts that a genocide is taking/has taken place and yet the contemporary mass detentions, torture and sexual abuse of members of the targeted group by the same perpetrators should be treated separately from the overall genocide. That strikes me as an inherently absurd position. ] (]) 14:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{u\|Unbandito}}, great find. This can be used as a source for multiple attack types. "Rape" should be changed to "sexual violence". ] (]) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think there won’t be a clear consensus for any of the options here; does anyone mind if we just do this as an RFC? ] (]) 12:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You started this discussion on 17 December 2024. Today is 18 December 2024. We are still going over the sources. See ]. ] (]) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I’m happy to wait, just pre-empting what I think is likely end. ] (]) 16:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Since 'type' is an optional field, if there is an RFC, perhaps one of the options should be to leave it blank and cover things in the article body. ] (]) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Nice catch, thanks ] (]) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			== German law professor opinions ==
	* Dagbladet Arbejderen, 2024, by ML, https://arbejderen.dk/indland/regeringen-afviser-borgerforslag-om-at-anerkende-risiko-for-folkedrab-i-gaza/ (in Danish)

			{{edit COI\|d}}
	: First line in the article: The government refuses to comment on whether there is a risk that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

			<s>I have taken the time to write up the expert options of the missing German legal scholars from the list of experts.</s> This is a selection of a few relevant legal scholars from the German-speaking world, which I originally added to the template for expert opinions and which are due to be added to the relevant section of the article. <small>fixed per Selfstudier</small> As I have a conflict of interest for at least one, but don’t want to disclose which, please treat this edit request as if I have a COI for any person or institution mentioned.
	* Proposal by the public that mandates the parliament to initiate a discussion: https://www.borgerforslag.dk/se-og-stoet-forslag/?Id=FT-16712

			''In December 2023, ], a professor of international and criminal law in ] and judge at the Kosovo Special Tribunal, warned that potentially genocidal statements by politicians, while potentially beneficial for proving specific intent, could not necessarily be applied to the evaluation of military decisions. In January 2024, , a professor of Public Law and Public International Law at the ], argued in the Verfassungsblog that the extent of harm to both civilians and infrastructure weren’t conclusive, and that attempts to evacuate civilians were an indication against genocidal intent. . ], a professor of international law, stated in April that there a conviction before the ICJ was uncertain and that there was no “smoking gun” proving the special intent. ''
	* Response by the majority of the parliament - rejected the proposal: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/beslutningsforslag/b200/index.htm
	] (]) 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

			''] and ], professors of international law in Gevena and Zurich, argued in May that while some statements by politicians may be genocidal, the same did not apply to the actions of the Israeli military; Diggelmann believes that a conviction for genocide is unlikely. ], a professor of international law in Basel, stated the the term genocide was being used as a term of criticism instead of according to its legal definition, and added that “there was no sufficient ground of genocide if one takes the legal term seriously”. ], professor of international law at the University of the ] in Munich, stated in June that there was no clear evidence of a special intent among Israeli leadership.'' ] (]) 20:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	== What's the status of genocide studies and middle east studies in academia? ==

			:Courtesy ping for @] due to the talk page discussion. We weren’t sure if I should name the universities; for now, I just left the ones from Munich, as there are two different ones. ] (]) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm genuinely curious how these two fields are perceived by the more established disciplines they grew out of. Political scientist Ernesto Verdeja, for example, contends that "''genocide scholarship still rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journals."''. He also claims that mainstream political scientists essentially ignore this field, in part because the scholars are involved in a "humanitarian activism" that's odd for an academic community. Similarly, the ] article contains a relatively lengthy criticism section accusing the field of a "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Arabist" bias that apparently affects their scholarship.
			::Just add them as "No" to the <nowiki>Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate</nowiki>. ] (]) 20:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sorry, I phrased that poorly: they are on the list, they are missing from the article.] (]) 20:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Am I misunderstanding? You want these two no's added to the list of expert opinions, right? ] (]) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::No, sorry: those are people already on the list (or technically originally on the list, those professors are among the ones the list started with), that haven’t made their way into the “Academic and legal discourse” section ] (]) 21:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Oh, crossed wires, what's the point in adding these two specifically to the article? ] (]) 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::To cover the relevant expert opinions from the German-speaking legal world (Germany, Austria and Switzerland). I would have just added them myself, but that would be against policy, so I need someone else to review them and (or not do) that :) ] (]) 21:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yes but then we would have to add all the yes's as well, there are a lot.
			:::::I actually want the template to be on the article page, if someone can figure out how to do that, I tried and couldn't. Much easier. ] (]) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Sure, this sounds like a generally good idea and has already been partially done; I just don’t have the time, so I picked out the significant ones (recognised/well-respected professors cited within decent sources, therefore broadly due) within my field that I originally added to the list and wrote something up <small>after a six month delay </small> ] (]) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::.... ....
			::::::It's possible to do that, but we'd have to re-work it, both in formatting, and what specific sort of columns and quotes from the sources we want. I would offer to start on that work, but despite my self-hatred, I am in my end of year draw down, so you'd need someone else to do all the discussion and selection work. I can still step in one decided for the markup so it can be easily included as a template. -- ] (]) 21:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Hi, I'm not sure that this thread is really a topic for a COI edit request (i.e. the template at the top of the thread). COI edit requests are to ask an uninvolved editor to review the suggested edit with a view to installing it within the article.
			:::::::Given the topic at hand I think it would be more appropriate if consensus was to be achieved at the talk page, or if the matter was referred to ] or ].
			:::::::I'm therefore going to decline the COI edit request, but I am doing so purely for the procedural reason set out above and entirely without prejudice. ] (]) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Yeah, that is fair. Thank you! ] (]) 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I support this proposal, but for now, I would really appreciate that this content would be added to the relevant section, unless there is an ]. No objection to it and all other statements by legal/genocide/etc. scholars being removed and replaced with the template later, of course. I can try to make it longer or shorter, but I feel like 7 significant professors split into 2 paragraphs is appropriate? ] (]) 09:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I oppose this because why? Choosing German speaking professors is just synth unless there is some specific reason to do with genocide reported in RS that means that the category of German speaking law professors has some special significance over some other arbitrary group of law professors. What will we do next? Scandinavian law professors, professors that can speak two languages, one legged professors with a view on genocide law? ] (]) 09:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::We already have American ones as well, and adding the Scandinavian/Francophone/Arabic perspective is a worthy endeavor, I just don't speak the languages and have limited knowledge of the legal system, unlike with German. The relevant policy-based reason would be the avoidance of systemic bias towards english language and their legal systems. German legal scholars are a significant part of the discourse on international (humanitarian) law and are therefore due. ] (]) 10:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It's called "International" law for a reason? The main point being made by these two professors afaics is about genocidal intent, there is a section about intent in the article (and more about it in the South Africa case article and even an article on ]), included there is "In the ICJ's Rohingya genocide case, several states (including the UK and Germany) supported a looser standard of evidence for supporting genocidal intent than the ICJ has used in the past—which is often the most difficult part of proving genocide in a court of law" so that is a relevant point. Now if you could find a source saying most/some/many/nearly all/whatever German speaking lawyers (or any other group) say (whatever they say), then adding that would be fine. Otherwise we are just making a list. ] (]) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::International law perspectives vary significantly within and between countries; to the best of my knowledge, no such source exist, as it doesn't for most other places and disciplines.
			::::::::Quite frankly, there is no policy basis for excluding significant views because they are German, and the article already includes a plethora of significant views by professors from English-speaking countries (including less well-known ones), so there is no basis for excluding RS-published views by professors either. The only issue that makes this a question for this thread (instead of a direct edit) is that I might unduely weigh some of the views within my edit request compared to others; do you feel that this is the case?
			::::::::PS: the number of professors is 7 ;)] (]) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{tq\| no policy basis for excluding significant views because they are German}} Please, no straw men, no-one suggested that.
			:::::::::German or German speaking? And up above you said "German-speaking legal world (Germany, Austria and Switzerland)". A list of German/speaking lawyers that you have located with an opinion on genocide in Gaza without any RS that otherwise connects them together, is just a synthesis/OR. Nothing preventing you making an actual list article of such lawyers if you like but we already have a template that lists all lawyers, you could put a little German/Swiss/US flag next to each one perhaps? ] (]) 11:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::German-speaking, defined as them teaching at a faculty in such a country. It's not really a strawman, unless you support removing the American and British professors from the article; we should cover important non-english perspectives. It's less synth and more of a summary, but I'm happy to write a full paragraph for each, if you believe it to be due. Nevertheless, my tone was too harsh, my apologies.
			::::::::::Not that it matters, but they are a plethora of others with statements (and even more if you don't limit yourself to media coverage or comperable editorial control, which I have), but most of those are straightforwardly undue. I have just noticed that this might be an unclear if one is unfamiliar with the discipline: this is a whose-who of known names/faculties within german, austrian and swiss international law scholarship, excluding those for whom I counldn't locate a useful statements. Stylistically, I think grouping by language or region is probably most intutive, but sorting by time might be an interesting option too, if you prefer this compared to my grouping. ] (]) 11:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I could for example go through all the opinions (regardless of nationality) and specify which advocate for this or that point but then that would be OR.
			:::::::::::At some point, we will reach a level of RS that is more analytic of all the different opinions out there and just summarizes them and then that is not OR because an RS is doing that and not me.
			:::::::::::See the difference? The RS is doing the grouping, if we do grouping, whether by time, nationality or any other basis, then we are just making a list with some inclusion criteria.
			:::::::::::The fact that there are 7 (or any other number of) lawyers in some list is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the purpose of the list and what the criteria are for being in it.
			:::::::::::Leaving aside lists, I am still stuck on the question of why 7 (or any other number based on whatever OR criteria) legal opinions should be included in the article. You argue dueness, so then why are 7 German speaking legal opinions due for this article? Your saying that it's a bias not to include them is also OR unless there are RS saying that. Are there? ] (]) 11:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::You could, but saying “Professor A and Professor B argue that C ” wouldn’t be synth, right? Systemic bias is generally not a question of RS, but of editorial discretion, so there obviously aren’t. In this case, the proposed text is significantly shorter “per Professor (particularly accounting for their reputation)” than existing coverage in the relevant sections, and therefore due. Particularly Ambos (highly relevant past academic and judicial experience) and Walter (article in one of the foremost “new” legal publications) as well as arguably Khan, Goldmann and Müller are rather significant voices even by themselves, and the sourcing is more than sufficient for a longer paragraph each. I acknowledge the problem with the way I structured them together, that’s a good point and may actually be Synth. Would writing a separate paragraph per prof fix the issue for you? If you want to cut down on the actual number, it would be quite helpful if you told me which of the 7 I selected are particularly interesting/useful/encyclopaedic? ] (]) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::{{tq\|Systemic bias is generally not a question of RS, but of editorial discretion, so there obviously aren’t}} This is false, we have an article on systemic bias and there are plenty of RS about bias in the media. There may well be the bias you describe but if no RS speak about it, it's irrelevant.
			:::::::::::::It's not me that has to tell you or for you to decide which, it's for RS to do that so first some RS says Ambos (we'll use them for example) is a top drawer lawyer/expert/whatever, so far so good. Then dueness, we need some RS to say that Ambos opinion is worth more than some other lawyer/expert opinion so that we should include their opinion in preference to some other. Or another possibility, Ambos himself analyzes the opinions of other lawyers or the state of play in general wrt some legal points, then that might be useful.
			:::::::::::::But just you saying he's a great lawyer and we should include him because he is, that's not enough.
			:::::::::::::That's just for one lawyer, and if some or all of the remainder are just saying the same thing, why do we need them? Unless an RS is saying these 7 lawyers all say x. ] (]) 12:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::That makes sense, thanks; so if I provide a one or multiple high-quality sources per expert, you’re fine with inclusion of their opinion? ] (]) 13:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Not what I said, why are they due? Anyway, hopefully now it is not a problem, the "template" (ie a list) is now in the article so you can just include them there if they are not already included. In case it is not clear, I am also suggesting that we apply the same logic to other expert opinions that are in the article, that is just being an expert and having an opinion is not by itself sufficient for inclusion in the article, they can however be included in the template/list. ] (]) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::They are all already in the list, thanks. Just a quick request for clarification: does this apply to all expert opinions in your view? Or should we have a section with some of the most significant views in full text? ] (]) 13:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::That's what I was trying to explain above, there needs to be something more than just being an expert and having a view on the South Africa case. If there isn't anything more, then I think being in the list is sufficient. Which ones merit inclusion in the article is something we could discuss case by case.
			:::::::::::::::::For example the sentence "The opinions many scholars of Holocaust and genocide studies (HGS) expressed in late 2023 were discordant with others in the field as well as experts in other academic fields: they did not condemn Israeli violence despite the far larger loss of Palestinian life in the war." is a useful sentence, it generalizes the opinions of expert without naming them.
			:::::::::::::::::The sentence "In November 2024, Bartov called recent operations in Jabalia "blatantly genocidal"." is not so useful, it is simply a quote about some incidents from one expert whose view is included in the list. ] (]) 13:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Yeah, that makes sense, thanks ] (]) 16:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Regarding Ambos (as an example); for Israel + genocide:
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::General indication of significance regarding Israel & International law:
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::#
			::::::::::::::Do you agree that this is sufficient for inclusion? ] (]) 09:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::If all those do is cite him for his opinion, no. Better would be other experts citing him. Do any of them contain meta material? ] (]) 10:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::I’ll look into that. Just to be clear, that standard would exclude almost all currently cited experts in the article, right? Not opposed to such a standard, just want to keep it consistent ] (]) 10:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::I already said we should be consistent and look at them case by case. ] (]) 10:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Of course, I’m referring in this case to using this as a ] for the removal of other experts, not objecting to the standard per se; in the interest of transparency, I plan to turn this into an RfC and therefore need an RfCbefore (such as this discussion), and “cited by other experts” a nice addition to the positions I had in mind (those being “1. RS, 2. expert, 3. expert cited by media, peer reviewed or comparable, and now ''4. expert cited by experts'') for having someone in the article proper and not just in the list ] (]) 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::What I want to avoid is turning the thing into a list of experts with an opinion (because we already have such a list). ] (]) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Not trying to be awkward here, I would like to include him. For instance, he has a well cited piece on that could go in a section devoted to that. ] (]) 10:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::I know, I don’t think you’re acting in any sort of bad faith/obstructionist manner here, don’t worry. The article is a good catch, I read it about a year ago and totally forgot it; I’m not sure where and for what to cite it without it becoming SYNTH, do you have a suggestion? ] (]) 10:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::OK, RFC is a possibility of course but I would try and edit the article a bit first and see what happens with that. If you think an opinion that is in the article doesn't really belong there on the basis that it is only an opinion of one expert and nothing more, I would support that.
			::::::::::::::::::As for Ambos, there is a discussion on the page here at ] and there is ] at the article but since the rhetoric is also to do with the intent, we can just title it as that.
			::::::::::::::::::Now Idk whether that material should be first done in detail at the case article and then summarized here or vice versa, if it doesn't matter that much, we can do it here. ] (]) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::That’s reasonable, I’ll think about the placement/use as well, thank you! ] (]) 12:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Btw, I am not endorsing the current content of the article, which I don't agree with in many respects but one thing at a time. ] (]) 12:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			OK, I got the template to sit in the article without messing everything up (I think). By direct copy. I put it at the intro to Academic and legal discourse section.] (]) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			:It works for me, considering that I’m on mobile, that is quite impressive. What do you think about removing the notes section? ] (]) 13:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	FYI -I don't follow this scholarship and haven't contributed to this article, but after researching these fields for about 20 mins, a lot of academic controversies popped up that got me curious. So is Verdeja correct in his assessment of genocide studies? A lot of the scholarly opinion in this article comes from scholars working in one of these two fields, but as far as I can tell it's mostly statements published in non-academic press (and think tanks like Brookings), rather than mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. ] (]) 07:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
			:Why did you put that template into the article? It was intended as a separate page, to be linked in the talk page I think? ] (]) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Per discussion above, things have moved on from the debate over the article title, now we are instead trying to analyze what exactly the expert opinions are saying and which of them merit direct inclusion in the article. It is also convenient to have direct access to that material in the article. ] (]) 14:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It might be too long and not formatted for inclusion in the actual article page. It has external links and lengthy quotes for example. ] (]) 14:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::An alternative is just to make a list article and reference that as a main. The template is not useful as is unless you happen to know where it is. ] (]) 14:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::A list article may work, but please do not add that template into article page again. The lengthy quotes could be problematic due to ] and ] ] (]) 14:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Such problems are fixable. At any rate, the existing template is not so useful. ] (]) 14:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			{{od}} {{u\|FortunateSons}}, English-language sources are preferred in English-language Misplaced Pages. See: ].
	:Did you want to add something to this article? ] (]) 12:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
	::Verdeja's article was written over 12 years ago, when the discipline he refers to was somewhat new, but burgeoning. And he notes that the mainstream's ignoring of its results to that date specifically referred to ], another discipline. PolScience likewise had some of its research work ignored by the sociological mainstream and so set up its own journals just as Genocide scholars were doing. When one talks of 'mainstream' these days, it's a matter of a lustrum or two as to what drops out or becomes commonplace.(] once spoke of theories passing by as regular as Piccadilly Buses (back around 1947 from memory) In any case it would be reductive to dismiss this as activism. Indeed Verdeja himself has written on the status of the SA application (Ernesto Verdeja, https://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2024/02/27/the-international-court-of-justice-and-genocide-in-gaza/ The International Court of Justice and Genocide in Gaza 27 February 2024) in terms more or less c onsonant with those of ], an innovative and highly influential scholar on genocide over the last two decades (compare ) I hope this answers your query.] (]) 13:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I'm satisfied with your response. I would just add that with the proliferation of all the fields that end in "studies" in academia, it's becoming increasingly difficult for non-specialists to assess this research. ] (]) 18:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
	::Or alternatively, do you have anything to add to this talk section? Talk sections are not merely for discussing changes, but also the quality of the sources being used. And in any event, Nishidani answered my questions quite well so I don't think there's any need to drag this out, unless someone else wants to add something here. ] (]) 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

			Foreign language sources are allowed too, but I think your proposal may be too much, with 2 paragraphs. Should we give the same space to Arabic scholars for example? A lot of your sources seem dated too. I would recommend you to condense your proposal. Instead of saying what everyone thinks individually with lengthy separate sentences, you can summarize such as "several German scholars thought ...". See: ] ] (]) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to an area smaller than Manhattan ==

			:I can condense it down somewhat, if there is appetite for that. And yes, we should absolutely have 2 paragraphs for Arabic legal scholars as well, that’s a significant perspective ] (]) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Edit ...
			::The article prose is getting close to 14k words. See ]. ] (]) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::So a separate article for expert opinions might be the solution? ] (]) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I put in a link to the "template disguised as an article" so at least there's that. ] (]) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That’s definitely a good addition no matter what ] (]) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::That apart I still hold to the idea I outlined above, if there is support for doing it. ] (]) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I don’t have the time for a project of this size, but I think it’s a good idea; I did most of the German translations, so feel free to ping me if there is an issue ] (]) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I support the inclusion.] (]) 17:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Right, I meant going through on the article and trying to focus on what opinions are the most important/relevant/useful. ] (]) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Oh, that too, I agree ] (]) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@] did you read this section before your revert? Which of the policy interpretations do you agree with? ] (]) 23:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::No, I did not see this beforehand. I would appreciate if you summarise the relevant justifications for your removals of information. ] (]) 21:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sure. Per this discussion, there is (maybe) a local consensus that even a notable expert cited by media is not necessarily due for this article. A person notable for reasons outside of her field, working for a arguably barely notable (or at least non-major) advocacy organisation is maybe due for the list of experts, but not for the article as a whole. Do you disagree with either of those assessments? ] (]) 23:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The second removal appears to be an earlier version of the first or at least includes some of it. Leaving aside the issue of whether L4P is RS itself or for opinions given there, we discussed above the merits of dealing with intent more generally, for instance the opening paras of the section do not address intent at all. Rhetoric is evidence of intent, Idk that 500 statements is any different to 100 or 1000, again we want to deal with that issue as generally as possible. Maybe we can focus for now on the introductory sentences and maybe that will tell us what of the other sentences are most relevant/due? ] (]) 11:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yeah, I think there is significant overlap. I have no hard preference on the structure, just concerns about the quality (and consistency) of this article, so your suggestion works for me. Would just describing the standard/definition from a general source be synth, or is that allowed? ] (]) 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Well, I think that it is hard to become officially specialised in the academic field of collecting and counting genocidal statements by people in positions of power, so as long as the sources and research are reliable, I think that the information should be kept here. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq\| the academic field of collecting and counting genocidal statements by people in positions of power}} lol, is not an academic field, nevertheless, material such as Van Hout, T., Velásquez, L., Vingerhoets, N., Steele, M., Cay, B. N., van Heuvel, L., Christiano, A., Lychnara, J., Glenn, J., Pastor, M., Kayacılar, G., Mardones Alarcon, C., & Tibbs, A. (2024). Claiming genocidal intent: A discourse analysis of South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel. Diggit Magazine. https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/claiming-genocidal-intent-discourse-analysis-south-africa-s-icj-case-against-israel is helpful, is it not? More helpful than a count? ] (]) 18:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::No, but you can have sufficient expertise and renown in relate fields, which is lacking here as well ] (]) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Settler Colonialism ==
	Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to a humanitarian area smaller than Manhattan

			This motive appears to be in a violation of ] policy. The fact that ] is included in this article's infobox implies that its one of the main motives behind the alleged genocide in ] by ]. However, I have examined two sources cited (other two sources are broken), and none of them support this claim (none of the texts use the term "settler colonialism"). What should be done about it? ] (]) 16:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-humanitarian-zones-smaller-than-manhattan-rcna167056

			:I was able to access the abstracts of all four papers at least. Here's the relevant links:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Manhattan#/media/File:Above_Gotham.jpg ] (]) 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
			:
			:
			:
			:
			:I have not had a chance to read the papers as of yet - and if they aren't open access I'll probably only have the abstracts but if others have better access this might speed along validation of the information. ] (]) 16:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			* In "Screaming, Silence and Mass Violence" we have the following {{tq\|Comparing and contextualizing Israeli violence and Palestinian suffering not only lend themselves to moral clarity, but also to intellectual consistency. If it is the body count, then next-door Syria or Iraq should be a concern too; if it is racism, then Darfur should not be forgotten; if it is the urgency, then Nagorno-Karabagh should not be ignored; if it is settler colonialism, then the Uyghurs should be included. In fact, to characterize Israel as the “last bastion of colonialism” turns a blind eye to Turkish-nationalist settlerism in emptied Armenian villages, or the Arabization policies of Kurdish regions in Iraq and Syria in the 1970s – which uprooted hundreds of thousands. One could even ask if there is a colonial gaze in not focusing on the next-door Arab lives as grievable; in other words, do the Israeli nation-state boundaries ironically function as a type of moral boundary? If “decolonial” means all human lives are fundamentally equal, then holding a settler colony’s perpetrators to higher standards of scrutiny, or its victims to more compassion is hardly decolonial.}} - While this is apologia for Israel's colonialism rather than criticism of it, it certainly admits to it. ] (]) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I only have the abstract of "Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change" but I will say that what I ''can'' read of it establishes that Russia escalated ''from'' colonialism ''to'' genocide before going on to use the measures of this progression to argue that Israel reached the stage of genocide before October 2023. While this abstract does not say "Israel is a settler colonial state" it would not surprise me if the full text supports the statement of settler colonialism even if it then suggests that genocide is something beyond settler colonialism. I would suggest someone with full article text should conduct an additional review.] (]) 16:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I only have the abstract of "Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0" but the text available to me makes no overt or oblique reference to colonialism. Again recommend someone with full article text should conduct an additional review. Unlike the above I suspect this may not be an appropriate reference. ] (]) 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@] in have access to all of these, I'll post the relevant quotes later when I have time. -- ] (]) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Ok:
			*::Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0, pp. 1-2 {{tqq\|Al-Arouri not only emphasized Israel’s abovementioned actions in Al-Aqsa, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, but also placed it in the context of Israel’s Finance Minister and head of the far-right Jewish Zionist party Bezalel Smotrich’s “Decisive Plan” from 2017. According to this plan, Israel should make clear that there is “room for only one expression of national self-determination west of the Jordan River: that of the Jewish nation.” Israel should apply full sovereignty over this entire area, establish new cities and settlements throughout the West Bank and bring in hundreds of thousands of additional settlers. The Palestinians will thus have to “shelve” their dreams of self-determination, as Smotrich put it, and will basically have two options: they could either accept Jewish rule or leave.4 Al-Arouri noted that Smotrich, being responsible for West Bank along with Israel’s Defense Minister, was now in a position to implement his plan, and was planning to transfer “at least one million settlers to the West Bank.” Essentially, argued Al-Arouri, this government “says you either accept being our slaves, or we will uproot you from this land"5}}
			*::Inescapably Genocidal, p. 1 {{tqq\|Later, 55 “scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence” felt “compelled” to warn of the danger of genocide in Israel’s counterattack. While “deeply saddened and concerned” by both Hamas’ atrocities and the death and destruction which Israel had caused, their statement focused on the latter, itemizing it together with “dozens” of statements by Israeli leaders that indicated genocidal intent. Referencing a longer history, they argued that we should place it within the context of Israeli settler colonialism, Israeli military occupation violence against Palestinians since 1967, the sixteen-year siege on the Gaza Strip since 2007, and the rise to power in Israel in the last year of a government made up of politicians who speak proudly about Jewish supremacy and exclusionary nationalism. The statement concluded by calling on governments to uphold their obligations under the Genocide Convention.}}
			*::Gaza as Twilight, p. 4 {{tqq\|This weaponization of the Holocaust, as Zoé Samudzi has discussed in this forum, erases Israeli history and turns the world upside down: a powerless people, forcibly displaced and attacked under decades of Israeli settler colonialism, military occupation, and siege become the worst perpetrators in modern imagination. This image then casts the settler colonial state in its current form, armed with nuclear weapons and backed by its western allies, as the ultimate victim.20}}
			*::p. 5 {{tqq\|Nazism and what we now call the Holocaust were imagined on a hierarchy as more terrible than genocide, which placed Israel on another imagined hierarchy as more moral than any other state in the world. This gave rise to a common view in Israel and the west that the Israeli army is the most moral in the world, so that from Israel’s establishment in May 1948, it became unimaginable that it would perpetrate any crime under international law, let alone genocide.21 Maintaining this foundational image of Israel required the denial of the Nakba, which also stemmed from the broader impetus to deny the nature of the Israeli state as a settler colonial project.}}
			*::-- ] (]) 11:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks. That clarifies these sources are appropriate for indicating "settler colonialism" in the infobox. ] (]) 12:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Of these three, only the second one says that settler colonialism is part of the motive for the genocide in Gaza. The first doesn’t mention the term and is about Israeli actions in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The third says Israel is settler colonial and that’s it committing genocide, but doesn’t attribute the latter to the former. These two citations should be removed here. ] (]) 03:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Lederman (Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0) links it explicitly on page 5, where he highlights the views of the settlers who formerly lived in Gaza post the first incursion in the 2000s. I've removed Segal & Daniele, added Abdo and Segal. -- ] (]) 15:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Sorry, my comment isn't the clearest. Lederman links the desires and political pressure of the former settlers of Gaza, to engage again in settler colonialism throughout the Gaza strip to recent actions by Israel through 2023, and to the Israeli assault on Gaza post-October 7. -- ] (]) 15:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I only have the abstract of "Inescapably Genocidal" but the text available to me explicitly quotes Raz Segal, "Statement of Scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies on Mass Violence In Israel and Palestine since 7 October" which, in the quoted text, describes Israel as being explicitly settler-colonial. As such it not only supports the characterization but provides with a full citation for ''another'' reliable source that is explicit on this topic. The full bibliographical detail for the Statement of Scholars is:

			Raz Segal, "Statement of Scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies on Mass Violence in Israel and Palestine since 7 October," ''Contending Modernities,'' December 9, 2023. ." ] (]) 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I think that this information is very relevant to add, if it isn't already, but which section of this page would be most appropriate? ] (]) 07:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
	::Add this information to the end of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/Gaza_genocide#Alleged_genocidal_actions ] (]) 19:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::I have . ] (]) 07:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::Thank You !!! ] (]) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::No problem. 🙏 ] (]) 17:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

			:Just added an additional source into the article. ] (]) 17:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Buildings listed in the "Victims" section in the header infobox ==

			== Potential source ==
	This article includes buildings as victims of the purported genocide. I raised this as an illogical inclusion in a talk thread here. In that talk thread, it was suggested that I ] and edit it. That edit was reversed, with the edit note suggesting it shouldn't be edited without a talk page consensus, which I came here to do before editing. That talk page thread has been erased in its entirety.

			Putting this here for review:
	I am here to propose that buildings, at least non culturally significant ones, be removed as listed victims of the genocide in the infobox. It is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's policy and the intended usage of the infobox. ] (]) 00:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
			https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/genocide-definition-mass-violence-scholars-gaza ] (]) 03:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			:That is an annoying piece, as while Gaza has forced the relative fields to confront the question of Israel-Palestine, all these issues existed for decades prior, with authors highlighting the fear the field seemed to have to place Israel-Palestine under their analytical purview. But, that's an annoyance beyond the question of the Wiki article. We cite the majority of pieces the Guardian article highlights, and discuss many of the same points. -- ] (]) 15:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree it's illogical to list buildings under "victims." Destruction of buildings may be part of a genocide, but that still doesn't make the buildings "victims." "Victims" are people, not things. It's a little disrespectful of the victims in my view to equate buildings and people ("40 people were killed in the attack, and we lost a perfectly good apartment building" just doesn't sound right). Maybe the building destruction can be listed elsewhere in the infobox. ] (]) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
			::It is interesting that some people seem to have questioned even the Holocaust:
	::Victims are people, that's true; there should be another list called "Damage" which lists the buildings destroyed as well. Also, I don't think only culturally significant buildings should be listed because due to the sheer amount of residential buildings destroyed it is clearly intended to contribute to the damage Gazans have suffered already, so it should be stated as part of the genocide. ] (]) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
			::{{tq2\|“There was already a controversy in the aftermath of the Holocaust – everybody was like, ‘Where’s Hitler’s order?’ And there was no order,” Hirsch said.}}
	:::I do not at all mind if the number of destroyed buildings are moved to another section within the infobox, but I think that they should be listed somewhere within it. ] (]) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
			::I now think saying a sentence or 2 about the interpretation of ] with non-news sources, and how it relates to this case with sources like the one above can be done in ]. ] (]) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: "seem to have questioned even the Holocaust" I have heard people dismiss the Holocaust as mostly a topic relevant to the Hollywood hype machine and its ] films rather than an actual genocide for the last 30 years of my life. What else is new? Nearly every article which I have encountered on the ] has noted that the participants did not include the actual leadership of the ], that the decisions taken used vague phrases and euphemisms for the goals of the project, and that the approval by their superiors was mostly an unstated assumption.] (]) 14:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The only thing there is that there are a bunch of genocide scholars (in the US presumably) hiding in the closet but we can't really say anything about their views until they come out. ] (]) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I see no problem though with saying with attribution that many scholars are holding back from expressing an opinion because they fear the consequences for themselves. Overall it seems a good introduction to the problem and suitable for citing in the article. ] (]) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I added it into the Holocaust and genocide studies section with a refname "Split" since it might be used at other points in the article as well. ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:16, 24 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza genocide article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gaza genocide. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gaza genocide at the Reference desk.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Ethnic groups Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

Palestine Top‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Aaron Bandler (25 July 2024). "Misplaced Pages Editors Title Article "Gaza Genocide"". Jewish Journal. Archived from the original on 31 July 2024. Retrieved 31 July 2024.
Daniel Edelson (5 August 2024). "Amid Gaza war, Misplaced Pages editors conclude Israel guilty of genocide". Ynetnews. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
Jo Elizabeth (5 August 2024). "Misplaced Pages editors label Israel guilty of genocide". All Israel News. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
Batya Jerenberg (5 August 2024). "Case closed? Misplaced Pages editors say Israel committing genocide in Gaza". The Jewish Voice. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
Shiryn Ghermezian (6 August 2024). "Misplaced Pages Editors Vote to Accuse Israel of Genocide During Ongoing Hamas War in Gaza". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
Refaella Goichman (8 August 2024). "English Misplaced Pages Editors Concluded: Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza". Haaretz. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
Catherine Perez-Shakdam, Elisa.T. (9 August 2024). "Israel is facing new information war after key Misplaced Pages change to Gaza entry". Daily Express. Retrieved 12 August 2024.
The New Arab Staff (9 August 2024). "English Misplaced Pages editors say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza". The New Arab. Retrieved 12 August 2024.
"Did Misplaced Pages editors just conclude that Israel is committing genocide?". Middle East Eye. 12 August 2024. Retrieved 16 August 2024.
Eviva Winton (14 August 2024). "Wiki-cide". Australia/Israel Review. Retrieved 21 August 2024.
"Israel's genocide in Gaza becomes a Misplaced Pages fact". TRT World. 11 August 2024. Retrieved 21 August 2024.
"Το Misplaced Pages «αναγνωρίζει» τη «γενοκτονία» στη Γάζα". Naftemporiki. 6 August 2024. Retrieved 21 August 2024.
Aviva Winton (13 September 2024). "Misplaced Pages has an antisemitism problem - opinion". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
Mathilda Heller (October 21, 2024). "Misplaced Pages's page on Zionism is partly edited by an anti-Zionist - investigation". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved October 22, 2024.
Aaron Bandler (November 3, 2024). "Misplaced Pages Editors Add "Gaza Genocide" to "List of Genocides" Article". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved November 4, 2024.
Rachel Fink (November 7, 2024). "Misplaced Pages Editors Add Article Titled 'Gaza Genocide' to 'List of Genocides' Page". Haaretz. Retrieved November 7, 2024.
"After Months of Debate – Misplaced Pages Describes Israel's War on Gaza as 'Genocide'". Palestine Chronicle. November 8, 2024. Retrieved November 8, 2024.
"'It's not close' - Israel committing genocide concludes Misplaced Pages ending editorial debate". Middle East Monitor. November 8, 2024. Retrieved November 8, 2024.
Shraga Simmons (November 11, 2024). "Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists". Aish HaTorah. Archived from the original on November 13, 2024. Retrieved December 1, 2024.
Debbie Weiss (December 4, 2024). "Misplaced Pages's Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved December 5, 2024.

This page has been the subject of multiple discussions.

This page was proposed for deletion by Maylingoed (talk · contribs) on 29 December 2023 with the comment:
Duplication of Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel - (CSD A10).
It was contested by Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) on 29 December 2023 with the comment:
Content is significantly different; Seems to be a WP:POVFORK

This page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 17 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 13 January 2024, from Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Not moved, 29 February 2024, from Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza, see discussion.
Moved, 3 May 2024, from Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Gaza genocide, see discussion.
Not moved, 6 December 2024, from Gaza genocide to Gaza genocide allegations, see discussion.

Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide

Sources
v
t
e
Name	Month	Profession	Source	Example statement (English or autotranslated and verified)	Simplified position	Notes
Segal	13 October 2023	Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies	Jewish Currents	"A Textbook Case of Genocide"	Yes	Already in article
800 scholars	15 October 2023	Various scholars, most of whom in relevant fields.	TWAILR journal website	"we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.", "Language used by Israeli political and military figures appears to reproduce rhetoric and tropes associated with genocide and incitement to genocide.", "Evidence of incitement to genocide has also been present in Israeli public discourse."	Maybe	Already in article Signatories include Mohamed Adhikari and Taner Akçam
Zarni	16 October 2023	Genocide scholar	The Jakarta Post	"As if to spit on the post-Holocaust moral clarion call of “never again”, Israel, a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, has in effect declared its intention to commit an act of genocide by cutting off all “water, electricity, and food supplies” to the 2.2 million people in Gaza."	Yes	Already in article
Genocide Watch	17 October 2023	Antigenocide NGO	Genocide Watch	"This settler ideology is supported by Likud, the party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is committed to further settlement expansion. Like the American ideology of "manifest destiny," this settler ideology is used to justify forced displacement of Palestinians who have lived in the occupied territories for thousands of years.", "Dehumanization of the enemy is common in wars and genocides. It is already evident in this war, with Hamas militants spitting on and mutilating bodies of their victims and the Israeli Defence Minister calling Hamas "human animals." Dehumanization is a stage of genocide.", "Genocide Watch considers the war in Israel and Gaza to be at Stage 3: Discrimination, Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 5: Organization, Stage 6: Polarization, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 9: Extermination."	Maybe	Already in article
Fassin	18 October 2023	Anthropologist and sociologist	Le Monde	"La directrice exécutive de Jewish Voice for Peace a lancé un vibrant « plaidoyer juif », appelant à « se dresser contre l'acte de génocide d'Israël ». Couper l'eau, l'électricité et le gaz, interrompre l'approvisionnement en nourriture et envoyer des missiles sur les marchés où les habitants tentent de se ravitailler, bombarder des ambulances et des hôpitaux déjà privés de tout ce qui leur permet de fonctionner, tuer des médecins et leur famille : la conjonction du siège total, des frappes aériennes et bientôt des troupes au sol condamne à mort un très grand nombre de civils – par les armes, la faim et la soif, le défaut de soins aux malades et aux blessés." , "Du premier génocide du XXe siècle, celui des Herero, en 1904, mené par l'armée allemande en Afrique australe, qui, selon les estimations, a provoqué 100 000 morts de déshydratation et de dénutrition, au génocide des juifs d'Europe et à celui des Tutsi, la non-reconnaissance de la qualité d'êtres humains à ceux qu'on veut éliminer et leur assimilation à des animaux a été le prélude aux pires violences."	Yes
Illouz	18 October 2023	Professor of sociology	Le Monde	"military response … against an enemy which has violated borders and international law, … is not genocide"	No	No longer in article
Buljusmic-Kastura	19 October 2023	Genocide researcher	Al Jazeera	" is horrifying and it all leads us to where we are at right now, which is the fact that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide."	Yes	Not in article
UN Special Rapporteurs	19 October 2023	Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, Special Rapporteur on Violence against women and girls, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance	Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights	""We are sounding the alarm: There is an ongoing campaign by Israel resulting in crimes against humanity in Gaza. Considering statements made by Israeli political leaders and their allies, accompanied by military action in Gaza and escalation of arrests and killing in the West Bank, there is also a risk of genocide against the Palestinian People," the experts said."	Maybe
Center for Constitutional Rights	19 October 2023	legal advocacy organization	The Intercept	"Katherine Gallagher, senior attorney with CCR and a legal representative for victims in the pending ICC investigation in Palestine, told The Intercept. "U.S. officials can be held responsible for their failure to prevent Israel's unfolding genocide, as well as for their complicity, by encouraging it and materially supporting it.""	Yes	Already in article; There is then also the CCR's full 44-page briefing declaring it genocide and naming the US as a complicit party (not in article).
Dana	29 October 2023	Professor of Conflict and Humanitarian Studies	The New Arab	"As the Israeli genocide in Gaza unfolds and global public awareness is becoming increasingly acute, it is becoming clearer that the myths surrounding the colonial conflict in Palestine serve not as guides to understanding, but as barriers. These myths, perpetuated by pro-Israel propagandists, Western powers, and Arab regimes have had dire consequences – ones measured in lost lives, crushed hopes, and a perpetually destabilised region.", "Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza serves as a tacit admission of Israel's fragility".	Yes
Kittel	31 October 2023	History Professor	Berliner Zeitung	"No, Israel's military response is not genocide – regardless of whether one uses narrower or broader definitions of the term."	No
Mokhiber	31 October 2023	Specialist in international human rights law, policy, and methodology	The New Republic	"A director of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights has resigned, issuing a lengthy letter condemning the organization, the U.S., and Western media companies for their positions on the war between Israel and Hamas, which he described as a "text-book case of genocide."", ""Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it," wrote Craig Mokhiber, the group's New York office director, who had worked with the U.N. for more than three decades.""	Yes	Already in article
154 Holocaust scholars	1 November 2023	Holocaust scholars	open letter at a conference in Prague	"Today, more than ever, we need to reaffirm, without any caveats, the right of Jews to live in Israel and to defend themselves against those who deny Israel and Jews the right to exist. We deplore the humanitarian catastrophe of the Palestinian people in Gaza and note that it derives directly from the use of civilians as human shields by the Hamas. We, the scholars of the Holocaust assembled in Prague at the Lessons & Legacies conference, as well as other Holocaust scholars and persons devoted to Holocaust memory, unequivocally condemn the politics of terror pursued by Hamas and denounce the forces of global antisemitism."	No	McDoom talks about the statement in this journal article
Jikeli	1 November 2023	Historian	research paper	"Only five posts were positive about Israel, some refuting the accusation that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. Notorious Jewish critics of Israel, such as Norman Finkelstein (Figure 11), Gabor Maté, and Jane Hirschmann were repeatedly used to accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and genocide, often with embedded videos.", "It is worth noting that according to the United Nations definition of genocide, the Hamas massacre is genocide, while the Gaza war is not."	No
Mack	1 November 2023	Human rights lawyer	Haaretz	"The contention that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in retribution for Hamas' October 7 massacres is a false claim not founded in international law."	No	Not in article
Waxman	2 November 2023	professor of political science	Jewish Currents	"To be sure, some of the deeply disturbing rhetoric coming from senior figures in the Israeli government raises the risk of genocidal actions. However, to claim that genocide is already occurring requires stretching the concept too far, emptying it of any meaning."	Maybe	Already in article via Vox article
Berenbaum & Zavadivker	4 November 2023	Historians and Holocaust scholars: 1; 2	Jerusalem Post	"Israel has no greater ambition than to coexist with the Palestinians as peaceful neighbors; "threaten future attempts to identify, prevent, and prosecute that crime. It is equally damaging to the legitimacy of Holocaust and Genocide Studies as a field when such false claims are presented in the guise of scholarly expertise.""	No
Shaw	6 November 2023	International relations prof, Sociologist specialising in genocide	New Lines Magazine	""Genocide" is generally under-deployed because states wish to avoid the responsibilities to "prevent and punish" that the convention imposes on signatories, but there is a special aversion to investigating its implications for Israel's conduct. Western states continue to protect it out of a misplaced belief that Jews, having been prime historical victims of genocide, cannot also be its perpetrators. Israel's current policies are rapidly destroying that conceit, however, and bringing closer the day when its leaders — as well as those of Hamas — will be brought to account for their crimes."	Yes	Already in article
Spencer	7 November 2023	urban warfare researcher	CNN	"Israel is upholding the laws of war"	No
48 scholars	9 November 2023	Professor of Law and Globalisation, Professor of Criminology, Professor of Criminology, Senior lecturer in Sociology, Professor of Social Anthropology, 43 other scholars	International State Crime Initiative	"the Israeli state is employing its extensive and advanced military capacity to inflict violence on Palestinian peoples on such a scale that it is accurate to frame it as the annihilation phase of genocide.", "Israel's announcement of a state of 'total siege' of Gaza, cutting off water, food, electricity and medical supplies, amounted to a clear statement of intent to commit genocide against the Palestinian people by 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part' (Genocide Convention 1948, Article 2)."	Yes	Already in article
Blatman	11 November 2023	Holocaust historian	Haaretz	"The mere fact that Israel and the Palestinians have been waging a bloody war between them for four generations, and they are both committing war crimes and hair-raising acts of violence, still does not mean that a genocide began in Gaza in October 2023"	Maybe
Adel & Gallagher	12 November 2023	International lawyer and PhD researcher; Staff attorney at the CCR	Al Jazeera	"What is happening in Gaza fits the definition of genocide.", "To understand what is transpiring in Gaza, we must turn to the key legal frameworks that define genocide: Article 6 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. Gaza's devastating reality mirrors these components of genocide. Despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaged in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza."	Yes
Karsenti et al	12 November 2023	Political scientist, historian and sociologists: 1; 2; 3; 4	AOC	"By denying their historical connection with Palestine and by attributing a genocidal intention to those who built a state to protect themselves from any genocidal recurrence, Didier Fassin reactivates a classic anti-Semitic gesture that always proceeds by inversion: accusing the Jews of being guilty of what one is preparing to do or fantasizes about doing to them.", "And yet, one must choose sides on the question of whether or not one recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist. If one recognizes it, then the massacre of civilians, intentionally targeted on its sovereign territory, gives it the right not only to defend itself, but to take the necessary measures to ensure that this can never happen again, and therefore to eliminate Hamas, whose program this is."	No	Not in article
Jürgen Habermas, Klaus Günther, Rainer Forst & Nicole Deitelhoff	13 November 2023	Philosopher and Social Theorist; Professor of Law; Philosopher; Political Scientist	Site of "Normative Orders" Research Center at Goethe University Frankfurt	"The Hamas massacre with the declared intention of eliminating Jewish life in general has prompted Israel to strike back. How this retaliation, which is justified in principle, is carried out is the subject of controversial debate; principles of proportionality, the prevention of civilian casualties and the waging of a war with the prospect of future peace must be the guiding principles. Despite all the concern for the fate of the Palestinian population, however, the standards of judgement slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israel's actions."	No
Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor	13 November 2023	Human rights NGO	Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor	"Euro-Med Monitor renewed its calls on all countries across the world to take decisive action to end the Israeli genocide against the people of the Gaza Strip, citing their legal obligations to stop this horrifying crime against humanity."	Yes
Verdeja	13 November 2023	Professor of peace studies and global politics (with a focus on genocide)	Time	"Verdeja says Israel's actions in Gaza are moving toward a "genocidal campaign." While he notes that it is clear Israeli forces intend to destroy Hamas, "the response when you have a security crisis…can be one of ceasefire, negotiation, or it can be genocide.""	Maybe	Already in article
Sanford	13 November 2023	Anthropologist specialising in Human Rights and Genocide	Time	"City University of New York professor Victoria Sanford compares what's happening in Gaza to the killing or disappearance of more than 200,000 Mayans in Guatemala from 1960-1996, known as the Guatemalan genocide"	Yes	Already in article
Simon	13 November 2023	Global Affairs professor, Director of the genocide studies	Time	"Israel has only explicitly said they want to exterminate Hamas, and has not directly stated intent to "destroy a religious, ethnic or racial group." Simon says it's possible a court could conclude that either Hamas or some elements of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) could be found guilty of committing an act of genocide, but "it's certainly not textbook in that connecting the intent to destroy ethnic group as such is difficult.""	Maybe	Already in article
Kiernan	13 November 2023	Historian, Professor of International and Area Studies	Time	"Israel's retaliatory bombing of Gaza, however indiscriminate, and its current ground attacks, despite the numerous civilian casualties they are causing among Gaza's Palestinian population, do not meet the very high threshold that is required to meet the legal definition of genocide."	No	Already in article
Corn	16 November 2023	Professor of law and expert on military law	The Jewish Chronicle	"Many accuse Israel of genocide. These accusations undermine the meaning of what they allege. It might be appealing to toss such accusations about but, as Justice Stewart warned, the significance of the concept of war crimes and credibility of the law is eroded by such overbroad and often invalid accusations. One need only consider the genocide accusation. Palestinians make up 20 percent of the Israeli population with the same civil rights and legal privileges as any other Israeli citizen. How this aligns with the accusation that Israel is engaged in a systemic effort to destroy this ethnic group is perplexing. Nor do casualties in Gaza support even suspicion of genocide."	No	The view that Palestinians enjoy the "same civil rights and legal privileges" is highly contested by other legal experts. See 2010 report, 2022 report, 2023 report
Butler	17 November 2023	Philosopher	Frankfurter Rundschau	Q: "Welche Reaktion erhoffen Sie sich als Unterzeichnerin des offenen Briefes "Philosophie für Palästina"?." A: "Ich hoffe, dass der Völkermord an der Zivilbevölkerung in Gaza ein Ende hat. Es gibt Menschen, die sich von einem Völkermord abwenden, wenn er geschieht, und später bereuen, dass sie sich geweigert haben, das zu benennen, was sie sehen und wissen. Ich schließe mich denen an, die diese bösartige und vorsätzliche Gewalt als "Völkermord" bezeichnen, denn sie entspricht der Definition der Völkermordkonvention."	Yes
Goda & Herf	17 November 2023	Historians and Holocaust scholars: 1; 2	New York Times	"Israel's targets are military: Hamas's soldiers, tunnels, headquarters and weapons stocks. By placing military targets in and under civilian structures, it is Hamas that violates laws of war. The 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention mentions demonstrable intent to destroy a national, racial or religious group. Mr. Bartov is mute about Israel's hundreds of phone calls to Gazans warning them to leave buildings in which Hamas fighters were located. Israel has urged civilians to evacuate to the south to escape battle. A government intent on genocide would do the opposite."	No
Eghbariah	21 November 2023	Human rights lawyer and academic	The Nation	"Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial. When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians.", "If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics.", "Numerous statements made by top Israeli politicians affirm their intentions. There is a forming consensus among leading scholars in the field of genocide studies that "these statements could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent," as Omer Bartov, an authority in the field, writes."	Yes
Crane	21 November 2023	International law scholar	NPR	"It's not an easy case because you have to have that smoking gun. So, you know, I respectfully disagree with his approach on this. If you look at both parties in this tragedy that is unfolding, the prime minister of Israel has to specifically state that, I intend to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people. And I would suggest, respectfully, that that has not been said. Now, they have a long-term problem politically, practically and legally related to their treatment of the Palestinians. But I would beg to differ. I don't think one would categorize that as genocide."	No	Not in article
Kotek	22 November 2023	genocide scholar	L'Express	"The Israeli offensive on Gaza is nothing like the Herero genocide"	No
Michlic	26 November 2023	genocide scholar	Belfast Newletter	"The left that expresses these ideas have no intellectual knowledge of international laws making clear distinctions between different ways of killings", "Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza that entails urban house-to-house fighting that regrettably creates many civilian casualties, as in other wars of this type".	No
Hope Murray	26 November 2023	President of the International Network of Genocide Scholars	News Letter	"When asked if the Gaza events are "genocide," quoted approvingly from a piece by one of the network's members – Professor Martin Shaw "	Yes	Not in article
Buser	28 November 2023	Historian	The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles	"This is not genocide."	No
Friling, Jockusch, Steier-Livny, Patt & Porat	28 November 2023	Historians and Holocaust scholars: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5	Haaretz	"Charging Israel With Genocide in Gaza Is Inflammatory and Dangerous. Historians must be guided by the facts, not political agendas. But when Omer Bartov in The New York Times charged Israel with 'verging' into genocide and ethnic cleansing, he grounded his argument in assertions, not evidence."	No	Already in article
Moreno Ocampo	1 December 2023	Former chief prosecutor of the ICC	Al Jazeera	"The siege of Gaza itself, that is extermination or persecution as a crime against humanity, and it's a form of genocide... Inflicting conditions to destroy the group, that itself is a genocide. So creating a siege itself is a genocide, and that is very clear, that Israel want the siege is very clear. And the intentions to destroy the people, many officers from the Israel government are expressing genocidal intentions. That's why it's easy to say — under reasonable basis to believe — Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza."	Yes	Already in article
Patel	2 December 2023	Legal researcher, reader in International law (holds LLM)	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	""The intent that we have observed is extensive and it comes from all quarters of the Israeli state," said Anisha Patel, a legal researcher with the group Law for Palestine — which provides legal analysis on international law as it relates to Palestinians."	Yes	Already in article
Jones	2 December 2023	Political scientist, specialising in genocide	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	""I believe that the events of Oct. 7 qualify as a genocidal massacre of Israelis. I also think that the Israeli response, and indeed long standing Israeli policy towards the Gazan population, evinces elements of genocidal thinking and increasingly practice," he said."	Maybe
Ayyash	2 December 2023	Sociologist specialising in violence and colonialism	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	"He says what's happening in Gaza is "a deliberate genocidal operation" and that Canada is complicit by having not called for a ceasefire."	Yes
Segal et al.	9 December 2023	60 scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies	Contending Modernities	"We, scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence, feel compelled to warn of the danger of genocide in Israel's attack on Gaza.", "Moreover, dozens of statements of Israeli leaders, ministers in the war cabinet, and senior army officers since 7 October—that is, people with command authority—suggest an "intent to destroy" Palestinians "as such," in the language of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."	Maybe	Already in article
Ben Hounet	13 December 2023	Social anthropologist	Lundi.am	"Beaucoup de chercheurs en France et en Europe se refusent à parler de génocide et évoquent, au mieux, le terme de nettoyage ethnique. Faut-il leur rappeler que de nombreux génocides ont été perpétrés dans la continuation du nettoyage ethnique et lorsque celui-ci a été rendu impossible ? Combien de cases faudra-il cocher avant que les puissances occidentales se décident à réagir fermement et que les intellectuels se saisissent vraiment de ce sujet ?"	Yes	Not in article
Finkelstein	19 December 2023	Political scientist	GV Wire	"countered that Israel has been engaging in a genocidal war in Gaza since the conflict's inception"	Yes	Already in article
Dirk Moses	19 December 2023	genocide scholar	Democracy for the Arab World Now	"Today, international law on genocide is working as it was designed to: allowing states to ruthlessly exterminate security threats while making it difficult to apply that law. By the reasoning of international lawyers supporting Israel's war in Gaza today, there are no limits to the number of Palestinian civilians who can be killed incidentally in the pursuit of Israeli military objectives.", "The grotesque nature of the law of genocide, however, is that victim numbers are irrelevant. All that counts is intent. If the intention is military rather than genocidal, many will argue not only that legitimate self-defense rather than genocide is taking place, but also that it is legal and even moral."	Yes	See also his November article in the Boston Review
Ambos	22 December 2023	professor of criminal law and head of the Department of Foreign and International Criminal Law	Hard to group into a clear category	"Bartov chooses his words carefully. He warns of possibly impending genocide without claiming it is happening already. Some statements of certain Israeli policymakers are indeed worrisome. Yet, while they may be relevant for proving the necessary specific intent, they cannot automatically be attributed to the persons who are taking the military decisions."	No
Spencer	22 December 2023	genocide scholar	K. online journal	"As far as I am concerned, the charge of genocide against Israel is particularly shocking. It betrays a wilful refusal to recognise that Hamas has openly stated its genocidal aims, and has perpetrated acts which fall quite clearly within the definition of genocidal acts according to the Convention"	No
Lemkin Institute	29 December 2023	Antigenocide NGO	Lemkin Institute	"The genocide being perpetrated by the State of Israel is embedded in a complex historical, political, and strategic context that seems to have fostered and, ultimately, devolved into a pervasive genocidal dynamic on both sides of the conflict – Israel, on the one hand, and the Islamist militant organization known as Hamas, on the other – as well as among segments of their respective populations, especially, as will be explained below, in the case of Israel.", "The Lemkin Institute believes that Israel's retaliation against Palestinians amounts not only to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but also to genocide, as also asserted by, among others, the former Director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber."	Yes	Already in article
Bishara	1 January 2024	Political philosopher, director of the ACRPS	Al-Muntaqa, journal of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies	"The essay contends that Israel and its allies' claim of self-defence to justify their genocidal actions in Gaza and to marginalize moral judgements is a blatant lie.", "In this case, shared identity is a motive for rejecting Israel's monopolization of the conversation, its claim to speak in the name of the Jews while committing genocide, and its distortion of that identity with its criminal practices against the Palestinian people."	Yes	Includes specific responses to Habermas' arguments.
Swazo	1 January 2024	Professor of philosophy	North South Journal of Peace and Global Studies	"Undoubtedly, the State of Israel is an Occupying Power and subject to the law of the Geneva Conventions in the manner of its treatment of the Palestinian people. In relation to international positive law (the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, etc.) and the morality central to the jus gentium, the State of Israel is by no means to be excepted in the way it decides to conduct itself vis-à-vis the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, including Gaza. The Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories are entitled as a matter of jus gentium to the full protection the international community of nations can muster on those grounds. Thus, Louis Rene Beres (1989, 29) is entirely correct to remind that, the Genocide Convention, along with other "human rights 'regime'" treaties and declarations, "represents the end of the idea of absolute sovereignty concerning non-intervention when human rights are in grievous jeopardy." And, this certainly applies in the case of Israel's war being waged against the Palestinian people in Gaza (with spillover effects in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as the IDF supports settler Israelis in their hostile acts of dispossession and displacement of the Palestinians in those quarters)."	Yes
Cohen and Shany	2 January 2024	International Law Professors: 1 2	Just Security	"The raising of even more serious charges – such as the commission of genocide, the "crime of crimes" – requires an even higher commitment to factual analysis, which should include all relevant facts, including those "inconvenient" to whoever is making such claims. Many of the allegations made in this regard, including those found in the recent South African application to the ICJ appear to fall short of this standard. Still, we do consider the South African application as potentially useful in drawing more attention to the positive obligations of the State of Israel to suppress incitement to genocide and to address potentially genocidal statements made in public by Israeli influencers and politicians."	No
Shaw	3 January 2024	International relations prof, Sociologist specialising in genocide	Journal of Genocide Research	"Likewise warning of the potential for genocide as a maximal end-state obscured the genocidal process that was already occurring, Moreover, if the United Nations Genocide Convention was an inevitable reference point, the choice to hew close to a legal tick-box exercise not only allowed defenders of Israel's violence to argued that the criteria had not been met. It also sidelined the Convention's manifold defects, recognized in the field since its inception, and those of the subsequent jurisprudence, recently exposed in the case of Ukraine.", "It was therefore essential to recognize that in genocidal war, policies radicalize. Israel's initial genocidal thrust contained the potential for a greater genocide, which might turn the right's most ambitious ideas into reality."	Yes	Already in article
International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine	3 January 2024	100 international organisations	Common Dreams	"urging governments across the globe to formally support South Africa's International Court of Justice case against Israel, accusing the government of genocidal violence in Gaza.",	Yes	Already in article
Multiple specialists in international medicine	6 January 2024		The Lancet	"Before October's escalation of violence, the effect of the Israeli siege of Gaza had already been described as a "slow-motion genocide".", "We situate this violence in relation to the definition of genocide as described in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, focusing on physical elements including killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, creating life-threatening conditions, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children.", "As public health and humanitarian professionals, we the authors state emphatically that the grave risk of genocide against the Palestinian people warrants immediate—and now overdue—action."	Yes	Already in article
Rosensaft	9 January 2024	Professor of law, expert on genocide law	Times of Israel	"The word genocide is used willy-nilly by people all over the world, but genocide, as it has evolved since 1948 when the genocide convention was first adopted by the UN General Assembly, is a legal concept. And whatever else Israel is doing, and has done, it is not intending to destroy the Palestinian people; either on the West Bank or in Gaza", "Even Netanyahu, with whom I fundamentally disagree on most issues, is not planning to evict the Palestinians from Gaza. So the term genocide does not work.", "October 7 was a deliberate action by a genocidal organization that targeted Israeli — meaning Jewish — civilians: women, men, children, and the elderly."	No
1,347 francophone academics	9 January 2024	(most relevant not all)	L'Humanité	"Nous nous opposons aux graves violations par Israël des droits humains et de la liberté académique des Palestiniens, à la guerre génocidaire en cours à Gaza ainsi qu'aux arrestations et détentions arbitraires en particulier celles subies par les étudiants et le personnel palestinien dans les universités de Cisjordanie."	Yes
Paul	10 January 2024	Professor of law	San Francisco Chronicle	"I see no evidence that Israel is trying to destroy all or a substantial part of the Palestinians."	No
Schabas	10 January 2024	Professor of international law, and expert in genocide	ITV	"Professor William Schabas, an elected President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, was one of the world's first experts to sound the alarm, citing "serious risk of genocide" as early as late October 2023. "The evidence today is even more compelling," he told ITV News. "To me it is increasingly clear that Israel is not aiming to defeat Hamas, but rather to uproot or erase the population of Gaza.""	Maybe	Already in article
Boyle	10 January 2024	Professor of international law	ITV	"Professor Francis Boyle, who won the first case ever under the genocide convention at the ICJ for the republic of Bosnia Herzegovina against Yugoslavia, said he is confident South Africa will win an order against Israel to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Palestinians. He told ITV News: "When I submitted my case, I had to work on it on my own. South Africa has an impressive team of experts who have managed to put together the most comprehensive and impeccable application.""	Yes
Flasch	10 January 2024	Legal Consultant in Public International Law, with a focus on armed conflict	EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law	"Despite having been firmly established in international law for three quarters of a century, the definition and requisite elements of the international crime of genocide appear to have been misunderstood or, in some cases, deliberately misapplied, seemingly by both scholars and laypersons.", "Labelling Israel's military operation against Hamas as an act of genocide may threaten to undo 75 years of work to prevent and punish the commission of genocide, by diluting and diminishing the effect of the Genocide Convention."	No
Wiese	11 January 2024	"research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Chair of European Law, Public International Law and Public Law"	Stern	"but is usually very difficult to prove"; "The destruction of the group must be the sole aim of the perpetrator"; "under international law, there is a right to self-defence"	{{ }}
Herik	11 January 2024	professor of international public law	Leiden University website	"That is a claim that is very difficult to prove, because you have to prove that Israel is acting with the specific purpose of exterminating the Palestinians."	{{ }}
Roth	11 January 2024	Lawyer and human rights activist	PBS News Hour	"I think there's not much question that the level of killing, the level of deprivation is sufficient to meet that predicate part of the crime of genocide." "This is all genocidal intent. also kind of worked backwards from the acts on the ground to say that, because Israel is bombing so indiscriminately, because it's using these massive 2,000-pound bombs in heavily populated areas, that this also shows an indifference to Palestinian civilian life, which itself is indicative of genocidal intent."	Yes
Walter	11 January 2024	Professor of international law	Reputable online legal publication	"Although the high number of civilian deaths and the enormous material damage are horrific, they do not necessarily prove an intent to commit genocide. For example, the repeated calls for the civilian population to leave certain parts of the area or the observance of the obligation to warn and set a deadline before withdrawing protection from a civilian hospital because it is being used outside its humanitarian purpose to commit acts harmful to the enemy speak against such an intent."	No
Platt	12 January 2024	social sciences professor with a focus on genocide research	Deutschlandfunk Kultur (Audio episode)	"Genocide really doesn't fit here/does not fit at all" (from title)	No
Boot	15 January 2024	Military historian	The Washington Post	"But while it's easy to second-guess the actions of Israeli forces, there is no evidence that they have engaged in a deliberate campaign to 'destroy, in whole or in part,' the Palestinian people — which is what 'genocide' means in international law. Awful as the civilian deaths in Gaza have been, they still constitute less than 1 percent of the territory's population. If Israel, with all the firepower at its disposal, had been trying to commit mass murder, the death toll would have been higher by orders of magnitude.", "That's why the charge of genocide has been rejected not only by the United States but also by Canada, Britain and Germany, among others."	No	Not in the article
Mirsky	17 January 2024	Middle east and human rights expert	UnHerd	"South Africa was able to present evidence of genocidal-sounding intent from any number of political actors in the Netanyahu government. None of them, though, have direct decision-making authority over the conduct of the war, leading to open hostility between some of them (Itamar Ben-Gvir above all) with the IDF high command. That direct authority is reserved not just to the military professionals, but to the war cabinet, convened by Netanyahu to insulate him from his own coalition partners, and in which the political opposition to Netanyahu is well-represented; given Israeli public fury at Netanyahu, he would no longer be in power if they weren't in the room. Moreover, if genocide were Israel's aim, issuing warnings before bombings, creating humanitarian corridors (however limited), and allowing in food and other necessities would be a pretty poor way of going about it."	No	The evidence provided by South Africa in their submission, as detailed in this Guardian article, includes comments made by Yoav Gallant (Minister of Defence and member of the Israeli war cabinet), and made by Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel) as evidence of genocidal intent.
El-Affendi	18 January 2024	Professor of Politics and Dean of Social Sciences	Journal of Genocide Research	"If the (televised) Syrian genocide was the first internationally tolerated series of atrocities, then the recent genocidal violence in Gaza is the first with active input from the "international community."", "One maxim it should state is: if a series of actions approach genocide sufficiently to occasion a debate on whether they are genocide or not, then they are evil enough to be denounced without ifs or buts"	Yes	Already in article
Samudzi	18 January 2024	Sociologist	Journal of Genocide Research	"Thus, inhered within this strategy, within Israel's retaliatory campaign on Gaza, is a transtemporal logic of genocide that attempts to neutralize the Gazan Palestinian in the present so as altogether displace and/or eliminate its presence and foreclose the possibility of its future.", "Because of the legal impunity that Israel has enjoyed, the question of genocide in Palestine transcends the applicability of the Genocide Convention (though, arguably, present violence in Gaza includes nearly every act outlined in Article II) and can be better sociologically understood through the eight techniques of genocide outlined by Lemkin himself."	Yes	Already in article
Muravchik	18 January 2024	Political scientist	The Wall Street Journal	"Hamas, not Israel, is guilty of genocide."	No
Levene	21 January 2024	Professor of Jewish history and genocide	Journal of Genocide Research	"All that said, if the utterance of genocide too obviously sticks in the craw for those like Illouz, who might read an inherent dissonance in the implication of a post-Holocaust state committing the act – arguably the ultimate Jewish taboo – there might be other routes by which we could overcome a semantic disagreement.", "The reality of the situation, whatever nomenclature genocide scholars may consider most appropriate – genocide, genocidal warfare, permanent security, urbicide, social death –the Israeli state this time has dissolved any remaining vestige (if ever there was one) of moral unassailability and given other (liberal or illiberal) states who might have their own unﬁnished reckonings with communal adversaries the respectability of open season to do their worst."	Yes	Already in article
1,600 academics	23 January 2024	Various, some relevant	La Jornada	"Luego de rechazar cualquier discurso de odio o discriminación, llamaron a los universitarios de todo el país a apoyar diversas acciones, entre ellas sumarse al exhorto que lanzaron mas de mil 600 académicos de todo el continente a los gobiernos progresistas de América Latina para que actúen de forma conjunta contra el “genocidio” y presionen por un alto al fuego inmediato."	Yes
Dershowitz	24 January 2024	Professor of law	Ynet	"Israel did not commit genocide, the number of civilians who were killed is proportional to the number of combatants, it is lower than any war in modern history. Israel is trying its best to preserve civilian life, whereas Hamas is doing its best to take civilian lives."	No
Semerdjian	24 January 2024	History professor, Chair of Armenian genocide studies	Journal of Genocide Research	"Furthermore, as the civilian/combatant distinction has collapsed, and given the scale of civilian destruction, it appears the distinction between the targeted bombing promised by "humane war" and indiscriminate bombing has largely vanished. Since everything from taking shelter in hospitals or fleeing for safety is declared a form of human shielding, the entire civilian population has been transformed into a legal target. This too is the logic of genocide.", "Terms like "civil war," "conflict," and even "counterinsurgency" frequently serve as legal cover for genocide, and in its wake, form the repertoire of genocide denial.", "For many, the killing of Palestinians in Gaza is justifiable self-defense. In the wake of 7 October, America and European allies offered support for Israel's unrestrained "right to defense" for "permanent security" in the tradition of America's own War on Terror. The problem is, genocides are also premised on the right to security and self-defense against an existential threat."	Yes	Already in article
Fassin	25 January 2024	Anthropologist and sociologist	AOC	"Didier Fassin joue un rôle de lanceur d’alerte lorsqu'il écrit le 1er novembre 2023 : « Alors que la plupart des gouvernements occidentaux continuent de dire "le droit d'Israël à se défendre" sans y mettre de réserves autres que rhétoriques et sans même imaginer un droit semblable pour les Palestiniens, il y a en effet une responsabilité historique à prévenir ce qui pourrait devenir le premier génocide du XXIe siècle. »"	Yes
Kontorovich	25 January 2024	Lawyer, specialising in international law	Israel Hayom	"The good news was the International Court of Justice did not effectively order us to wait to be tortured and murdered, by demanding a halt to the Gaza War. That is certainly good – but only in the twisted world where the ICJ is putting Israel, not Hamas, on trial for the absolutely absurd charge of genocide."	No	Already in article
Üngör	26 January 2024	Professor of genocide studies	Journal of Genocide Research	"The dynamic of violence since 7 October then is not a qualitative transmutation, but a corollary of the path-dependent history of the conflict: asymmetrical power relations, and annihilatory attitudes towards civilians.", "It is also evident to most observers that the Israeli reaction is unmistakably counter-genocidal in terms of the quantity, quality, and dynamic of mass violence. Even if we disregard the quantitative dimension of the ongoing death toll, an analysis of the qualitative elements of the violence indicates a complex process of destruction."	Yes	Already in article
Lederman	29 January 2024	Holocaust scholar	Journal of Genocide Research	"On 7 October, Gaza became a laboratory for genocidal violence. I use this term to distinguish it from genocide per se, to refer to violence that has certain genocidal characteristics but not others.", "Considering the importance of settler colonialism as a frame of analysis in genocide studies, we may do well to consider Gaza as a laboratory not just for the dynamic of settler colonialism and its contemporary relevance as underlying hegemonic legal, political, and moral frameworks, but also for the politics of applying this frame and its moral implications."	Maybe	Already in article
Illouz	2 February 2024	Professor of sociology	The Forward	"The people who surround him —Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich — are more overtly fascist. They believe in violence. Their camp murdered Yitzhak Rabin. They hold and defend Jewish supremacist views. Their declarations after Oct. 7 amounted to calls to genocide (even though I do not think Israel is committing genocide)."	No	No longer in article
Charny	2 February 2024	genocide scholar	Genocide Watch	"Israel is fighting back legitimately in Self-Defense in Response and in Self-Defense against Future Genocidal Attacks that Employ Citizens as Human Shields. The Geneva Conventions specifically outlaw use of human shields and justify fighting back in response. Self-Defense does not include genocidal intent."	No
El-Affendi	3 February 2024	Professor of politics, Dean of Social Sciences	Al Jazeera	"Increasing partisanship in Genocide Studies threatens the field itself", "An endless stream of interventions in the media accompanied and followed these initiatives, exhibiting mounting polarisation and politicization", "This public split among scholars prompted the Journal of Genocide Research, the leading and oldest periodical in the field, to organise a forum on the topic 'Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies'. It invited a small number of leading figures in the field", "Overall, in the forum, there was uneven worry about the health of the field, but near consensus that what Israel is doing in Gaza is certainly "genocidal" if not outright genocide", "I also stand by my point that the increasing polarisation and partisanship in the field, together with the 'major democracies' simultaneously assuming the role of participants and deniers, is a very serious blow to the whole endeavour of genocide prevention."	Yes
Mockaitis	4 February 2024	Historian	The Hill	"The IDF campaign has left much of Gaza in ruins, displacing people and creating a massive refugee and humanitarian crisis. However, the use of excessive force stems from an aversion to casualties, not genocidal intent. If the massive assault on Gaza is not genocide, it may constitute a war crime, although that will be hard to prove.	No
Trachtenberg	7 February 2024	Historian, specialising in Jewish History	The New Yorker	"Trachtenberg testified to a consensus opinion among historians of genocide that what is happening in Gaza can indeed be called a genocide, largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials. "We are watching the genocide unfold as we speak," he said. "We are in this incredibly unique position where we can intervene to stop it, using the mechanisms of international law that are available to us.""	Yes	Already in article
Burke-White	8 February 2024	Professor of international law	University of Pennsylvania website	"It should be noted that genocide is an incredibly difficult crime to prove. Genocide refers to any of a series of acts – such as the killing or the transfer of children—undertaken with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." Historically, courts have struggled to prove the relevant intent, which is not just murder but a concerted policy to destroy a people as a whole. For South Africa to win this case, it will need to find and provide evidence that the Israeli government's intent was not merely to prevent attacks such as those of October 7 or to degrade the capability of Hamas, but rather to annihilate the Palestinian people as a whole."	{{ }}
Fassin	8 February 2024	Anthropologist and sociologist	Journal of Genocide Research	"It is a similar exercise that I want to propose here about the arguments used by those who have championed the right of Israel to defend itself at whatever cost for Palestinian civilians and have attacked those who have alerted the world to the risk of a genocide being perpetrated in Gaza", "As the destruction of public infrastructures, including hospitals and schools, and the tally of civilian casualties, mostly children and women, increased in Gaza on a scale never seen before in Palestine, the qualification of the war crimes committed by Israel as possibly a genocide by scholars, lawyers, experts from international organizations and even governments has generated hostile reactions in Israel and among supporters of the Israeli politics of retaliation, mostly in Western countries.", "The critics of this qualification, many of them academics, maintained that a state created for a people victim of the quintessential genocide could not be suspected of committing a similar crime", "Alerting to the prospect of a genocide being perpetrated in Gaza is stigmatized as an unconscious desire to have a genocide perpetrated against the Jews."	Yes	Already in article
Posen	14 February 2024	Political scientist and security analyst	Foreign Policy	"One answer is simple. When war is fought among civilians, civilians are killed.", "Western militaries, including the IDF, try to live by these laws, though the law of armed conflict does not proscribe them from waging war. They try to follow these rules in part because they reflect the values of the societies that they serve and in part because of an expectation of reciprocity, but also because pragmatically, they know that lots of civilian casualties can become a political liability at home and abroad. Hamas spends the lives of Palestinian civilians as ammunition in an information war."	No
Green	16 February 2024	Professor of Law and Globalisation	State Crime Journal	"Just two months after this special issue was finalized Israel launched its catastrophic, genocidal assault on Gaza.", "As this timely and crucially important volume demonstrates Israel's genocide of the Palestinians is bound both to the logic of settler colonialism and to the necessity of its abolition.", "What we are witnessing now, not only in Gaza but across historic Palestine is the denouement in Israel's genocide of the indigenous Palestinians…a second Nakba and as Knesset member Arial Kallner demanded one that dwarfs the Nakba of 1948."	Yes	Not in the article
Genocide Watch	20 February 2024	Antigenocide NGO	Genocide Watch	"These are the signs of the genocidal process in Israel's war in Gaza: Israel's leaders persist in conflating all Palestinian people with Hamas. ; Israel's leaders incite genocide against Palestinians by dehumanizing Palestinians as "human animals" and by summoning Biblical justification for genocide ; Israel collectively punishes all Gazans for the actions of Hamas. Israel's leaders deny that there are any innocent civilians in Gaza. This falsehood denies any duty to obey the laws of war, which require avoidance of attacks on civilians. ; This collective punishment is used to justify the bombing and killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian women, children, and noncombatants, including at least 85 journalists ; Israel has forcibly displaced 1.7 million Gazans from their homes into tent cities ; Israel bombs and assaults hospitals where wounded civilians seek medical care and shelter ; Israel bombs Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza ; Israel bombs and attacks areas in Gaza to which it has directed civilians for their "safety" ; Israel bombs “escape routes” it has designated for Palestinians fleeing Israeli attacks ; Israel's blockade and siege of Gaza is producing widespread famine ."	Yes	Not in article
Falk	25 February 2024	Professor of international law, and Chair of EuroMed-Monitor	Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor	"This pattern is quite extraordinary because the states supporting Israel, above all the United States, have claimed the high moral and legal ground for themselves and have long lectured the states of the Global South about the importance of the rule of law, human rights, and respect for international law. This is instead of urging compliance with international law and morality by both sides in the face of the most transparent genocide in all of human history. In the numerous pre-Gaza genocides, the existential horrors that occurred were largely known after the fact and through statistics and abstractions, occasionally vivified by the tales told by survivors. The events, although historically reconstructed, were not as immediately real as these events in Gaza with the daily reports from journalists on the scene for more than three months."	Yes
Human Rights Watch	26 February 2024	International human rights NGO	Human Rights Watch website	"The Israeli government is starving Gaza's 2.3 million Palestinians, putting them in even more peril than before the World Court's binding order", "The Israeli government has simply ignored the court's ruling, and in some ways even intensified its repression, including further blocking lifesaving aid"	Yes	Already in article
Amnesty International	26 February 2024	International human rights NGO	Amnesty International website	"One month after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered "immediate and effective measures" to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services, Israel has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply, Amnesty International said today."	Yes	Already in article
Fakhri	27 February 2024	Professor of law, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food	The Guardian	"Michael Fakhri says denial of food is war crime and constitutes 'a situation of genocide'", "In my view as a UN human rights expert, this is now a situation of genocide."	Yes	Already in article
Giroux	1 March 2024	Scholar and culture critic	Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review	"While the International Court of Justice judgment should be welcomed, it is hard to imagine why there isn't an immediate call for a cease-fire and a full-fledged acknowledgment of Israel's committed war crimes and acts of genocide.", "Higher education may be one of the few sites left where prominent issues such as the genocidal war on Gaza can be analysed, engaged, and subject to the rigours of history, a comprehensive analysis, and relevant evidence."	Yes
1,346 academics	1 March 2024	(some relevant not all)	Academics 4 Peace	"Israel's assault on Gaza appears to include both acts and intent stated in the definition of genocide.", "President Biden, do not let the United States go down in history as the enabler of genocide"	Yes	Not in the article
Segal & Daniele	5 March 2024	Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies; Professor of law, specialising in armed conflict, humanitarian, and international law	Journal of Genocide Research	"Finkel reasonably concluded that it was "hard to imagine a more actionable template to destroy a national group," and that the "combination of official statements denying Ukraine and Ukrainians the right to exist, and mounting evidence of deliberate, large-scale targeting of Ukrainian civilians" left "little room for doubt" that “the threshold from war crimes to genocide" was crossed.", "Applying the same standard indicated by Finkel to the Israeli mainstream political and media discourse about Palestinians, the threshold from war crimes to genocide has been crossed before 7 October. In May 2023, a clear template to destroy a national group was proposed by Jeffrey Camras in an article in the Times of Israel. Camras proposed that "in order to right a wrong, in order to make peace and move forward, Palestine must be obliterated."", "Nonetheless, no Holocaust scholar viewed this situation in the way Finkel saw Russia's attack on Ukraine. Most Holocaust scholars, in fact, never even mentioned the large body of evidence of Israeli international crimes in the fifty-six years of Israeli occupation.", "The very different ways in which Holocaust scholars, on the one hand, and those working in Genocide Studies, on the other, have responded to the unfolding mass violence in Israel and Palestine after 7 October point to an unprecedented crisis in Holocaust and Genocide Studies. We argue that the crisis stems from the significant evidence for genocide in Israel's attack on Gaza, which has exposed the exceptional status accorded to Israel as a foundational element in the field, that is, the idea that Israel, the state of Holocaust survivors, can never perpetrate genocide."	Yes	Already in article
Feldmann	6 March 2024	Professor of international law	Time, via World Socialist Website	"Israel's efforts to defend itself against Hamas, even if found to involve killing disproportionate number of civilians, do not turn Israel into a genocidal actor comparable to the Nazis or the Hutu regime in Rwanda. The genocide charge depends on intent. And Israel, as a state, is not fighting the Gaza War with the intent to destroy the Palestinian people.", "These relevant facts matter for putting the genocide charge into the context of potential antisemitism. Neither South Africa nor other states have brought a genocide case against China for its conduct in Tibet or Xinjiang, or against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. There is something specifically noteworthy about leveling the charge at the Jewish state—something intertwined with the new narrative of the Jews as archetypal oppressors rather than archetypal victims. Call it the genocide sleight of hand: if the Jews are depicted as genocidal—if Israel becomes the very archetype of a genocidal state—then Jews are much less likely to be conceived as a historically oppressed people engaged in self-defense."	No
Scholars of Middle East Studies	11 March 2024	Middle East Studies Association	Al Jazeera	"accelerating scale of genocidal violence being inflicted on the Palestinian population of Gaza"	Yes	Already in article
Quigley	14 March 2024	Law professor	EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law	"South Africa will be able to present considerable evidence of knowing destruction, from the mouths of UN officials and representatives of non-governmental aid organizations.", "The "conditions of life" were imposed not merely on discrete sectors of the group, but on its entirety. Israel had control over both egress and ingress from the relevant territory. No intent alternative to that of destruction was apparent."	Maybe	Already in article
Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams	21 March 2024	Professor and scientific staff	blog of peace research institute	"Whether the ICJ will classify Israeli violence as genocide cannot be answered at this point in time."	Maybe
Albanese	25 March 2024	Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967; researcher and international lawyer	United Nations	"By analysing the patterns of violence and Israeli policies in its onslaught on Gaza, the present report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating that Israel has committed genocide has been met. One of the key findings of the report is that the Israeli executive and military leadership and Israeli soldiers have intentionally distorted jus in bello principles, subverting their protective functions, in an attempt to legitimize genocidal violence against the Palestinian people"	Yes	Already in article
Sahara	1 April 2024	Professor of political science	The Journal of Research Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer	"The scale of violence of the recent Israeli war has already exceeded the initial stages of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and is becoming an immense ethnic cleansing comparable with the Armenian case. In light of the bellicose discriminatory discourses of the Israeli leaders, systematic destruction of civilian targets, forced starvation, and rapidly deteriorating hygiene conditions in Gaza, there are ample grounds to believe that the war on Gaza will develop into a full-fledged genocide if unchecked."	Maybe	Not in the article
1,101 lawyers	3 April 2024	Various legal scholars and practitioners	Open letter to Rishi Sunak	"These facts demonstrate a pattern of behaviour giving rise not only to specific violations of IHL and of crimes against humanity but also, when taken together with the evidence of genocidal intent in statements by senior Israeli officials cited by the ICJ in its Provisional Order, a serious risk of genocide. That risk relates in particular to the Genocide Convention Article II (a) "killing members of the group"; (b) "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group"; and (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part". In light of the infant and maternal mortality rates and the destruction of Gaza's healthcare system described above, these facts may also give rise to violations of Article II(d), i.e. "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"."	Yes	Already in article Signatories include Jonathan Sumption, Brenda Hale, Nicholas Wilson and Robert Carnwarth
Lévy	4 April 2024	Philosopher	France Info	"Il n'y a pas de génocide à Gaza, il n'y a pas de massacre délibéré des populations civiles"	No	Not in the article
Bauer	6 April 2024	Genocide scholar	Kan 11	"Of course this is not a genocide. It is absolutely clear. But it doesn't mean that I justify what Israel does in Gaza. I think the killing that we cause there is what is called in academic language mass atrocities crimes. But obviously all comparisons to genocide are baseless."	No	Not in the article
Talmon	7 April 2024	Professor of international law	Süddeutsche Zeitung	"This is clearly a war crime. But not genocide."	No	Already in article
Braverman	9 April 2024	Former Attorney General of the United Kingdom	LBC	"I very strongly rebut suggestions that Israel is in breach of international law, that there's a genocide, that there's a forced starvation."	No	Not in the article
Ashour	10 April 2024	Professor of Economics, International relations project coordinator, Organiser Docentes con Palestina	Público	"Este viernes, Docentes con Palestina ha convocado concentraciones a mediodía en todos los centros de enseñanza de Galicia en solidaridad con el pueblo palestino, para alertar una vez más del genocidio y para que el alumnado educado en el siglo XXI sea consciente de que está viviendo en directo uno de los peores horrores que han ocurrido en la historia de la raza humana." , "Explicar que ahora mismo está ocurriendo un genocidio y exigir su final es difícil, pero es una tarea absolutamente pedagógica", sostiene."	Yes	Not in the article
Walzer	17 April 2024	Professor/well known philosopher and political scientist	Die Zeit	"No. There is no genocidal intent on the Israeli side. Some members of the Israeli government want to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and relocate them. But fortunately, they are not the decisive force in government."	No	Not in the article
Whyte	17 April 2024	Professor of philosophy, and political theorist (see also)	Journal of Genocide Research	"Israel's conduct in Gaza, and the US's active legal support for it, forces us to grapple with the seemingly unthinkable: a perfectly legal genocide, that is a genocide legitimized via a permissive interpretation of IHL.", "By turning to Gaza, I show that Israel has mobilized a deeply permissive account of IHL to justify its use of starvation as a tool of genocide.", "Notably absent from Power's statement was the stance for which she became famous: moral condemnation of a US administration that responds to genocide by rendering "the bloodshed two sided and inevitable, not genocidal.""	Yes	Not in the article
Robinson	17 April 2024	Professor of Sociology	Journal of World-Systems Research	"Genocidal pressures were building up against the Palestinians well before the siege of Gaza that began in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. In Israel it is now perfectly normal to call for genocide against the Palestinians; whereas to the contrary, it is looked upon as treason to defend Palestinian life."	Yes	Not in the article
Patel and Ben Imran	21 April 2024	1: Legal researcher, reader in International law (holds LLM); 2: Reader in International law (holds LLM)	Al Jazeera	"Last month, our organisation, Law for Palestine, made the first in a series of submissions to the ICC, characterising the crime of genocide committed by Israeli leaders against the Palestinian people. The 200-page document, drafted by 30 lawyers and legal researchers from across the world and reviewed by more than 15 experts, makes a compelling case for the genocidal intent as well as for the prosecutorial policy that the court has followed in other cases.", "We also refer to the database we have put together of more than 500 instances of Israeli incitement to genocide as additional proof. While the statements form a substantial part of the intent component of the crime of genocide, the submission goes beyond and highlights the various actions and official policies that additionally prove intent."	Yes	Not in the article
Suny	25 April 2024	Historian	The Nation	"The world is watching a genocide taking place in real time."	Yes	Not in the article
Donoghue	26 April 2024	President of the ICJ during the hearing on the SA case	BBC News	"The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide – and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media – it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided."	Maybe	Already in article
Goldmann	26 April 2024	Professor of international law	Junge Welt	"The law professor does not expect a clear conviction of Israel in the South Africa-Israel case, nor a clear dismissal of the lawsuit." "According to Article II of the Convention, a breach occurs when an actor implements the intention to destroy a group of people in whole or in part by killing, injuring or restricting the living conditions of said group. In the case of Israel, there is no "smoking gun" that clearly proves such an intention, explained Goldmann. Statements by Israeli politicians in the media are "non-authoritative sources""	No	Not in the article
Shalhoub-Kevorkian	26 April 2024	Professor of law, specialising in trauma, state crimes, genocide, gender violence and surveillance	The Guardian	"Her lawyers and international academics have condemned Hebrew University for fuelling months of political attacks on one of their faculty in the run-up to her detention. The rector called on her to resign in late 2023 after she signed a letter calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and describing Israel's campaign as genocide, and she was briefly suspended over the podcast cited in her interrogation."	Yes	Not in the article
Jamshidi	6 May 2024	Professor of law	Journal of Genocide Research	"That application was preceded by weeks of public debate and insistence by Palestinians and others – including genocide scholars – that Israel was either already committing genocide against the residents of Gaza or risked committing genocide The law of genocide often tells us to disregard what our eyes leave little doubt is happening. This creates a profound disconnect between the legal definition of genocide and popular and historical experiences and understandings of the term. By situating the catastrophe in Gaza both within Israel's long history of eliminationist violence towards Palestinians and fine-tuned legal arguments, South Africa has brought the law into line with the historical reality and lived-experiences of the victims of genocide, forcing a dialectical conversation between two, often, opposing planes – the law on genocide and the reality of genocide."	Yes	Not in the article
Sultany	9 May 2024	Reader in Public law	Journal of Genocide Research	"Legal discourse needs to match the reality of horror to maintain its relevance. Although legal scholars and commentators were slow to recognize the severity and urgency of the situation, this article sought to show that there is an emerging consensus that Israel's actions in Gaza are not another instance of armed conflict but instead amount to genocide. This genocide is committed against an integral component of the Palestinian people, a protected group under the Genocide Convention. The preceding discussion shows that obstacles facing a legal determination of genocide (namely, assessing the credibility of military logic and the existence of genocidal intent) are not insurmountable. The emerging consensus described here may not be overwhelming and will have to face opposition and potential judicial disagreement. Yet an overwhelming body of evidence supports it and a consistency in the application of standards requires it."	Yes	Already in article
Several professors	10 May 2024	Several professors, including: Professor of information theory; Professor of political science; Professor of sociology, with a specialism in politics; Professor of sociology	El País	"La introducción al texto presentado por los catedráticos enumera cinco peticiones dirigidas al rector de la UCM: una condena "clara y explícita" de la destrucción deliberada de las universidades palestinas y el ataque a profesores, estudiantes y personal universitario; la petición de alto al fuego "inmediato y permanente"; la cancelación de toda colaboración con universidades israelís "que se relacionen con el genocidio de Gaza"; financiar programas para acoger a estudiantes y maestros palestinos; y la cancelación de toda colaboración con empresas o instituciones "que otorguen un apoyo directo o al genocidio en Gaza"."	Yes	Not in the article
Pappé	15 May 2024	Historian, specialising in Israel-Palestine	Al Jazeera	"What we see now are massacres which are part of the genocidal impulse, namely to kill people in order to downsize the number of people living in Gaza"	Yes	Already in article
Hartwig and Müller	16 May 2024	Scholars of international law: 1; 2	digital news partnering with big newspapers	"I ultimately do not see sufficient grounds for genocide if one takes the legal term seriously."; "Even if individual actions by the Israeli armed forces can be described as war crimes, they do not at the same time constitute genocide."	No	Not in the article
Sassoli and Diggelmann	20 May 2024	International Law Professors: 1; 2	SRF	"«Certain statements by Israeli politicians were genocidal». There was talk of extermination. «But the actions of the Israeli army are, in my opinion, directed against Hamas and not against the entire population»"; "He does not believe that the International Court of Justice will find a generationalintent to commit genocide in the South Africa v. Israel case."	No	Not in the article
Maison	20 May 2024	Professor of international law	Orient XXI	"S'agissant de Gaza, la qualification de génocide peut également être sérieusement envisagée au regard, notamment, de la systématicité des attaques, de leur sens, et de leur inscription dans une offensive plus large contre la population civile." , "C'est à ce moment qu’un élément inédit a été avancé en faveur d'Israël : une interview de l'ancienne présidente de la Cour internationale de justice, Joan Donoghue, affirmant que la juridiction n’aurait pas reconnu une affaire plausible de génocide (a « plausible case of genocide »). Rappelons ici que, dans son ordonnance du 26 janvier 2024, la cour affirme que le droit des Palestiniens d'être protégés contre les actes de génocide est plausible (§§ 36, 54), et qu'il existe une urgence, c'est à dire un « risque réel et imminent » de préjudice irréparable causé aux droits revendiqués (§ 61, 74). Il s'agit bien d'un risque de génocide, même si la cour n'emploie pas la formule « affaire plausible de génocide ». Les médias se sont précipités sur les propos ambigus de Joan Donoghue pour minimiser le sens de l'ordonnance et réfuter l'emploi du terme génocide."	Maybe	Not in the article
Illouz	21 May 2024	Professor of sociology	Haaretz	"A fierce military response facing unprecedented challenges in the history of warfare – because of a highly densely populated urban area, an underground city built below a civilian population – has become in the eyes of many a bona fide case of genocide", "Jews, Zionists and moderate people from all political parties and religions have watched the campus protests unfold in amazement, unable to believe the unselfconscious double standards, the baselessness of the historical parallels", "these protests give me no choice but to ask myself if, after all, something like the phantasmagoric irrationality of antisemitism is at work here."	No	Not in the article
Khan	1 June 2024	Professor of international law	ZDF	"The defining element is above all the intent to destroy, which, however, can currently hardly be proven by the Israeli leadership"	No	Not in the article
Ballantyne and Beddoe	1 June 2024	Professor of social welfare; Professor of social work	Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work	"Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the most-read article published in 2023 was a special editorial on Justice for Palestine included in issue four (Ballantyne et al., 2023). This was a statement by editorial collective members on the situation in Palestine. In the context of the genocide, we were all witnessing on our television screens and the silence of the IFSW on this matter, we felt compelled to comment. Since that editorial was published in December 2023, the horrifying death toll has not stopped climbing, and despite the statements made by the International Criminal Court to halt the ground invasion of Rafah, Israel continues its assault on Gaza and the West Bank unabated. The editorial collective continues to express our utmost solidarity with the Palestinian people and our deep concern for the future prospects of an international rules-based order that respects all peoples' human rights, including the right to self-determination."	Yes	Not in the article
Ak	3 June 2024	Professor of political science	Journal of Humanity, Peace and Justice	"this research will also contribute to the related field of the social sciences as being the first clear example of genocide acts perpetuated by Israel so far in one of the whole Palestine territory like the Gaza Strip.", "At first, it will not be wrong to claim that the Palestinian cause regarding recent Israeli Gaza assaults is a trickling genocide, slow but relentless."	Yes	Not in the article
Di-Capua	5 June 2024	Professor of history, focusing on intellectual history and the modern Arab world	Journal of Genocide Research	"Conditions for the emergence of a Jewish genocidal mindset in Israel evolved gradually since the 1970s.", "Positioned at the core of rural Palestinian life, these settlements serve as intellectual incubators and experimental laboratories of genocidal politics, chief of which is ethnic cleansing.", "By and large, though the IDF avoids drafting the most radical and violent members of Hardal, given the growing size of this demographic within the army, including among the officers’ corps and the growing number of soldiers who sympathize or directly belong to these genocidal circles especially on the field level, their influence is growing.", "A decade later, and in the context of the current war in Gaza, the rhetoric of a genocidal Jewish Holy War is being pushed into the mainstream like never before and is featured in many of its ground operations, especially among the ranks of the more popular infantry and armoured divisions."	Yes	Already in article
Akram	5 June 2024	LAW clinical professor of law and director of LAW's International Human Rights Clinic	Boston University Today & University Network for Human Rights	Q:"For all of the condemnation of Israel's actions, there is also strong opposition to Israel's actions being labeled a genocide. Where does that pushback come from?". A:"The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza."	Yes	Already in article
Neier	6 June 2024	Human rights activist	The New York Review	"Hamas has embedded itself in the civilian population of Gaza, and its extensive network of tunnels provides its combatants the ability to move around quickly. Even if Israel's bombers were intent on minimizing harm to civilians, they would have had difficulty doing so in their effort to destroy Hamas. And yet, even believing this, I am now persuaded that Israel is engaged in genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. What has changed my mind is its sustained policy of obstructing the movement of humanitarian assistance into the territory."	Yes	Comments about how these actions are "indicative of genocide" are already in article attributed to Neier via this CNN interview
Jacquet	6 June 2024	Professor of diplomacy and geopolitics	Anadolu Agency	""Given the extent of the war crimes and the military operations carried out by the Israeli army on the ground, this situation can be considered genocide according to a growing number of international lawyers," Jacquet said."	Yes	Not in the article
Choonara	12 June 2024	Professor of political economy	International Socialism	"US president Joe Biden, along with British foreign secretary David Cameron, were also isolated in their backing for Israel's genocidal offensive in Rafah."	Yes	Not in the article
Totten	15 June 2024	Professor of history, specialist in genocide	Arkansas Democrat-Gazette	"I firmly believed, and continue to do so, that the Israelis had every right to retaliate against Hamas and to free those Israelis being held hostage by Hamas.", "Under the cover of the Israel-Hamas war, Israeli "settlers" on the West Bank are attacking Palestinian villages, forcibly removing the occupants from their homes and land, beating them (and in certain cases killing them), and stealing said land. And those Israeli thugs are doing so while under the protection and support of the Israeli army and police.", "It is crystal clear that both Hamas and the Israelis have already perpetrated, at the least, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Various others have also accused both Hamas and the Israelis of genocide. An international court will adjudicate this."	Maybe
Suslovic et al.	17 June 2024	Reader in social welfare; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Organizer; Professor of social work	Abolitionist Perspectives in Social Work	"Since October 7, 2023, the world has witnessed Israel's unrelenting mass assault against the people of Gaza, killing more than 37,000 Palestinians. The response to this genocide in most sectors of professional society has largely been one of denial and suppression of solidarity with Palestine, unveiling extremes of the longstanding Palestine exception in progressive politics. This article contextualizes the social work profession's response to Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinian people after October 7, 2023, including responses from schools of social work, social work agencies and organizations, and academic journals."	Yes	Not in the article
Mordechai	19 June 2024	Historian	The National	""The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is currently committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza," Mr Mordechai said in the introduction to a report he published."	Yes	The report, he previously wrote an article in Jacobin in April 2024 about the ongoing war crimes of the IDF, available here.
758 Scholars of the Middle East	20 June 2024		Brookings Institution	"A majority of Middle East scholars see Israeli motives in Gaza to be about forcing Palestinians out " "How would you define Israel's current military actions in Gaza? Response: Major war crimes akin to genocide (41%), Genocide (34%), Major war crimes but not akin to genocide (16%), Unjustified actions but not major war crimes (4%), Justified actions under the right to self-defense (4%)".	Maybe	Already in article
Ali	21 June 2024	Head of international law department at Bindmans LLP	Middle East Monitor	"He emphasised that, despite Israel's own repetition of genocidal intent, "Western leaders are guilty of viewing Palestine and Israel through the prejudiced prism of a merciless Palestinian terrorists against the gentle Jewish victims who are desperately maintaining the only democracy in the Middle East.""	Yes	Also includes new comments from Albanese and Sultany
Rocafort, Hassan, Casani	26 June 2024	Professor of political science; Professor of computer science; Professor of political science	elDiario.es	"Después de ocho meses de genocidio en Gaza y más de 37.000 muertos palestinos, son cada vez más las voces que llaman al boicot académico a las universidades israelíes." , "Existen ya diversos casos particulares de represión directa desde las universidades contra profesorado crítico con el genocidio." , "Al contrario, las universidades israelíes han sido una fuerza activa en la legitimación y mantenimiento de un sistema de segregación que ha sido considerado equivalente al apartheid sudafricano. Ahora mismo son colaboradores necesarios en el genocidio en curso."	Yes
Schabas	28 June 2024	Professor of international law	CBC News	"There have been several genocide cases now at the International Court of Justice. I think the case that South Africa is setting out is easily the strongest case of genocide. The differences between, for example, the situation in the Balkans where the borders were largely open and porous and where people could flee, we don't have that in Gaza. The statements made by politicians in Israel, the notorious statements about how the Gazans are inhumane or 'human animals' was one of the terms, statements like, we're going to deny you electricity, water, medical care. The destruction of the institutions, all of these things add up and make for a very strong case... I can't entirely predict what the judges are going to do. And you certainly could exaggerate the importance of these provisional measures orders and suggest that they represent some kind of a determination of the issue, that is yet to come."	Yes	Already in article
McAlister	29 June 2024	Professor of history	Canadian Foreign Policy Journal	"The genocide in Gaza is an opportunity for Canada to change that. A majority of Canadians may want to see a ceasefire in Gaza, but are they or their political representatives prepared to condemn the genocide?"	Yes	Not in the article
Swoboda	4 July 2024	Professor of international and criminal law	Ruhr University Bochum website	"In my view, the criteria for genocide are not fulfilled, because the intention to commit genocide is not the only plausible motive for the use of violence. Israel justifies its attacks in the Gaza Strip with the right to self-defense and with the aim of freeing the hostages. This is permitted under international law, albeit perhaps within narrower limits than Israel is currently exercising."	No	Already in article
Goldberg	11 July 2024	Professor of Jewish history	Jacobin	"I admit that, at first, I was reluctant to call it genocide, and sought any indication to convince myself that it is not. No one wants to see themselves as part of a genocidal society. But there was explicit intent, a systematic pattern, and a genocidal outcome — so, I came to the conclusion that this is exactly what genocide looks like. And once you come to this conclusion, you cannot remain silent."	Yes	Already in article
UN Special Rapporteurs	11 July 2024	SR right to food, SR physical and mental health, SR human rights in the Palestinian Territory, SR drinking water and sanitation, SR human rights OF displaced persons, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent	United Nations	"We declare that Israel's intentional and targeted starvation campaign against the Palestinian people is a form of genocidal violence and has resulted in famine across all of Gaza. We call upon the international community to prioritise the delivery of humanitarian aid by land by any means necessary, end Israel's siege, and establish a ceasefire."	Yes
Semerdjian	17 July 2024	History professor, Chair of Armenian genocide studies	Journal of Genocide Research	"By comparing contemporary examples of starvation warfare in Artsakh and Gaza, I seek to reintroduce the concept of genocide by attrition formulated by Raphael Lemkin in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (1944). Helen Fein's 1997 essay "Genocide by Attrition, 1939–1993: The Warsaw Ghetto, Cambodia, and Sudan," gave formal nomenclature to this genocidal tool.", "The carceral conditions produced by the 2006 enclosure of the Gaza Strip could be called Gazification. Land and territory are not only bifurcated with a discrete line separating two parts, but are fractured several times over through the creation of physical and digital checkpoints, "safe zones," and border inspections designed to make life suffocatingly unlivable. In order to survive, superfluous beings who resist these necropolitical forces live fugitive lives. Gazification should, therefore, be understood as an instrument of genocide by attrition that predates Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7."	Yes	Already in article
Al-Hassani	1 August 2024	Postdoctoral researcher in Politics, Philosophy, and Religion	SEPAD: Sectarianism, Proxies and De-sectarianisation	"I have listened to academics in these different disciplines explore sovereignty, and after much reflection on the current genocide in Gaza, I am now convinced that sovereignty, in itself, is a concept weaponized to order and maintain European and Western hegemony over the global majority."	Yes	Not in the article
Lapidot	7 August 2024	Professor of Hebraic Studies	Journal of Genocide Research	"Like anti-antisemitism, anti-colonialism too, instead of unsettling the purity of Western conscience, becomes a powerful tool for generating a perfect logos of absolute humanity that condemns its enemies as evil and unleashes holy wars. This is a danger that should be considered in countering the Israeli genocide narrative with a Palestinian genocide, or by depicting the Hamas attacks on 7 October as a ghetto uprising instead of as a pogrom."	{{ }}	Not in the article
Bartov	13 August 2024	Holocaust and Genocide Studies professor	The Guardian	"By the time I travelled to Israel, I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions."	Yes	Already in article Previously stated in November "no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza we may be watching an ethnic cleansing operation that could quickly devolve into genocide"
Menon	13 August 2024	Professor of law	Nordic Journal of International Law	"This brings me to the comparisons between two recent cases: the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Notwithstanding the vastly different histories leading up to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, they both share an important similarity: the allegations of genocide against Russia and Israel.", "If Israel was using self-defence as its mode of reasoning, Russia was protecting the populations in Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and Ukraine from violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Russian actions rendered immaterial whether Ukraine was in fact committing acts of genocide or not, as do Israeli arguments of self-defence. Russian and Israeli 'responsibility to protect' those in its (former) colonies was a strategy of empire that is not unknown."	Yes	Not in the article
Hammouri	20 August 2024	Lecturer in international law	The Guardian	""The case for the US's complicity in genocide is very strong," said Dr Shahd Hammouri, lecturer in international law at the University of Kent and the author of Shipments of Death. "It's providing material support, without which the genocide and other illegalities are not possible. The question of complicity for the other countries will rely on assessment of how substantial their material support has been."	Yes	Already in article
Bauhn	21 August 2024	Professor of philosophy	Israel Affairs	"Israel and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been accused of 'massacring' Palestinian civilians, even attempting a 'genocide' on the Palestinian population in Gaza, as stated in a Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor posting on 16 May 2024, and reposted that same day by Relief Web, a news service provided by the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Such accusations lack factual foundation about how the war against Hamas has been conducted.", "But there is no evidence whatsoever of any deliberate Israeli policy or plan to kill civilian Palestinians in Gaza that would remotely warrant terms like 'massacre' or 'genocide'."	No	Not in the article
Razack	26 August 2024	Professor of gender studies	Journal of Palestine Studies	"The feminist truism that women are always raped in war is relied upon to confirm that mass rapes took place on October 7—a weaponization of feminism designed to shut down questions about evidence and the deliberate circulation of false narratives about rape, and, importantly, to legitimize Israeli state violence and genocide in Gaza."	Yes	Not in the article
Ó Tuathail	30 August 2024	Professor of government and international affairs	Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space	"Israel's genocidal campaign against residents of Gaza"	Yes	Not in the article
Murray	30 August 2024	Chief editor of the Journal of World-Systems Research	Journal of World-Systems Research	"Ten months into the genocide in Gaza"	Yes	Not in the article
Albanese	1 October 2024	Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967; researcher and international lawyer	United Nations	"While the scale and nature of the ongoing Israeli assault against the Palestinians vary by area, the totality of the Israeli acts of destruction directed against the totality of the Palestinian people, with the aim of conquering the totality of the land of Palestine, is clearly identifiable. Patterns of violence against the group as a whole warrant the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in order to cease, prevent and punish genocide in the whole of the occupied Palestinian territory"	Yes	Already in article
Traverso	1 October 2024	Historian, contemporary and modern Europe	Google Books	"The only normative definition we have, codified at the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, accurately describes the current situation in Palestine ... describes exactly what is happening in Gaza today"	Yes	Already in article
Lamensch	4 October 2024	Coordinator of Program and Outreach at Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS)	Le Devoir	"Lorsqu’il lui est demandé si un génocide est en cours, selon les définitions du droit international, Marie Lamensch, coordonnatrice de projets à l’Institut montréalais d’études sur le génocide et les droits de la personne de l’Université Concordia, à Montréal, répond qu’il faudra encore des années pour déterminer si c’est le cas ou non. Même les plus grands experts juristes le disent, ajoute-t-elle : ils veulent attendre tous les éléments de preuve avant de se prononcer de façon définitive. Car la preuve d’un génocide est complexe, et pour obtenir une condamnation, il faut notamment démontrer devant la Cour l’« intention » précise de le commettre." "When asked whether genocide is occurring, as defined by international law, Marie Lamensch, project coordinator at the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University in Montreal, says it will take years to determine whether or not that is the case. Even the greatest legal experts say so, she adds: they want to wait for all the evidence before making a definitive decision. Because proving genocide is complex, and to obtain a conviction, it is necessary to demonstrate before the Court the precise "intention" to commit it."	Maybe	Not in the article
Becker	25 October 2024	Assistant Professor of International Human Rights Law	Vox (website)	"Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College, Dublin, said, overall, the above incidents and others mean 'South Africa has an ever-expanding repository of evidence that it can put before the as further evidence of genocidal intent,' which includes evidence suggesting Israel 'has not meaningfully sought to comply' with the ICJ’s orders so far."	Yes	Already in article
Jones	25 October 2024	Professor in Political science, specialization in "comparative genocide studies and gender and international relations"; author of genocide textbook	Vox (website)	"Any early hesitation I had about applying the 'genocide' label to the Israeli attack on Gaza has dissipated over the past year of human slaughter and the obliteration of homes, infrastructure, and communities"	Yes	Already in article
Segal	25 October 2024	Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies	Vox (website)	"'I fully stand behind my description of Israel’s attack on Gaza as a 'textbook case of genocide' because we’re still actually seeing, nearly a year into this genocidal assault, explicit and unashamed statements of intent to destroy,' he said. 'The way that intent is expressed here is absolutely unprecedented.'"	Yes	Already in article
Verdeja	25 October 2024	Professor of peace studies and global politics (with a focus on genocide)	Vox (website)	"it could be 'called a genocide, even in a narrow legal sense, for several months now' given the accumulation of Israeli attacks clearly and consistently targeting the civilian population in Gaza."	Yes	Already in article
Waxman	25 October 2024	Professor of Political Science and Israel Studies	Vox (website)	"Waxman has since qualified his stance, but still believes 'Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip — though too often brutal, inhumane, and indiscriminate — do not meet the international legal criteria of the crime of genocide.' ... Of the scholars we cited in our previous story, he was the only one who responded to my request for new comment who still did not think Israel’s actions qualify as genocide."	No	Already in article
Bartov	6 November 2024	Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies	The Guardian	"The ICJ will likely not rule for years about whether the situation in Gaza meets the narrow legal definition of a genocide. But Bartov believes that the operation in Jabalia is so blatantly genocidal that 'it is possible that the ICJ will find this operation to be genocide even if it hedges on the war in Gaza as a whole.' Which is what happened in the case of Bosnia, where the massacre in Srebrenica was found to be genocide."	Yes	Already in article
Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices	14 November 2024	UN Special Committee	OHCHR website	"The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide."	Yes	Already in article
Schabas	29 November 2024	Professor of International Law, expertise in international criminal law and international human rights law	Der Spiegel	"I am neither a guru nor a judge. The courts will make a ruling, political bodies will decide in time. But I would say: There is a very strong case for arguing that Israel’s response constitutes the crime of genocide."	Maybe	Not in the article
Amnesty International	4 December 2024	International human rights NGO	Amnesty International website	"This report focuses on the Israeli authorities' policies and actions in Gaza as part of the military offensive they launched in the wake of the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023 while situating them within the broader context of Israel’s unlawful occupation, and system of apartheid against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. It assesses allegations of violations and crimes under international law by Israel in Gaza within the framework of genocide under international law, concluding that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Israel’s conduct in Gaza following 7 October 2023 amounts to genocide."	Yes	Already in article
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights	10 December 2024	Human rights NGO	ECCHR website	"In recent months, ECCHR has been conducting independent research and analysis on the topic of genocide, and analyzing this against the available information and evidence relating to Israel’s actions in Gaza (see Question 6). This process has led us to the conclusion that there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza."	Yes	Already in article
Human Rights Watch	19 December 2024	International human rights NGO	Human Rights Watch website	"Human Rights Watch concludes that Israeli authorities have over the past year intentionally inflicted on the Palestinian population in Gaza 'conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' This policy, inflicted as part of a mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza means Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination, which is ongoing. This policy also amounts to an 'act of genocide' under the Genocide Convention of 1948. The crime of genocide requires acts of genocide to be committed with genocidal intent. The ICJ has said that to infer such intent from a pattern of conduct by the state, it needs to be 'the only reasonable inference to be drawn' from the acts in question.130 The pattern of conduct set out in this report together with statements suggesting some Israeli officials wished to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza may indicate such intent."	Maybe	Already in article

Other scholars have offered opinions relating to the topic of incitement to genocide, but have not specifically drawn conclusions on the question of genocide itself.

Sources
v
t
e
Name	Month	Profession	Source	Example statement (English or autotranslated and verified)	Simplified position	Notes
100 civil rights organisations and 6 scholars	20 October 2023	Scholars: Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Historian, specialising in Jewish History, Anatomical Pathology Technologist (part of Forensic Team at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), Professor of Human Rights and Environmental Justice, Historian and Sociologist, Anthropologist specialising in Human Rights and Genocide	Al Mezan Center for Human Rights	"clear intent to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and incitement to commit genocide, using dehumanizing language to describe Palestinians."	—
Sfard	3 January 2024	Human rights lawyer	The Guardian	"Sfard said he was stunned by the speed with which incitement to genocide and other extreme speech had been normalised in Israel.", "The gap between that and the freedom and impunity for those who advocate all kinds of things – ethnic cleansing, killing civilians, bombarding civilian areas, and even genocide – doesn't square up, and that's something for the authorities to explain."	—	Already in article
Mack	6 January 2024	Human rights lawyer	Middle East Eye	"In view of the attorney general's failure to enforce the law or any accountability in the Huwwara case, it is no surprise that Israeli officials and politicians took advantage of the climate, following the Hamas attack, in order to incite deadly harm against the entire civilian population in Gaza.", "Given that senior members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and those in the parliament have explicitly supported violence, terrorism and genocide against the Palestinians, any criminal proceedings initiated against them would be seen across the political spectrum in Israel as an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government."	—
Intondi	1 August 2024	Professor of history	Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament	"The Law for Palestine project, a UK based human rights organization has so far documented over 500 statements made by Israeli officials which could potentially amount to incitement of genocide, which is prohibited under international law.", "Are these individuals advocating for nuclear war or inciting? Is calling for the use of nuclear weapons, the same as calling for genocide?"	—	Not in the article

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

"Israel's Measures Intended to Prevent Births within Gaza Strip - occupied Palestinian territory". reliefweb.int. ReliefWeb. 30 March 2024.
"Israel's Measures Intended to Prevent Births within Gaza Strip" (PDF). PCHR.

Section sizes

Section size for Gaza genocide (54 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	35,781	35,781
Background	32,097	37,683
Legal definition of genocide	2,234	2,234
Other definitions of genocide	1,887	1,887
Minimum number of victims	1,465	1,465
Alleged genocidal acts	150	78,569
Direct killings	22,366	22,366
Indirect deaths	9,538	9,538
Starvation	19,186	19,186
Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure	2,056	2,056
Incommunicado detention, torture and sexual violence	3,284	3,284
Attacks on healthcare	13,109	13,109
Other	8,880	8,880
Genocidal intent	11,121	38,958
Israeli cabinet ministers	11,503	11,503
Israeli president and members of Israeli parliament	722	722
Invocations of Amalek	7,311	7,311
Other Israeli officials	5,292	5,292
Other evidence of genocidal intent	3,009	3,009
Academic and legal discourse	5,036	39,792
Holocaust and genocide studies	14,157	14,157
Middle Eastern studies	7,095	7,095
International law scholars	8,054	8,054
Others	5,450	5,450
Legal proceedings	24	59,846
International Criminal Court	2,520	2,520
U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit	5,116	5,116
International Court of Justice application	41,968	45,757
Israeli response	3,789	3,789
ICJ ruling	482	482
Occupation proceedings	1,311	1,311
German lawsuit	1,550	1,550
Nicaragua v. Germany	1,479	1,479
Australian legal proceedings	1,607	1,607
Responsibility of third states	5,495	42,857
United States	5,667	25,067
Rhetoric from U.S. politicians	19,400	19,400
United Kingdom	7,076	7,076
Germany	5,219	5,219
Statements by political organisations and governments	60	87,993
World leaders and governments	52,696	52,696
Civil servants and elected representatives	6,573	6,573
NGOs and intergovernmental organisations	18,170	28,664
United Nations	10,494	10,494
Cultural discourse	11,897	34,439
Media discourse	13,802	13,802
Israeli public opinion	3,152	3,152
Claims of antisemitism	5,588	5,588
See also	356	356
Footnotes	30	30
References	30	31,428
Works cited	31,398	31,398
Further reading	7,013	7,013
External links	897	897
Total	495,642	495,642

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why does this article title present an opinion as an established fact, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC has issued a final judgment? A1: The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. Whether the issue is contested is not the primary consideration when determining an article title on Misplaced Pages.

Starvation

The topic of deaths from starvation was reverted based on a discussion at another page altogether. This is highly irregular. Please explain why this figure should be excluded here or I will restore it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If you’re referring to the estimate in the infobox the estimate comes from the Doctor’s letter signed to Biden. The paper cited includes that letter in a note which includes a table. The paper doesn’t include any indication of peer-review or similar vetting and does not appear to have a citation count from what I could find, which makes it unlikely to meet the requirements for academic sources. The Mother Jones article is a report restating said paper, in practice it is not a separate source since it includes no form of analysis or commentary to distinguish it which means it should not be included as a citation even if the estimate is kept.

I didn’t make the revert on this page but in the talk page for the Gaza Famine page an editor suggested that the estimate should be included in the infobox because it was included here. I responded that it sounded like it should probably be changed on this page instead. Originalcola (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source, being self-published and non-independent. I felt like an estimate shouldn’t be included in the infobox unless its reliability is very strong. Originalcola (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

OK it seems like people were maybe acting a bit WP:POINTy - I'd ask, going forward, that if edits are made to this page on the basis of article talk conversation that the article talk conversation in question be on this page. It doesn't take long to start a thread saying "over at article X we've identified this issue with this source" as part of your editing. Quite a few editors don't have every single Israel / Palestine article on their watch list and for those of us not privy to that other conversation such edit summaries seem baffling.

Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You and XDanielX can swap around reverting here and at the other article and providing different reasons each time, that's not going to work. For a start, we can't just diss RS and say they don't count, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a standard reason for designating another source as reliable. The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source, being self-published and non-independent is just wrong, the paper is published by Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and authored by Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins, who is an Associate Professor of Anthropology, an author and "with extensive fieldwork experience in Israel/Palestine", who are then both citing the letter that contains the appendix and the appendix further cites the IPC (verifiable) for the detailed calculation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright so everybody we know this is a contentious topic so we should all try to adhere closer than average to Misplaced Pages policy and norms. My opinion based on a review of the paper Selfstudier linked above is that it constitutes pretty close to WP:BESTSOURCE standards. It's published by a university, was written by an academic within her field of expertise and is even timely for figures that tend to change rapidly. It is not Misplaced Pages practice to interrogate the bibliography of a reliable source and to declare subsections of the source unreliable because Misplaced Pages might not accept as RSes everything in that bibliography. Based on this the estimate of death by starvations is likely due, and is cited to a reliable source, although I would support that it should be attributed to Stamatopoulos-Robbins. Let's just move forward from here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a question of WP:BESTSOURCES; if the best sources still fall short of standards like WP:SCHOLARSHIP then we shouldn't include the material.

It was published by a university-affiliated research group, but that seems like essentially self-publication. At least their website doesn't mention peer review, editorial review don't seem to mention editors, peer-review, or other signs of vetting. I'd also somewhat disagree about the author's field of expertise, which seems to be anthropology rather than public health.

I'm not necessarily against including it somewhere though, but highlighting it in the infobox is almost like endorsing the estimate in Misplaced Pages's voice, when it hasn't been vetted by the scholarly community. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a wildly irregular take to suggest that a university publication is WP:SPS. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Not technically self-published, but similar in the sense that it doesn't involve the vetting WP:SCHOLARSHIP requires. It's like using university letterhead, it doesn't imply that some university process has vetted the content. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to be a scholar to do the mathematical calculation. Nor is it reasonable to demand scholarship for recent events. This sourcing is not some rubbish written by nobodies on the back of a serviette, it's pretty convincing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not the calculation itself that we need reliable scholarship for, but the soundness of the methodology. As it stands there's no evidence that the methodology has been vetted by the scholarly community. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's the IPC's methodology, all they did was do a math calc that a child could do. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The IPC publication is about using mortality data as one metric (among others) to classify food insecurity phases. It never suggests that it's valid to do the opposite, i.e. to infer mortality figures based on the classification. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly DancingOwl (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an unproven and extraordinary assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How so? It would be unusual for a research group to seriously vet papers before putting them on its own website. That would mean having internal editors or peer reviewers who would need to routinely reject their colleague's papers, and that's just not how research groups normally operate. There's also no mention of editors, peer review, or any other vetting on the group's website.

And again, zero citations is also a pretty clear signal that it falls short of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This RS is not pretending to be scholarship, what you need to do is show that they made the figure up (I can show that they didn't) and Motherjones screwed up by endorsing their findings, good luck with that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And that Forbes screwed up by mentioning the Costs of War project, Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins and her paper plus her conclusions. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether they made it up, but whether their methodology has been vetted by the relevant scholarly community. WP:SCHOLARSHIP isn't concerned with coverage in news outlets; that isn't evidence of scholarly vetting. — xDanielx /_C\ 18:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says our sources require scholarly vetting? This is not a history or science article. There are a multitude of sources in this article that are not scholarly vetted. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The broader topic isn't a scientific one, but this estimate in particular is scientific in nature, which is what counts in terms of WP:SCHOLARSHIP applying to it. — xDanielx /_C\ 18:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a WP:CALC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The calculation itself is trivial, it's the methodology behind it that's novel and constitutes unvetted scholarship. — xDanielx /_C\ 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The "methodology" takes the IPC published data (verifiable) and the IPC "according to the IPC technical manual: in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to at least 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day.(also verifiable) and does the math, that's it.

You can say the IPC technical conclusions belong to them but they are the experts. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

But the methodology wasn't developed for predicting mortality based on phase classification, but for doing the opposite inference - producing phase classification based on several factors, one of them being mortality. DancingOwl (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: rather than just reverting, can you join in the discussion and explain how you think this passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP? — xDanielx /_C\ 04:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You are editwarring removal of this material

4 Dec

5 Dec

7 Dec

Last time, RFC or RSN else AE. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a single revert (the second). Please don't make threats, if you think AE is needed then just do so.

I hadn't promptly reverted M.Bitton because I wanted to see if there was any argument or explanation behind it, and give the discussion a chance to settle a bit more. If there are no new arguments for how this zero-citation paper could pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP, then I think it's reasonable to insist on its removal (from the infobox, the body is another matter).

If anything a discussion on WP:RS might be the best venue to clarify whether affiliation with some research group is enough to pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I think it's pretty clear what the outcome would be. — xDanielx /_C\ 15:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: there is no reason for it to pass what you think it should, and therefore, no reason for me to re-explain what has been explained by others. Your edit has been reverted three times so far by those that you failed to convince, so I suggest you listen to what the others are saying and take it to RSN or start a RfC about it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

1. "Cost of War" are not the source of the number - the estimate of starvation deaths comes from the physicians' letter and just quoted as is in the "Cost of War" report

2. Neither physicians' letter nor "Cost of War" report underwent a review by relevant experts (e.g., in Public Health) and both Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbin, who authored the report, and Stephanie Savell, who edited it, are anthropologists, i.e. not experts in the this specific field, hence them quoting the figure in their report cannot be considered to be expert endorsement.

3. The IPC manual says the following about mortality estimates:

Evidence for Mortality includes the CDR and the U5DR from representative surveys of good method. If the CDR is below the Famine threshold but the U5DR is higher, the latter can be used to classify the Famine if the 95 percent confidence interval of CDR includes the Famine threshold (i.e. 2/10,000/day).

That is to say that according to IPC methodology, the mortality needs to be estimated using representative surveys and than it can be used as one of the metrics for IPC phase classification. There is nothing either in IPC manual or any other related literature implying that the process can be reversed, with phase classification used for estimating mortality.

4. Moreover, the "IPC Famine Review Committee Report" published on June 25, 2024, stated:

Estimation of non-trauma CDR and U5DR was performed using WFP CATI survey interviews collected between 20 April and 9 June. These interviews used the past census method to determine the number of deaths in each household using a recall period beginning on 1 January 2024, and a mean recall period of 134.4 days...
Taken together, these data allow for a reasonable level of certainty that non-trauma CDR and U5DR were below Famine thresholds during the current analysis period.

In other words, the IPC Famine Review Committee - who are the experts on IPC methodology - looked at the survey data, in order to estimate the number of indirect deaths between January 1 and June 9, rather than trying to infer it based on IPC Phase classification, like the authors of the "physicians' letter" did.

5. All of the above, along with the fact that there have been only 34 officially confirmed malnutrition-related deaths, makes the claim about 62,431 "starvation deaths" wp:extraordinary, and the current level of evidence is insufficient for including it in the article, let alone in the infobox.
DancingOwl (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The IPC FRC states the all-cause CDR(crude death rate) was 0.55 deaths per 10,000 per day, and that after factoring out non-violence related deaths it was below famine thresholds. Looking at the technical manual, CDR for IPC classifications discounts trauma deaths from total deaths, and are not actually meant to be just deaths by starvation. I personally think that an actual study conducted directly contradicting the estimated numbers of deaths from starvation by the study seems to provide further evidence to suggest that the letter shouldn't be used as a source. Originalcola (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources
"IPC Manual 3.1 \| IPC - Integrated Food Security Phase Classification". www.ipcinfo.org. p. 86. "Famine Review Committee: Gaza Strip, June 2024 - IPC's third review report". www.un.org. 25 June 2024. p. 19. "U.N. experts say Gaza children dying in Israeli "targeted starvation campaign" - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. 2024-07-09.

Sources

"IPC Manual 3.1 | IPC - Integrated Food Security Phase Classification". www.ipcinfo.org. p. 86.
"Famine Review Committee: Gaza Strip, June 2024 - IPC's third review report". www.un.org. 25 June 2024. p. 19.
"U.N. experts say Gaza children dying in Israeli "targeted starvation campaign" - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. 2024-07-09.

I am not a sock puppet, nor am I either co-ordinating my edits with or editing on behalf of another editor. Nor am I constantly changing the core of my arguments to move the goal posts or do anything of the sort, or at least I don't believe that I did. I just honestly think that we should wait until a convincing, authoritative and reliable secondary source is found with a confident estimate for this number, and that as of now it's preferable to state that the true death count might be much higher than the known. We're in no hurry to add a number anyway, we can simply wait for a better source.

The letter is quite literally self-published and is written for political advocacy, making it non-independent. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be cited in all cases, but as a literal statement of fact that makes it questionable. The fact that the study that cites it has literally 0 citations is proof of it not representing a mainstream view and being inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. You referred to the Mother Jones article as a reliable secondary source on numerous occasions, despite it being marked as a report and not containing any form of commentary or analysis. This is why the context of when a source is used matters. Originalcola (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added Forbes, another RS, above, they unreliable too? Sorry I cannot take your objections at all seriously. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That Forbes source is a WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTOR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's also a Forbes contributor article, not a Forbes article. This is stated before the first paragraph. In the first paragraph, the author states he co-authored the twin paper on military loses, and he's also a contributor to Cost of War. They are also not an expert in any relevant field, he's a bloody defense analyst. It is a minimum requirement to be specialized in public health or demography or some other relevant field in order to say that he's qualified to comment about a paper. It doesn't matter if he's an exec in a think tank, being an expert in one field does not automatically make you an expert in every field.

SO YES THEY ARE WHOLLY UNRELIABLE AS A SOURCE. Originalcola (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to WP:SHOUT, also see below. Selfstudier (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussing a separate source can't possibly be considered repetition and the quote I sent was a reply to someone else, not you. That was never mentioned in this talk page, and they requested "that if edits are made to this page on the basis of article talk conversation that the article talk conversation in question be on this page", which was something I agreed with. Originalcola (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you (or XdanielX) take this to RSN for an opinion, or failing that, start an RFC asking whether "Estimated at least 62,413 dead from starvation (refs)" should be in the infobox/article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Except, again, the DR letter is not the source. Concur with @ScottishFinnishRadish that a forbes contributor article is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice he was a contributor there, here he is again, different publisher, he is an exec at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank admittedly, but he is qualified to comment about the Costs of War project. In any case, that's just additional opinion sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"Note: There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation, according to the October 2, 2024, “Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024 re: American physicians observations from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023." - It's on page 3 of the paper.

The DR letter is explicitly the source so, regardless of whether you believe the paper is a reliable source, the opinion is from the letter. Originalcola (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

RSN, RFC...repeating the discussion isn't going to resolve this. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

As i have already explained, Watson Institute of Brown University is unquestionably a highly reliable source, it is not our role here to make WP:OR that criticizes any section of its publishing like the indirect deaths section, even the primary source (the letter) xDanielx and OriginalCola trying to dismiss on base of self-publishing is itself a WP:RS because it is written by first-hand experts on the subject.

xDanielx (invalid) argument that the estimate is much higher than the last estimate is also invalid because the previous estimate is out-dated by this estimate by 2/3rds of an entire year.

There is 0 merits in any of these claims to discard a highly reliable academic source. Stephan rostie (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the authors use novel methodology to arrive at a novel estimate, we're firmly in WP:SCHOLARSHIP territory, and need to adhere to those rules rather than just the basic WP:RS standards. Author expertise isn't sufficient for that, we need evidence of vetting by the scholarly community.

The timing difference is minor. One can adjust the 62k estimate for a different time period by looking at the table on page 5. Even if we remove the entire June 16-September 30 time period (which is over-adjusting since the 41 figure was from July 8), the IPC-based methodology still would imply 44,022 starvations. That's still more than 1000x the number of recorded cases reported by Wafa and Al Jazeera. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Still disagree and If anything a discussion on WP:RS might be the best venue am waiting for you to do this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that Originalcola has opened Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death estimation for you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't create that on anybody's behalf. I know that both @XDanielx and I have been arguing on the same side of this dispute, but I am not affiliated with that editor in any way. I'm asking you to please stop doing that. Originalcola (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into things I write. Stop doing that, please. Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure I'll start one on RS - Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#Do these pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As I just said, Originalcola has opened a discussion already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

xDanielx, why did you delete the 62,413 number , but left 5,000? They are both from the same sources. Bogazicili (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Got here from AE. FWIW, this content does seem pretty dubious. Doesn't it seem like 60,000+ deaths from starvation over the course of a year would be getting coverage in mainstream international media? But all I'm finding there is starvation/malnutrition deaths in the dozens. And the point that numbers in an infobox look very much like Wikivoice is valid. I'd support removing from the infobox while discussing, and maybe an RfC, notifying appropriate projects/noticeboards. Valereee (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I have created an RfC and will temporarily remove the estimate from the infobox until RfC concludes. Originalcola (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by "temporarily"? Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
As in, "until the RfC concludes". It's been reverted anyway, and it was probably way too rash of me to do that so I'd say no harm no fowl. Originalcola (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee I don't think smell-test will work very well here. I mean there's very few independent journalists on the ground, and very few medical volunteers, because so many have been shot or barred from entry. As such estimates is probably all we'll ever get barring some sort of future truth and reconciliation process. This then asks what the most credible sources for estimates are. I still contend this is one. I'd 100% support use with attribution though. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I have zero problem with using it with attribution, but that's not really workable in the infobox. Use it with attribution in the text. Leave it out of the infobox until we have actual RS. Valereee (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I have also removed the lower number which used the same sources from infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC about starvation estimate

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to exclude the estimate from the infobox. Editors generally agreed that the statistic is too extraordinary to justify its inclusion on the basis of the sources available in an infobox, whose purpose is to summarize key facts and is a notoriously poor means of conveying anything requiring explanation. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the 62,413 estimate for starvation deaths be included in the info box or not? Originalcola (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No - it's an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, since health officials reported 38 starvations for a similar time period. The 62,413 estimate would imply that health authorities undercounted by an absurd factor. That aside, the sources just don't pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The closest we have is this paper, but it's written by an anthropologist and doesn't actually discuss whether the methodology is valid. It also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to do any of the vetting that WP:SCHOLARSHIP requires. — xDanielx /_C\ 21:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
No per xDanielx. This wild and exaggeratory guesstimate comes nowhere close to passing muster. That said, the "38" count is surely also too low and shouldn't be in the infobox either, since no other body of work is backing it up (and it's too old to bother with, regarding an ongoing conflict of this magnitude; months might as well be decades when it comes to such coverage). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No because it is not being widely reported by other secondary sources. In addition, estimates can be off and variable. For example in the 2024 famine in Sudan infobox, the Misplaced Pages editors just reported the starvation deaths count from one news source, but estimates published vary from “hundreds each day” to 2.5 million (briefly mentioned by Time here and reported by MEE here) Wafflefrites (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No- My opinion is the same as xDanielx for rationale behind disputing paper. The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source (being self-published and non-independent) for such an extraordinary claim. I felt like an estimate shouldn’t be included in the infobox unless its reliability is very strong, and this clearly isn't it. The MJ article adds no analysis or commentary, so it fails to be more than churnalism restating the paper. Originalcola (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
No. A PDF not published in an academic journal doesn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Because there's no peer review, the letter and document cited for the death toll should be treated as WP:PREPRINTs. Since the claim isn't supported by reliable sources, it shouldn't be in the infobox stated as fact. The MJ article, at best, would make this estimate WP:DUE with attribution in the body, not in the main infobox with WikiVoice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No this number is at best extraordinary and at worst implausible, and the sourcing is not even close to strong enough for sucha claim, per the arguments above.:FortunateSons (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes but attributed We should make it clear it's an estimate but the other arguments for exclusion are non-persuasive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems hard to explain the source of this estimate (a joint letter from American physicians and nurses who had been operating in Gaza) without the content becoming too large for the infobox format.

If we did include it, we should also include the 38 figure from health officials, and let the reader decide what to make of the massive difference. Omitting that information would seem like a major NPOV issue. — xDanielx /_C\ 19:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
No, but can be later in the article with attribution It is just not good enough for the lead. It is in the right ballpark as far as I can see for the 'natural' deaths from disease, lack of medicine, destroyed hospitals etc rather than those directly killed, but this document just has a ? for all those and says almost of these died from famine! NadVolum (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
No Available excess death projections do not include estimates for malnutrition/starvation because the aid restrictions leading to famine like conditions were not present when those studies were done, this newer study must be viewed as a first attempt at estimating excess deaths from this cause. I consider the report to be RS, but because it is the only such report so far, we should refrain from stating/implying it as a fact until additional RS become available. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
That's why I support attribution and clarification it's an estimate. We shouldn't be stating these are the death toll in wiki voice but we should include the estimate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes but with attribution Abo Yemen ✉ 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
No. I originally found the report (due to Glenn Greenwald mentioning it in his YouTube channel, if I remember correctly), but despite really wanting the mass-killing of children to end, and also agreeing about that given the systematic killings of doctors and other healthcare workers, this deliberately makes it very hard to count the number of victims, after reading all of the arguments from both Misplaced Pages administrators and regular experienced members, I agree with Selfstudier about that it is likely not sufficiently verifiable information to state as a properly encyclopaedic infobox fact. It would feel intellectually dishonest for me to claim otherwise. I definitely think that we should add estimated death tolls from diseases and starvation to the infoboxes, both here and the main Israel-Hamas War article, if we find something more reliable and official though. David A (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Never mind. I abstain from my vote, as I also in good conscience do not want to do anything that might contribute to more innocent people being killed due to the full horror of the situation being officially severely understated. David A (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
No - as stated above, it's an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Putting nonsense in the Infobox is extremely misleading, which I thought Misplaced Pages is supposed to avoid. However, the entire premise of the article is misleading, so what's a little starvation compared to a whole genocide? DaringDonna (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Starving isn't quite the same as deaths from famine. The number of 'natural' deaths as they call them due to the war is about the same as the number of their 'martyrs' killed directly, and the main reason they die is because they are not recovering from illnesses or injury as they normally would because they do not have enough food. It is not just 'a little starvation'. Plus if the current business of supplies not going in continues it could go into full blown famine extremely quickly. NadVolum (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, at this point there is even a 297 page report from Amnesty filled with evidence for that this is an actual blatantly obvious genocide/ethnic cleansing. Incredulity is not a valid counterpoint to that. David A (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree there is a terrible war going on. And I have no doubt Amnesty has put together a book chronicling just how terrible this war is, substituting the word genocide for war, just as the word militant is a substitute for terrorist. This war would end immediately if Hamas released the hostages and surrendered. Israel did not start this war, and it is not committing genocide, no matter how long Amnesty's report might be. If there was a genocide going on, and a famine about to break out, why doesn't Egypt allow the civilians to come in where they can be protected and fed? If it were really a genocide, Israel would chase the Palestinians into Egypt to kill them, no? But no one believes that, do they? The premise of this entire article, and many others on Misplaced Pages, has ruined the trustworthiness and usefulness of this experiment in crowd sourcing and democratizing knowledge. It has proven an utter, and dangerous failure. It reminds one of Orwell's 1984, where black is white and 2+2=5. DaringDonna (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If I must choose between a random person on the internet and Amnesty International, that's not really a contest, sorry. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but an individual editor's personal opinion regarding an assumed methodology by Amnesty International is not something we should entertain for editorial decisions. I will say this: unless the Amnesty report includes estimates for deaths by starvation it's not apropos to this discussion although it is certainly apropos this overall topic. I would caution @DaringDonna to respect WP:NOTFORUM but I would also suggest @NadVolum raise the Amnesty report in threads where it is planned as a citation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Euro-Med estimate of about 51,000 'natural' deaths by late June is what I find reasonable and they have people on the ground, they didn'ty give an error estimate but it is probably quite wide. I haven't discussed the Amnesty report. Expecting Egypt to assist Israel with clearing Gaza of its population is to expect it to help with genocide. If anyone should be looking after the civilians it is Israel by providing safe spaces in Israel, they would be perfectly withn their rights to search them before admitting them into camps. The civilians in Gaza are not Hamas they have just as much right to life as the people in Israel. NadVolum (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that it would be useful if you add the Euro-Med estimate instead in that case, especially if they have far more recent updated numbers available. It has been almost half a year since then after all. David A (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That report was About 10 percent of the Gaza Strip’s population killed, injured, or missing due to the Israeli genocide. The last hospital in Northern Gaza was destroyed a week ago so I don't expect we'll get any good figures from there. And with the Israeli soldiers letting aid lorries be openly looted by gangs in front of them but shooting any police I don't suppose there is much hope for the people there. The Israel-Hamas War One Year Later: Mass Violence and Palestinian Dispossession thinks it likely the Netanyahu coalition will continue in power till 2026 and Trump will support them like Biden has and Israel will be able to complete the removal of Palestinians from the occupied territories and Europe will eventually support America in recognizing the territory as Israels. NadVolum (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this actually relevant to the RfC? WP:NOTFORUM Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I was asked where I got the 51,000 from and I believe this RfC is about the starvation figures. The second cite has references to a few different estimates for the deaths at the very beginning including that one and its conclusion section calls the whole business in Gaza genocide. It also has cites which are about genocide. NadVolum (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we definitely do need good estimates for victims of starvation and preventable diseases, but the source that I found earlier was very unfortunately likely not sufficiently reliable. David A (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

No per XDanielx. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
No per Selfstudier. This is an extraordinary claim so needs exceptionally good sourcing. I don't think we need scholarship standard peer reviewed sourcing for an on-going situation, but for something so at odds with other reports we can't put this in an infobox. It looks like consensus is against inclusion, but if that changes I think it'd be essential it's clearly labelled something like "estimate per Gaza Healthcare Letters and placed next to the reported number (currently 38). In general, the Costs of War project might be considered reliable enough to mention in the body with attribution because they're based at a university, but I find them very un-impressive. Their report, authored by an assistant professor in Anthropology, says that "There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation", citing a source (the doctors' letter) that clearly doesn't say that but rather says that this is an estimate. Having looked at their earlier reports on Syria and Iraq, their methodology seems to be to try to find the highest number in the public sphere and simplify it into meaninglessness. If we mention the doctors' letter in the body, we need to give their methodology, which is to extrapolate deaths by the number of people estimated to be experiencing famine, per a very rough formula developed by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2024 (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.

Infobox

This article is about allegations and arguments about whether Israel's attacks on Gaza since 10/7/23 can be called a genocide. The infobox is about a genocide—so it corresponds to a topic different from its article, and it non-neutrally takes a side in the dispute described in the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you like the infobox to be changed or removed? By dispute, do you mean anything short of unanimity? Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the article is about accusations and arguments, not a genocide. I'd say the infobox should be removed, since it does not correspond to the article topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the arguments includes deaths and injuries and other things mentioned in the infobox. Things like death toll is also mentioned in secondary sources . I don't think your suggestion has any basis in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless the infobox is naming the death toll of the accusation(s), it does not correspond to the article's topic. From MOS:Infoboxes: An infobox ... summarizes key facts about the page's subject. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The article WP:SCOPE includes the title as well as the first sentence(s). Idk what naming the death toll means, all of those killed in Gaza (at a minimum) are subject of the Genocide accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No, Israel is subject of the genocide accusation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Israel is subject to genocide accusations. Which is why the genocide infobox is appropriate on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

How? Genocide accusations are not a genocide. The infobox and article describe completely different phenomena. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I get that you just want to ignore the scope but that's not going to fly. This is just a variant on discussions we have had already. Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean about ignoring the scope, but please don’t uncharitably read my intentions. How is the alleged genocide itself in the scope of this article? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

but please don’t uncharitably read my intentions End of conversation, bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier has announced his departure! All others are encouraged to fill the Selfstudier-shaped hole in the discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the infobox it directly includes Genocide under Attack Type. There's also the inclusion of a victims section separate to injured or dead, which includes buildings and homes despite it not being mentioned outside the infobox and lead. It also lists multiple sources that don't actually allege that these actions constitute part of a genocide(eg.]) , which is odd considering that there are probably sources that can be found that do so.

I think it needs to be trimmed down a lot because, as of now, it's bloated and contains way too much info. Originalcola (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about removing the infobox, I think we should just change the title back to the more appropriately qualified Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza as it was before. — xDanielx /_C\ 19:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Spinning up for another round -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a title change. While it would be unusual for an infobox title to diverge from the article title, we're already in unusual territory with a title that diverges from the actual scope (as reflected in the first sentence). — xDanielx /_C\ 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SCOPE is title + first sentence(s) so no contradiction there.The title together with the lead section (ideally, the introductory sentence or at least the introductory paragraph) of an article should make clear what the scope of the article is. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Since sourcing since the last round has only served to demonstrate an increasing consensus among the experts, that can't go anywhere. Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s just not happening. But you just reminded me that Transgender genocide was used by some Move voters to argue for this new title. I’m sure if we had an infobox for the transgender genocide on that article we’d see the issue? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove ICC from article?

Considering that genocide hasn't actually been alleged for the warrants, I believe this part of the article to be WP:UNDUE (and arguably synth, with the exception of the Just Security article, which is probably just undue). I have removed those sections and am starting this discussion in the spirit of WP:BRD. FortunateSons (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier the more limited addition is good, thank you. However, the Amnesty additon to the lead is undue IMO, as I don't see the significance for it being placed in this part of the lead, compared to other organisations. Could you elaborate why you think that is? FortunateSons (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Would have thought that was obvious, it's Amnesty not just any old NGO, for example:

Why Amnesty International and other experts say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza "They’re part of a growing list of genocide scholars and international law experts now using that word to describe Israel's actions. And while Amnesty International was the first nongovernmental organization to call it genocide, other groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Israeli group B’tselem have meticulously documented the country’s alleged war crimes, including using starvation as a weapon of war, committing torture and sodomy in Israeli prisons, deliberate attacks on civilians, among other charges."

Amnesty International Accuses Israel of Genocide in Gaza "the first of its kind by a major human rights organization" Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I'm just not sure whether or not Amnesty has a unique rank compared to HRW et al, meaning that we will either end up with a list or later removal if they should join the claim. It just seems like a case of recency bias to me, better suited to the body (or a lower part of the lead, if you want to change the structure). FortunateSons (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am still checking if other ngos have called it genocide or whether Amnesty is the only one of the majors. If the other principal NGOs get on board later on, then we can change it to "major ngoss" or something of that sort, there are many ngos so just saying ngos is not particularly informative. Recent or not, it is significant. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think just keeping it as is was would be better, but this is okay FortunateSons (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Afaics, besides Amnesty, only the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDE) has called it a genocide, they are a federation of hros and ngos, so I tweaked it a little. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, are you aware of the new HRW report?It’s your edit, so do you mind switching that to this now, based on the HRW statement? I think either “major rights organisations” or “major NGOs” work here FortunateSons (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit for the RS to settle down, glancing through the reports so far, HRW has not quite actually just called the whole thing a genocide but has said that an act of genocide was committed (assume Article II of convention but focused on water deprivation) and then separately of crime of humanity of extermination (what Dief was accused of by the ICC but not Netanyahu/Gallant).

The CNN report says "HRW says Israel’s actions amount to acts of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)" which is of interest as it links the ICC directly but it doesn't tie Amnesty and HRW together specifically. What I am looking for is RS saying something like major hr orgs/ngo or similar have ...., have you seen any such? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on the content, HRW is significantly more measured.

Not perfect, but Spiegel , Guardian and FT mention them in context of each other? FortunateSons (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Got JPost , this should work? FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's Reuters, not quite, that's talking about the use of the word genocide for both but then specifies Amnesty separately (which is I think actually an accurate way of expressing it). Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Now we have AP saying "The rights group was the latest among a growing number of critics to accuse Israel of genocidal acts in its war in Gaza", that seems like another useful statement.

"Genocidal acts" rather than "genocide" may be a way around the conundrum but I also think we now have enough rs for "a growing number" or some such. Let's do the body first and then see. Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Amnesty International is due in the lead, per NYT source. Its report is also a WP:Secondary. It's good to have secondary sources in the lead.

Description of Amnesty International from A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (4 ed.) in Amnesty International entry: Widely respected, and awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1977, its monitoring of human rights issues through Amnesty International Reports has provided information widely used by policy makers and political scientists. Bogazicili (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course the amnesty report should be in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert re weaponization of antisemitism

@Bobfrombrockley: Time ref says "That’s woefully misguided—and dangerous. Indeed, the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza, which has left at least 35,000 Palestinians dead in the in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, wounded tens of thousands more, and forcibly displaced nearly 2 million Palestinians who now face famine conditions. The conditions in Gaza are such that many scholars have said that the situation amounts to a genocide. Ultimately, the weaponization of antisemitism intensifies the discrimination and exclusion against vulnerable communities in the U.S.—including Jews." ?

Kindly self revert. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The preceding sentence is "As Gaza solidarity encampments take root at dozens of campuses across the U.S., many Democratic and Republican lawmakers—in addition to President Joe Biden—have accused protestors and colleges of rampant antisemitism." Segal does not call the genocide allegation antisemitic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean Segal does not say the lawmakers who make the antisemitism allegation call the genocide allegation antisemitic. His point is about anti-Israel protest in general being called antisemitic, not about the genocide allegation being called that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Pardon? "Indeed, the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza, which has left at least 35,000 Palestinians dead in the in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, wounded tens of thousands more, and forcibly displaced nearly 2 million Palestinians who now face famine conditions. The conditions in Gaza are such that many scholars have said that the situation amounts to a genocide."

How can this be read as anything other other than what was in the article before your revert? Viz, " While Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic others argue that this is a weaponization of antisemitism, intended to shield Israel from such allegations.

I will rearrange things so that a) the weaponization assertions are in the body and b) There is an appropriate summary in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Segal says blanket accusations of antisemitism in general are shields for criticism of genocide. He doesn’t say the use of the term genocide is called antisemitic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I really don't think this belongs in the lead at all. It's not in the body. Segal would be a strong source if he said this, but our other sources are weak.

I would move it to the body, but I'm not sure which section it fits in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This passage doesn't explicitly state that "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemetic" and, perhaps more importantly, there actually isn't a section or any content on the "weaponization of antisemitism" outside the lead. Originalcola (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Both versions of the sentence try to give some kind of balance between the two arguments but there isn't any sort of pro-Israeli argument included in the article,(not arguing for inclusion of this either way) which makes the inclusion of this sentence in the lead look odd. Originalcola (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Replied above already. Selfstudier (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair, but it shouldn't be included in the lead until it's included in the main body of the article. Originalcola (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This report has something which might be relevant 'David Mencer, an Israeli government spokesman, has told Sky News that Amnesty's claim of genocide against Israel is "a classic example of antisemitism" and "Holocaust inversion"'. NadVolum (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This idea that sources must explicitly call the genocide ruling "antisemitic" ~~is twaddle~~ lacks any basis, that's not necessary at all, all that is required is evidence to show that antisemitism is weaponized in the context of the Gaza events. If anyone want's clarity on Raz Segal views see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c1Bj6OOwQI (or, together with Adam Horowitz, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYDulaqTPSE) and there is plenty more sourcing available, which I will be adding in due course to make it clear that this is not just a passing fad or something of that sort but something important, ongoing and real. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If our claim is that some have said that "accusations of antisemitism are weaponised in the context of the Gaza events" then of course Segal is an excellent source. But the claim was "calling the genocide allegation antisemitic is to weaponise antisemitism then we need someone who says that. This article is about the genocide allegation; we have other articles on the Gaza events in general where we can add such information if due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I already changed the Guardian ref, they called the court antisemitic and others have called the judges antisemitic, etcetera, slicing and dicing is not going to get away from these facts, which are straightforward examples of weaponized antisemitism wrt to the Gaza genocide, however that may be referred to. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Selfstudier, I don’t think “twaddle” is acceptable language among editors. You can say I’m wrong without insulting me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Struck and replaced with "lacks any basis", trust that's better. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand the removal of Matthew Bolton for having nothing to do with antisemitism. The book is called “Antisemitism in Online Communication: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Hate Speech in the Twenty-First Century” and the chapter is about the debate over whether the genocide accusation is antisemitic. It couldn’t be more relevant to the section, is peer reviewed, and is based in serious research (in contrast to the op eds we cite now). BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The quote "The claim that Israel has, is or intends to commit genocide upon the Palestinian population across the Middle East is one of the most incendiary charges that can be made of the Jewish state" doesn't even mention antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think, given the context, that it's reasonable to assume this is referring to antisemitism. I can see just lines above you saying: This idea that sources must explicitly call the genocide ruling "antisemitic" lacks any basis, that's not necessary at all, all that is required is evidence to show that antisemitism is weaponized in the context of the Gaza events. Originalcola (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Evidence, not assumption. In any case a different quote has now been provided so this is moot. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

revert of revision 1262894317 without any explanation

Earlier today I made an edit, adding several sources, including Amnesty Israel, criticizing the methodology of the latest Amnesty International report.

I see now that my edit has been reverted by @Cdjp1, without providing any explanation, and I would like to understand the reason why. DancingOwl (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources did not support the statement you had written, many were poor quality, and the grammar and sentence structure of the statements (not to mention their formatting) were sub-par, so a reversion was the easiest action. As an example, the Fox News article that mentions the ASU professor does not support the statement that he believes Amnesty "made up" a definition for genocide, but instead he believed the evidence for potential genocide as presented by Amnesty, did not meet the the requisite bar for a determination of the crime of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right about the Fox News article - it needs to be replaced by a link to his opinion column in WSJ, where he explicitly talks about "bogus genocide definition".

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/amnesty-international-responds-on-genocide-israel-gaza-49a972b5#:~:text=Amnesty%20International%E2%80%99s%20report,disprove%20such%20intent.

I've double-checked the other 3 sources, and they all talk about Amnesty redefining genocide.

Before I make a revert and replace the link, any other suggestions as to how this edit can be improved? DancingOwl (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty Israel, Honest reporting and Fox, just make sure we keep "vexatious". Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

can you elaborate? DancingOwl (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The opinion one and Honest Reporting should go. What does Fox add? Also it would be much better to at least give the reason Amnesty Israel gave for alleging the grounds were changed. NadVolum (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

While Fox is not reliable for facts here, I don't see the issue with citing them for an attributed statement by a law professor. — xDanielx /_C\ 21:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As previously stated, the Fox article did not contain the statement added to the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That law professor is a senior member of Foundation for Defense of Democracies which I think should be mentioned if he is mentioned. NadVolum (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fox can't be used (see the closing statement of the RfC). M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought politics for Fox as far as RS is concerned would mean American politics. It does seem very political in America though, so I suppose this does come under that. NadVolum (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's only for an expert quote though, Fox isn't the source of any interpretation or factual claims. — xDanielx /_C\ 18:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated, the core issue with the Fox piece was that the quote did not appear in the Fox article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Amnesty Israel didn't claim the definition was changed, but that the conclusions of the report were "predetermined" ("From the outset, the report was referred to in international correspondence as the ‘genocide report’, even when the research was still in its initial stages”) and that their own analysis did not find that Israel’s actions met the definition of genocide

2. Why do you think that Honest Reporting and prof. Orde Kittrie's opinion piece shouldn't be mentioned? DancingOwl (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the opinion I linked above, AI "quickly rejected the report, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of "special intent"". The court will decide that, apart from which scholars and others may still argue, and do argue, a genocide independently of whether the convention high bar for intent is met. AI was also at odds with its parent over their apartheid report so this is nothing new for them, at least they admit there are serious crimes being committed in Gaza and this admission should be included. As for Honest Reporting, "an Israeli media advocacy group. A pro-Israel media watchdog, it describes its mission as "combat ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel", a bit beyond mere bias, that. The prof is OK for his attributed opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. I agree that the "insufficient evidence" part is less relevant here - the key part is their claim about "predetermined conclusion".

2. Regarding Honest Reporting - as you said it yourself, "bias≠unreliability", and the fact that their are a pro-Israel media watchdog makes them WP:PARTISAN, but doesn't automatically disqualify them, unless, of course, there is evidence that they published misleading and/or false information. DancingOwl (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Trafficking in falsehoods == unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A single instance, in which an involved party criticized by HR made some accusations against them is hardly a conclusive evidence indicating unreliability. DancingOwl (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

AI say they were not involved with the report so Idk how they can say that the conclusions were predetermined, that's also a pretty extraordinary claim, is anyone else saying that?

If HR was at RSN right now, I would argue that extreme bias affects reliability, an argument I have made before and have no issue with making again, essentially it's an independence argument, the level of independence from the topic the source is covering, if you are consistently taking a side and in this case, admitting that's what you do, then how can you be considered reliable? Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. According to the "Haaretz" article, while not directly involved in report preparation, AI have been be exposed to internal correspondence about it:

"From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the 'genocide report,' even when research was still in its initial stages," the Jewish employees reveal.
"This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled 'genocide report' and then to have to conclude that it is 'only' about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations."

2. I partially agree with you - an extreme bias/partisanship definitely CAN affect reliability, which means that partisan sources should be treated with more a priori suspicion than non-partisan ones, but, still, unreliability cannot be directly deduced from partisanship alone.

Also, if we decide to exclude partisan sources, this should be equally applied to both sides and, in case of Gaza war, this would mean that extremely partisan sources, such as Middle East Eye, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor or Francesca P. Albanese, just to name a few, shouldn't be used either. DancingOwl (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I just explained that I am not basing the claim on partisanship alone. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Then, perhaps, I misunderstood your argument.

You said "if you are consistently taking a side and in this case, admitting that's what you do, then how can you be considered reliable" - this sounds like a description of partisan advocacy.

Did you mean something beyond that? DancingOwl (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The part I quoted from Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying bias implies non-independence? This seems like a novel argument which doesn't reflect how the relevant policies are normally applied.

We should certainly be careful about any statements in wikivoice based on biased sources like HR, but the material in question were appropriately attributed. — xDanielx /_C\ 18:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying bias implies non-independence? Where did I say that? Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

essentially it's an independence argument. If that's not what you meant, can you clarify what the argument is exactly? — xDanielx /_C\ 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Take HR to RSN and I'll explain it there (again). Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If you will read it what was said was it once again trafficked in falsehoods. Not just once. These various pressure groups need careful treatment and need to earn a reputation as reliable since they have no real oversight. As to Orde Kittrie as the article said he is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Another Israeli pressure group. He is a professor of law but his connection to that needs to be made clear. Lawyers tend to just argue their case and his bias is manifest. Anyway don't we need a clear statement about what the case is? NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. The word "again" refers to HR repeating the same claim about Yousef Masoud, not to some separate incident. Also, see HR's response to NYT accusations. I do agree with your general attitude towards pressure groups though.

2. I have no objection to mentioning Kittrie's affiliation with FDD. DancingOwl (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As we now have a better source on Kittrie, I've added him as an example of the claim. I referred to him using his signature in the cited article, that is as a senior fellow of the FDD. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that he's also a legal expert - a professor of law, whose research focuses on international law - is also an important detail that should be mentioned. DancingOwl (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that, once again, you made several changes to my edit, without bothering to provide any explanation:

- First of all, the word "falsely" you added before the description of the claims made by Ostrovsky and Kittrie is a gross violation on NPOV - the opposite point of view is already reported in the next sentence, and adding your personal opinion about Ostrovsky/Kittrie claim is absolutely out of place

- Second, replacing the word "experts" with "professionals", when describing Ostrovsky/Kittrie claim, whereas the opposite side is describe as "experts" is another violation of NPOV. We are describing a controversy among legal experts and should provide a neutral balanced report of the claims made by both sides, without trying to inject own own personal views in the description.

I'm reverting those two changes you made and I kindly ask you that if you have any objections to the way my edits are phrased to first discuss this here. DancingOwl (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Short explainers were given, your choice not to read them is not my problem. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The only explainer I see is "not how you format" DancingOwl (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The J7 can't be included, per all the articles I've looked at from the Algemeiner, ADL, and the J7 member groups, as none of them state that the preliminary ruling was antisemitic, but that it would be used as justification by antisemites. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand how J7 are related to this discussion. DancingOwl (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Think it was meant for the antisemitism section, I already removed J7 anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: please format the sources you add, bare URLs are very much below standard. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I was distracted before I ran Refill, done now. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

~~J7, citing the ADL's publication of their statement, was in the reversion. Since I've now got round to digging through them specifically, I thought it pertinent to report what I'd found.~~ So, while the Declassified UK article makes the claim of the J7 supporting the accusation that the ICJ prelim ruling was antisemitic, I believe that is (at least by the letter of the source) wrong. You could use a variety of other points the J7 make against the ICJ prelim ruling, such as claims of ideological capture, believing propaganda, etc. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I got myself mixed up between reversions that had been made, you are correct DancingOwl, the J7 matter is not relevant to this section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we treat Honest Reporting as a reliable source for... anything? They're an advocacy group, not a news organization.

The fact that they accused journalists of "coordination with the terrorists" despite later saying they "had no evidence for the allegation" is atrocious behavior. Such careless misinformation even "led two Israeli politicians to threaten that these journalists be killed". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly reliable for its own positions, which was how it was being used (with attribution).

In the incident you refer to, HW was position a question, not making a claim. It's not so relevant since we would never use a question in a source to back a wiki statement. — xDanielx /_C\ 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but why would their position be due for inclusion at all?

They aren't subject matter experts, they aren't exceptionally notable, & their article doesn't actually make any independently salient refutations of Amnesty International. It either repeats Amnesty Israel's position, repeats what unreliable sources like NGO Monitor says, or simply expresses outrage that Israel is accused of genocide at all.

Their inclusion among those who appose the report's findings doesn't materially add anything more then if we were to cite some dude off the street for their opinion on the matter. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You could say the same about AI themselves; both are NGOs staffed by mostly non-experts.

I'm not adamant about including HW in particular, but NPOV requires us to represent this viewpoint in some form or another. — xDanielx /_C\ 23:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think I could say the same about Amnesty International, as unlike Honest Reporting, Amnesty is a widely respected human rights organization cited globally.

I'm in no way against including those disputing/critical of Amnesty's report, but that issue seems to've already been properly covered above with Orde Kittrie's article & Amnesty Israel's position.

I'm just against adding Honest Reporting specifically as their inclusion wouldn't benefit the article. They don't bring much original, meaningful criticisms of the report themselves, so their inclusion would feel like we were scrounging around for anyone with dissenting positions on the matter, something I know isn't true. _{(Hope that makes sense)} Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

And I've just removed th opinion piece with Arsen Ostrovsky. It is an opinion piece, he hasn't the reputation of Orde, and he's an avowed Zionist rather than just some legal expert. Please try and find a better citation rather than just trying to stuff the article with this sort of ... stuff. NadVolum (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I see, opinion pieces are commonly used as sources, with attribution, and the fact that he's "an avowed Zionist" in and by itself is not a sufficient reason for dismissal, but you are right about the prominence part, so I have not objection to the removal.

I do want to add back the previously removed mention of the Amnesty Israel response - do you have any suggestions/comments, before I make the edit? DancingOwl (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to consider what is due criticism here, particularly when we have AI's former chair saying "Amnesty Israel finds itself in the awkward position of being neither a source of legal expertise, nor providing a diverse human rights perspective of Israelis and Palestinians. It is just another place for Israeli Jews to express themselves." (among other things) and Amnesty itself saying "its Israeli branch is 'undergoing deep internal divisions,' with a series of resignations amid accusations that Palestinians in the group had been silenced. Those accusations are 'unacceptable and will be handled through Amnesty’s international democratic processes'".

It seems to me that an Israeli denial, even if proforma for virtually every accusation levelled at it, is due but the opinions of sundry nonnotables with clearly contradicted "vexatious" opinions are not. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1. I don't see how this criticism is relevant to the core claim made by Amnesty Israel that conclusions of the report were "predetermined" ("From the outset, the report was referred to in international correspondence as the ‘genocide report’, even when the research was still in its initial stages”). Regardless of the internal controversies within Amnesty Israel, this is a factual statement that provides important context about the report.

2. I also don't agree with the "clearly contradicted" part - after all, even the experts quoted in "The Journal" piece admit that “the test that the Court has developed is what is sometimes referred to as ‘the only reasonable inference test’” and that Amnesty interpretation is based on "ICJ dissenting view ... that this standard of only a genocidal inference is unrealistic", so the criticism of Amnesty's definition by Kittrie and others clearly has some merits. So, we have two opposing views expressed by experts in the relevant field, and the NPOV principle dictates that both perspectives must be represented. DancingOwl (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

All the RS I have seen do not describe the predetermined thing as AI's core claim, instead they refer to the intent matter, that is, a legal issue rather than some random opinion.

The Journal piece is a factchecker and kinda points up the absence of them in the criticism.

Both perspectives can be represented by Israel and Kittrie, I don't object to either of those. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1. In both "Haaretz" and "Times of Israel" reports, the words "predetermined conclusions" appear in the headline:

2. I thought your remark about "opinions of sundry nonnotables" referred to Kittrie - glad that we agree his opinion should be represented.

3. The criticism voiced by Amnesty Israel is substantially different from Kittrie's - he's talking about legal definition, while AI voice criticism about the process that lead to report's conclusions - both aspects need to be addressed in the article. DancingOwl (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES are not RS. To reiterate, I don't think AI is due to begin with and even if they were, it would only be wrt factual/legal issues and not wrt some process they were not even involved in.

It's a bit like IBM announcing a new corporate policy and some employees at the Nepal branch disagreeing. In the same way, we do not need to note AI endorsing previous findings already made by Amnesty, it's not due. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If we go with your IBM metaphor, the more precise description would be "IBM announcing a new corporate policy in Nepal and majority of employees at the Nepal branch disagreeing."

To take another, much closer example, consider the way Amnesty's 2022 report on alleged placement of Ukrainian forces in civilian areas is described in the Criticism of Amnesty International article, in particular the part about response of Amnesty International in Ukraine. DancingOwl (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest wait for other editors to comment. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the predetermined is pretty content-free and not WP:DUE but I'm happy for a little bit about it to be in if AI really thinks that is a good argument. The business about them changing the definiton is as far as I can make out the main one. Considering the Rohingya case though I can see why Israel might have a bit of contempt for the ICJ. The whole of WW2 would fit inside that no problem and the result will just be a page in Misplaced Pages. NadVolum (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The "Haaretz" article elaborates what they meant by "predetermined":

"From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the 'genocide report,' even when research was still in its initial stages," the Jewish employees reveal.
"This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled 'genocide report' and then to have to conclude that it is 'only' about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations."

I agree that the claim about changed definition is the most substantial one, but the "predetermined conclusion" claim provides important context about what could have led the authors of the report to seek alternative definitions of genocide and, as experts cited in "The Journal" piece admit, adopt "dissenting ICJ view" instead of the "standard of only a genocidal inference". DancingOwl (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well they are a human rights organisation and that's the allegation they were investigating. And you agree it is not primary - and I don't see non-Israeli papers considering it of interest. So perhaps it could be given its due space which isn't much. There's an Irish expression for what they're doing 'putting on the poor mouth', and it isn't appropriate afer tens of thousands of people have been killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion about reasonable inference has been ongoing for some time, https://www.ejiltalk.org/karadzics-genocidal-intent-as-the-only-reasonable-inference/ and has absolutely nothing to do with alternative definitions of genocide. It's right there in the Amnesty report (p.105). Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that the discussion is new - the ICJ dissenting opinion mentioned previously is just one example of such discussion. However, this doesn't change the fact that, by Amnesty's own admission, the test they are suggesting to use for determining whether genocide had been committed is different from the standard of proof adopted in the past by the ICJ majority. DancingOwl (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope, they are making a legal argument "And so Amnesty International is setting out a path for how you can, in fact, arrive at a finding of genocide while still adhering to the language of the Genocide Convention and the court’s own test for establishing genocidal intent." <- Secondary source (Becker), no editor OR here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is Becker's interpretation, and on the other hand, Kittrie describes this line of argument as "bogus genocide definition", Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany - as "attempt to move the normative goalposts regarding these evidentiary standards" and Stefan Talmon says the following:

"...if Amnesty International says I am now examining whether Israel has committed genocide, then I must, in all honesty, base my decision on the current legal situation. I cannot first draw up my own rules of evidence and then apply them to the Israel-Gaza case. But that is what the organization did. Amnesty International's work in this respect was legally sloppy and not entirely honest."

DancingOwl (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, none of this is new https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/magazine/genocide-definition.html Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Think of it this way, why are so many experts saying it is genocide when they know about the inference thing already? Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Talmon addresses this point exactly when he says, before the quote above, that the legal debate regarding relaxation of the standard of proof is entirely legitimate, in and by itself, but when examining whether Israel has committed genocide, the decision must be based on the current legal situation.

The experts you refer to conflate those two discussions, and Talmon criticises this by saying "I cannot first draw up my own rules of evidence and then apply them to the Israel-Gaza case. DancingOwl (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes no difference, this is just a reflection of the discussion that's already been had, there is a minority position and a majority position and the sources you give are in the minority position, all the top experts don't agree with it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what are you basing you claims about majority/minority positions on.

The current legal standard is the majority ICJ position and the view that Amnesty are promoting is based on ICJ dissenting opinion.

And someone like the former Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee Yuval Shani that I quoted above definitely counts as "top expert", so your claim about "all the top experts" is factually incorrect. DancingOwl (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what are you basing you claims about majority/minority positions on Like I said, the discussion has already been had when we established the article title. In terms of the article here there is a consensus to call it a genocide based on expert sourcing. That consensus is unlikely to alter regardless of what ultimately happens in court just as Israel would in all likelihood dispute the result if it went against them.

If you want to analyze only the legal positions, then South Africa's genocide case against Israel is a better place for that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not contesting article's title and/or experts' opinions it's based on.

My comments refer exclusively to Amnesty's report that framed genocide claim as a legal position, and to the responses of different legal experts to report's conclusions/methodology. DancingOwl (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And I said that if you only want to discuss the legal positions, then there is a better article to do that in. Amnesty is just another expert source, a pretty good one, reliable for facts and attributable for opinion. They say it is a genocide, that a few lawyers disagree is hardly a surprise. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is just security hot off the press https://www.justsecurity.org/105629/amnesty-international-gaza-genocide-report/

Re Talmon, "Unsurprisingly, the report has received criticism from a variety of sources. One line of criticism alleges that the report applies “an alternative test not based on the established jurisprudence of the ICJ.” This criticism reflects a misunderstanding...."

Amnesty International could have taken a different approach. Amnesty could have applied the lower standards of proof commonly applied by international fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry, such as "reasonable grounds" or "balance of probabilities." The report more than satisfies these standards. Alternatively, Amnesty could have limited itself to finding that there is a serious risk that Israel is committing genocide. Such a serious risk triggers the legal obligation of all States Parties to the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide in Gaza (which the report also urges). The report more than satisfies this standard. The legal duty of all States to prevent genocide in Gaza is clearly engaged. Instead, Amnesty chose to hold itself to the highest standard of proof known to public international law. This choice likely reflects Amnesty’s confidence in its evidence and legal analysis, as well as its understanding of the gravity of its accusation." Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are arguing about :)

We have established that there is a debate among legal experts about the validity of Amnesty's approach and this debate is currently reflected in the article.

As far as I'm concerned, we have reached a reasonable balance - I would prefer to have Amnesty Israel position mentioned as well, because controversy within Amnesty sounds like an important part of the context, but if everyone else thinks it's undue, I won't insist. DancingOwl (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are arguing about We are arguing about your assertion that Amnesty is making stuff up. They're not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not my assertion, but assertion of several legal experts, quoted above - I just wanted to make sure that their point of view is reflected in a balanced way in the article, as per NPOV principle. DancingOwl (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit, I will remedy the overstating of a minority viewpoint in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it, if you could provide evidence from RS, showing that this is, indeed, a minority viewpoint among legal experts commenting on Amnesty's report, before "remedying" anything. DancingOwl (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't require your permission to edit. Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you need my permission, but I do think that making veiled threats to "in due course" make changes you clearly expect to lack consensus is not the most good-faith way to proceed. DancingOwl (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, saying that I will edit is a veiled threat and not the most good-faith way to proceed?

In what world? Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In a world where we are having a discussion about an issue that we view differently, and then, instead of trying to reach a consensus, you just say that, despite this disagreement, you intend to make some changes "in due course", which I hear as "when I feel like it, regardless of what you think about it".

If I misinterpreted your intention, feel free to correct me, and I'll be more than happy to take it back. DancingOwl (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that you removed the "former Chair of United Nations Human Rights Committee" before Yuval Shani's name, dismissing it as "puffery".

I believe this detail is significant as an indication of his notability. Furthermore, he is also a law professor and a former Dean of the Law Faculty at Hebrew University, not merely a 'rights lawyer,' as you chose to describe him, so your - rather petty, I must say - attempt to somehow downplay his expert opinion is really regrettable. DancingOwl (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided the wikilink that you omitted, not only is that a better indicator of notability, all relevant info is at the wikilink including the "when" of "former", see MOS:RELTIME. I have no objection to changing rights lawyer to law professor if you prefer. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The wikilink was already there, but it was broken due to me misspelling his name - thanks for fixing that.

MOS:RELTIME refers to events, not people's positions.

Similarly, MOS:PUFFERY is absolutely irrelevant characterization for a factual statement stating person's former title. DancingOwl (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you are a relatively new editor, I will just overlook the fact that you seem to be unfamiliar with WP practices in this respect. We don't puff up descriptors with titles and what not (we are not writing a CV) because this detail is significant as an indication of his notability. So we say historian, academic, lawyer, professor and so on, nothing more. Just look at a few articles to see this is the case. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair point, though I must say that this standard doesn't seem to be applied consistently.

Even in this article, additional bio details are provided for some experts - for example:

- Michael Fakhri is described as "law professor and United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food"

- Devi Sridhar - as "the chair of global health at the University of Edinburgh"

In any case - point noted, always happy to learn and improve. DancingOwl (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

doesn't seem to be applied consistently True but those are good examples of unnecessary puffing up imo, it just leads to competitive padding of descriptors as editors unnecessarily try to make one source look better than another.

For example, at International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine, reverted commentary originally introduced by a sock, goes "Michael Waltz, set to become US national security adviser under President-elect Donald Trump", "US defense lawyer and professor Alan Dershowitz" and "Canadian politician and human rights advocate Irwin Cotler" while Kahn is "merely" an ICC prosecutor (rather than international criminal law and international human rights law specialist, former Special Adviser and Head of the United Nations Investigative Team to promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Daesh/ISIL in Iraq (UNITAD)). Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, genocide is not an "allegation", but a conclusion about a pattern of action and, more importantly, the intention behind this pattern of action. Starting with the conclusion before the pattern of actions has been properly investigated is exactly the "predetermined conclusion" Amnesty Israel are talking about.

Also, note that Amnesty Israel are not disputing the claim that war crimes had been committed, but only whether those crimes cross the genocide threshold or not, and their criticism against Amnesty International is that the conclusion that the threshold has, indeed, been crossed was predetermined in advance. So I don't see what "isn't appropriate" with their claims per se, which in no way justify Israel, but only criticize the way the report's authors conducted their investigation.

Finally, I don't see how the fact that non-Israeli (or, non-Jewish) papers are not "considering it of interest" is relevant here - "Haaretz" is considered to be a reliable source, and in any other circumstances interest or lack thereof from other papers wouldn't have been brought up as a relevant consideration, so it's not clear why this case should be treated any differently. DancingOwl (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant, then take it to RSN for an opinion. My position is simple, it's undue and AI's opinions in general are only due to the extent that other mainstream independent RS have reported them. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that covering that and not covering the main point about the change in definition would be undue. NadVolum (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A thing that strikes me as peculiar is if AI were involved from the earliest - why did they not suggest a better name if they thought it was so prejudical? NadVolum (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

They weren't involved, it's just internal gossipy stuff according to some AI members. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Cohen, Amichai; Shani, Yuval (2024-12-16). "A "Cramped Interpretation of International Jurisprudence"? Some Critical Observations on the Amnesty International Genocide Report on Gaza". Just Security.
Collini, Francesco (2024-12-08). "Amnesty International has not acted entirely honestly from a legal perspective". Der Spiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 8 Dec 2024.

Ireland to intervene

Apologies if this was discussed already but I couldn't find it. Ireland is intervening in the case and asking for the definition of genocide to be made less narrow. Andre🚐 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Similar to when Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Britain and the Maldives intervened in the genocide case against Myanmar, arguing that the current requirement for proving ~~specific~~ special intent was to stringent and hampered the application of the law. Seeing more countries lend their weight behind the criticisms of the Genocide Convention that genocide scholars and legal experts/scholars have been making for decades. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it is similar. I don't know enough about Myanmar. The Rohingya genocide article says it was described as a "textbook example." So that doesn't really square with the idea that they're having trouble proving that case. I wouldn't want to wade into something I'm not familiar with without doing the proper research. But for this article given that we mention stuff like the German lawsuit and the Australian legal proceedings, and the South African thing is discussed, the Irish intervention seemed like it will probably have relevance to the article, though it's still recent. Andre🚐 01:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

textbook example much as how multiple sources, including leading experts in the field have called Gaza a "textbook case". The aforementioned group of countries wanted to step in, as they were worried of seeing results in the court case similar if not worse than the ICTFY, which set some rather interesting precedents, such as people being able to be victims of genocide, when the genocide in question was ruled not to have occurred. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Just as a further note of interest, most of the countries that have intervened in the Myanmar case to make it "easier" to ascertain ~~specific~~ special intent, have provided a variety of statements indicating the exact opposite in regards to the Israel case. While this has been pointed to in some relevant sources that we cite for other information in this article, this note I don't believe merits inclusion. Maybe it could be included in another article, but someone else would need to pursue such an action if they so desired. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Complicity

I like to check every once in a while this article about this very serious topic, to see what aberration will I find this time. Last time it was an accussation that my country, Romania, was supposedly complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Now I found that "European Union states" are complicit. The only source for this was an Amnesty International report concluding Israel was committing genocide . It barely discusses complicity by other states, mentioning the word once: "States that continue to transfer arms to Israel are at risk of becoming complicit in genocide". It's not even a direct accussation, it is not elaborated on, it does not appeal to other authors and experts, it is not the focus of the report.

Handing over accussations of complicity in genocide to countries and even cabinets, which carry the names of individuals (WP:BLP), is a pretty serious issue. This is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see on an infobox cited with 10 sources. Can we really not put some more effort in such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim such as that the United States, the United Kingdom or Germany may be supposedly complicit in genocide in 2024? I am not asking for them to be removed, I am not even tagging the infobox, but I am asking for some professionalism. Stop pointing fingers while empty-handed. This is a highly watched article, put some actual effort in pushing your case, and if you can't, remove it. Super Ψ Dro 01:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Though I would really rather have the mentioned cabinets removed. It is practically reducing the complicity accussation from an entire country to a reduced number of individuals. Individuals who have nowhere as near of a level of attributed responsability as Netanyahu or Gallant. Now that, that should be very heavily sourced before even being proposed for inclusion. Super Ψ Dro 01:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you read Gaza_genocide#International_complicity? Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. There is nothing about the European Union there. Super Ψ Dro 01:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't say that there was. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote before replying? This is the edit that prompted my comment . Super Ψ Dro 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that edit before I left my comment. I agreed with it, so didn't revert it. I asked you whether you read Gaza_genocide#International_complicity mostly because you said:

Can we really not put some more effort in such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim such as that the United States, the United Kingdom or Germany may be supposedly complicit in genocide in 2024?

There are multiple sections on this subject with dozens of sources at Gaza_genocide#International_complicity. There's no acknowledgement of that in your first comment. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources should be in the infobox in the first place. That something is mentioned in the article doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the infobox. Let us see the sources, and then we can judge their value and the weight of their claim and whether it should be included in the infobox. And if editors find the listed supposedly complicit countries next to six academic sources for each, maybe they'll think twice before adding a random country to the list again.

Actually, this whole segment of the infobox is quite exceptional for Misplaced Pages practices. We have an entire article on Germany and the Armenian genocide which argues some level of complicity, but Armenian genocide's infobox does not have such a segment called "Potential complicity". The case on the direct perpetrator of this hasn't even ended, and we are quick to jump and list countries and people that have allegedly helped them commit genocide as a certain fact. Super Ψ Dro 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Essentially, this all comes under the heading of "third states" responsibilty, required by the convention to actively (within reason) prevent genocide. If they do not, then they may be complicit, it's not that complicated. Sourcing is not that difficult to locate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The burden on reading and citing sources is not on me, given my apparent position. Super Ψ Dro 12:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Super Dro that the EU as a whole aren't complicit simply on the vague say-so of Amnesty, and it's a stretch to even say that the source supports the statement in the article. Actually, I've been recently thinking that Amnesty and other orgs who appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict, presumably in some small part also to raise more money for their orgs by talking up a cause celebre, should be considered advocacy org think tanks or advocacy charities with a bias that should generally be attributed as treated as WP:RSOPINION when they are weighing in like this without any real new substance in their report. Similar to how we use SPLC or the ADL but don't treat them as similar to more neutral sources like reputable news or academic sources. Anyway, unless there are better sources I'd say remove this. Andre🚐 02:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

AI recent RFC is green, need to distinguish between factual reporting, which AI is very good at and when they are engaged in advocacy. Attacks on Amnesty reliability are rarely made based on the evidence, appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict being more the usual thing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I was writing a comment justifying why in the end I was going to tag the potential complicity segment of the infobox as undue, but Elshad has removed it . I expect that to be reverted, so I will continue.

Reading the United Kingdom subsection, there is not one single source that is directly accussing the UK of genocide complicity. The entire subsection is lawyers, NGOs and human rights groups saying the UK may risk being complicit, or individuals who are actually not making use of the word genocide.

Regarding Germany, there is Lena Obermaier writing for a socialist magazine, not very solid. Then there is a mention of German lawyers sueing Scholz and his cabinet, and Nicaragua's sue against Germany. This is at least something more than the UK, but they are ongoing cases without a resolution. The subsection completely lacks academic sources.

Why should we list these two countries and their governments as supposedly complicit in the infobox, when their respective subsections lack accussations with certainty? I don't see credible sources arguing in long papers why these two countries may, in fact, be complicit, nor do I see direct accussations from international organizations. The infobox uses the wording "Potential complicity", but having countries listed on the top of the article under such a segment has its obvious effect on readers. Considering the claims have a weak substantiation in the article, I do not think allowing this effect is appropriate. Super Ψ Dro 12:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the section on the genocidal actions is titled "Alleged genocidal actions", and that of complicity, "International complicity", treating it as uncontroversial fact. I have renamed it to "Alleged international complicity". I am open to other titles such as "Discussion on international complicity" or other alternatives, which do not treat complicity as an already certain fact. Super Ψ Dro 12:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Smallangryplanet, I reverted you, and invite you to discuss here the header of the complicity section. As I said, I am open to discuss alternatives to "alleged", but considering the name of the second section of the article, I don't think it should keep the header I changed. Super Ψ Dro 00:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide, and there is consensus that referring to it as "Gaza Genocide" does not have to include "alleged", but at any rate the complicity component is not alleged. I also removed some of the text that referred to alleged or unconfirmed complicity, making the header "International complicity" accurate. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide this implies that whether there is a genocide is the only controversial part, and that if we consider there to be a genocide, we must necessarily also consider the perpetrator to have accomplices, for which there is no reason. The section is filled with hypothethical language, at least for the UK and Germany, that Israel has accomplices in genocide is not uncontroversial fact. Nicaragua has started an ICJ case against Germany on the topic of facilitating genocide, your interpretation presents the ongoing case as having a verdict already. Complicity in genocide seems to be a defined thing in international law. Does any help provided to Israel's war effort fall within this legal space? I doubt sources say this. Super Ψ Dro 11:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, thanks for the header rename, it's an improvement. Super Ψ Dro 12:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think @Selfstudier's header rename resolves this portion of the dispute. Thanks for that! Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There are sources for this. Besides Amnesty International link:

“A failure by states such as Germany, the UK and the US to reassess how they are providing support to Israel provides grounds to question whether those states are violating the obligation to prevent genocide or could even at some point be considered complicit in acts of genocide or other violations of international law,” Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin who has previously worked at the ICJ

The transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk State complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, UN experts said today, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately.
In line with recent calls from the Human Rights Council and the independent UN experts to States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, arms manufacturers supplying Israel – including BAE Systems, Boeing, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh, Rheinmetall AG, Rolls-Royce Power Systems, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp – should also end transfers, even if they are executed under existing export licenses.

WP:DUE: We don't have any WP:Tertiary sources about this yet, but complicity is mentioned pretty early in this WP:Secondary source. page 4:
Genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances, including purported self-defence.32 Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states.33

"Potential complicity" already avoids saying these states are complicit in Wikivoice Bogazicili (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the only case in which a country should be presented as complicit in genocide is if there is consensus on sources, not if it's only "potential". This is a pretty low threshold in which we could theorically put many countries. No other country is treated at Israel's level regarding engagement in genocide among sources, to my knowledge at least. The sources you listed use wording "could", "may" and "risk", without direct accussations. I am not sure but I doubt this article was moved to its current title based on sources with such wording. Super Ψ Dro 00:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think America will ever have a consensus in its newspapers that they are helping with genocide! NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You can think whatever you wish. We don't need to use American media to talk about the actions of the United States anyway. I don't get your point. Super Ψ Dro 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, we do not require there to be consensus among sources to add content in Misplaced Pages (unless it is WP:FRINGE). Maybe you are confusing this with WP:Consensus, which is the decision-making process in Misplaced Pages. The relevant policies here are WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV overall. WP:V is satisfied. The sources above are reliable (and these are the best type of sources available at this time I believe. I don't think there are any peer-reviewed, review articles that are published on non-predatory high impact journals yet). Here's another source, a journal article:

Thus, the failure to issue the second and third measures requested by South Africa is baffling, particularly in light of the continued supply of more deadly arms shipments to Israel from states with strong financial, military, and political links with Israel, chief amongst them the US, despite the UNSC ceasefire resolution 2728.Footnote166 When analysing the commission of genocide in Gaza, the reasonable conclusion is that the US is a major enabler and partner in crime to Israel.Footnote167 In the words of a leading Israeli commentator: “without arms and ammunition from the US, we would have had to resort to fighting with sticks and stones long ago.”Footnote168 In light of the reservations that the US attached to its ratification of the Convention,Footnote169 requiring its consent to allow ICJ jurisdiction,Footnote170 this importance is heightened in the proceedings that Nicaragua instituted in the ICJ against another state, Germany, in relation to its complicity in Israeli genocide.Footnote171 Moreover, even after the second ICJ provisional measures, the UK announced that it will continue to licence arms’ exports to Israel.Footnote172 Continued arms supply and the suspension of financial support to UNRWA clearly illustrate these states’ failure to discharge their duty to prevent.Footnote173

Argument for WP:DUE is above. The wording is neutral ("potential complicity"). We are not saying these are definitely complicit. We are following the sources. Overall WP:NPOV is satisfied.

Unless a valid argument (based on sources and/or Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines) is provided, I'm going to restore this material. Given the above source I'll only add US, Germany and UK. Bogazicili (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

We need a consensus among sources for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims such as that these three countries are complicit in genocide. You are proposing to restore a disputed exceptional claim that isn't even presented as certain. I will tag the content upon restoration. Super Ψ Dro 16:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the argument that supplying arms may make you complicit is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Also, if you go to the policy you cited, none of the bullet points seem to apply. This has been covered by "multiple mainstream sources". Complicity is in secondary sources. Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit?

The only appropriate tag would be {{Template:Better source needed}}, requesting a secondary source for the countries mentioned. But this is a recent and ongoing event, so it'll take time for those type of sources to emerge. Bogazicili (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, please explain the relevance tag you put. Complicity is in secondary sources, so it is relevant. See above. Provide a valid argument based on sources and/or Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines please. Bogazicili (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Complicity is nowhere. I am disputing the existence of consensus among sources that Israel has accomplices in genocide, and I am disputing the relevance of adding specific countries to the infobox when the accussations are only potential and non-direct. Super Ψ Dro 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I do believe the claim that the US, UK and Germany are complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip is an exceptional claim. Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit? yes, most of the sources I've seen here use language employing "could"s, "may"s and "risk"s. Super Ψ Dro 19:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean Complicity is nowhere?

Complicity is mentioned in this WP:Secondary source:page 4. There's obviously another ICJ case against Germany.

Are there any sources that say these countries are definitely not or unlikely to be complicit? Bogazicili (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I missing something? This is all page 4 says: Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states. No third states that may have violated these obligations are mentioned. That an ICJ case against Germany is currently open does not increase the argument's strength a lot in particular, as obviously we don't know what will the veredict be yet. The ICJ hasn't made any pre-veredict comments either, as, if I am not wrong, has happened with South Africa's case.

I doubt such sources exist. I am not disputing the existence of allegations against these countries. I am disputing whether they're relevant enough to specifically mention them in the infobox. I propose to mention the existence of allegations of complicity by third states in the Accused parameters, as a fourth bullet point. But the mention of specific countries sets a pretty low bar that can be exploited to include random countries, so long as one source establishes concern on a risk of complicity over a country that is otherwise undiscussed in this regard among reliable sources. Because one source would not suffice, in my opinion, to give credit to an exceptional claim such as genocide complicity. Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There is not one source. Multiple sources are there.

Super Dromaeosaurus, are you disputing WP:DUE, or WP:V (based on WP:Exceptional, or both? Bogazicili (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've already expressed what do I disagree with. Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations. What criteria would you set, Bogazicili, to avoid the inclusion of fringe claims in this part of the infobox by other users who may be incited by seeing three countries already listed? Super Ψ Dro 20:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking your personal opinion. I'm asking you to reference a specific Misplaced Pages policy. I need a blue wikilink in your response. If the concern is about DUE, I can direct you to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Note that Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. Bogazicili (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be either attempting to disregard my argument based on a lack of appeal to a specific Misplaced Pages rule, or attempting to get me to cite a specific Misplaced Pages rule and then state it does not support my point. You have an editor who has expressed a concern, and even a proposed solution; if you are unable to discuss that concern or a potential middle ground, you should disengage from the discussion.

I have not expressed any personal opinion, nor engaged in a forum discussion. Super Ψ Dro 20:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the personal opinion part: Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations.

Unless a valid rationale is provided, I'm going to remove the tag. You added the tag, so you need to provide the valid reasoning. Your personal opinion about setting a bad precedent is not a valid reason.

This isn't the Misplaced Pages:Village pump Bogazicili (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I recommend other users to express their opinion on this dispute, as discussion with this user is completely unfruitful.

Obviously, if I find myself in disagreement with a bunch, I will back down and accept the current text and my tag's removal, as, for all those wanting blue links, a WP:CONSENSUS will have formed against my position. So, do you think it is warranted to mention specifically these three countries as complicit? Based on what, these specific three? Why not previous inclusions like Australia, "European Union states" or Romania? Maybe because these three are more often mentioned in secondary sources? May we reflect this with some heavy citing, discouraging any users from potentially adding any other fringe claim again along these currently lightly-cited (previously uncited) ones? Or will I come back to this page in some months, and see that Hungary is complicit of genocide in the Gaza Strip ? Sorry for the rhetorical tone, but I think it gets my point across. Super Ψ Dro 20:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary I find an accusation of those three countries in particular being complicit in a genocide to not be extraordinary in the least considering their various histories - however an historical record of participation in genocide isn't what's needed here. What is needed is reliable secondary sources which, per @Bogazicili, have been provided. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

To appeal to the past, and link the Holocaust, as evidence of something happening in the present, is a pretty weak argument unworthy of consideration. Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I also linked to the Trail of Tears and the Bengal Famine because my point is that complicity in genocide is not, exactly, extraordinary for any of these countries, all three of which have committed at least one, if not more than one genocide. See also: 1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic and Irish Potato Famine. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

My dispute, specifically, is that you are describing complicity per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Of course reliable sources should provided for complicity in this event which is increasingly being described in reliable secondary sources as a genocide. However it's not extraordinary for the USA to be involved in a genocide. They do so often enough in other theaters. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

One way of looking at this is whether it would be possible to create, for example, an article US complicity in Gaza genocide, looking at the refs in the article, there is at least enough for a stub and there exist I think, other sources in addition, like the one I gave above already, or This legal view

"In light of the above, Israel might be committing the international crime of genocide, by killing civilians in Gaza; deliberately inflicting serious bodily and mental harm; and imposing conditions of life to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza. However, the US has continuously supported Israel’s war efforts via diplomatic and military assistance, with knowledge of a plausible genocide being committed in the territory since at least January 2024. This may render the US internationally responsible for not merely failing to prevent genocide but also being an accomplice to the crime of genocide in Gaza."

Accusation of course but if the sources are there to back it up, then we should show that, I am not that fond of infoboxes because they frequently produce tedious disputes, but as long as we make clear that it is still an accusation and show proper sourcing, I don't see a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The Irish potato famine was not a genocide. The article you link makes it clear that the vast majority of historians reject this view, and so should not be linked here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Another WP:Secondary source which discusses complicity: Gaza and the matter of genocide: Q&A on the law and recent developments Bogazicili (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Airwars report

Airwars have released their report on Gaza: Patterns of harm analysis: Gaza, October 2023 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Any other possible reason requirement for genocide

This article does not say what the Israeli branch of Amnesty is disputing with Amnesty International. As far as I can see Amnesty International is saying they believe genocidal intent is evident but is calling on the ICJ to clear up exactly what does establishing intent mean - they say a narrow reading would mean it cannot be established if the aggressors just say they have another reason whatever else they say or happens. Is this actually the dispute or how can it be phrased? see MacRedmond, David (11 December 2024). "Why is Israel accusing Amnesty International of inventing its own definition of genocide?". TheJournal.ie. Archived from the original on 11 December 2024. Retrieved 12 December 2024. NadVolum (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Becker explains it well, the formal issue will be argued and decided in court. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that this issue is not specific to just Israel:

DER SPIEGEL: You have consistently been an advocate of a narrow interpretation of the term "genocide." When you represented the country of Myanmar before the ICJ, you also presented arguments for why the country is not committing genocide against the Muslim Rohingya minority. As such, your argument that the manner in which Israel is conducting the war in the Gaza Strip could constitute genocide is surprising.
Schabas: International law is constantly evolving. It’s not just about what is in international treaties, but also about the legal interpretations expressed by states in their official statements over the years. That is what courts look at. In the early 2000s, the judges at the Yugoslavia tribunal and the ICJ, for example, chose a narrow interpretation – rooted in the Convention’s drafting process. I thought to myself: Okay, this Convention will never lead to convictions. But it seems that countries are no longer following this narrow interpretation. In the case of Myanmar and others, they have shown that they are now interpreting genocide more broadly. I believe it is likely that the judges will be carried along in the wave of broader interpretation.

Not sure if the above also needs to be added into the article to explain the definition issue. Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it should. It explains a lot about what the article is about. NadVolum (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There is now more information on this.

European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights:

The question of the threshold for establishing specific intent is subject to ongoing debate, and some states have cautioned against a narrow interpretation that is impossible to meet. The narrow approach would require that genocidal intent be the “only reasonable inference” from the situation at hand. However, many states support the broader interpretation of the ICJ in Croatia v. Serbia, which emphasised the importance of reasonableness in the Court’s reasoning, and highlighted that the “only reasonable inference” test should only be used when drawing an inference from a pattern of conduct, not where other methods of inference are also present.
In The Gambia v. Myanmar, a group of states (Germany, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) argued in favor of a balanced approach, in line with the ICJ’s interpretation in Croatia v. Serbia. This aligns with South Africa’s construction of Israel’s genocidal intent before the ICJ. Yet, Germany has now indicated that it will intervene in support of Israel in the current proceedings at the ICJ. It is difficult to see how Germany could do so without arguing for a narrow interpretation of specific intent, which would mean backtracking on its previous position. If the ICJ accepts and adopts the position of the group of states construction in The Gambia v. Myanmar, it would become binding and preclude Germany from arguing for a narrow interpretation

I think something about this is definitely DUE in the article. Bogazicili (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we should be clear about it, this refers mainly to the South Africa's genocide case against Israel and the arguments being or that will be made there. Also see #German law professor opinions below and the discussion around Amnesty legal argument. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it is about the legal case, so can be added into this section: Gaza_genocide#Legal_proceedings. Maybe a sentence about this since it is mentioned in a secondary source. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre: this is the interesting note on the position of these countries I mentioned in the Ireland to intervene section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy opinion

I support NadVolum’s edit removing non-noteworthy opinion. I think there are still a few more such that could also be beneficially removed. I see Jonathan Cook in Middle East Eye (three op eds), Owen Jones, Seraj Assi in Jacobin, Rob Ferguson in the SWP’s magazine, Tony Lerman in Declassified. I’ve removed a couple of these and they’ve returned with no edit summary explanation. I think non-noteworthy opinion devalues the scholarly and other RS content we otherwise lean on here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If they have WP articles, they are notable. They may not be expert for the context, Anthony Lerman is, so this list is based on what, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

And I also felt as well as not saying much and it being an opinion piece and he's not notable since Arsen Ostrovsky is a Senior Fellow Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy, which was not noted in the inclusion, his contribution fell under Well he would, wouldn't he?. Which while not a policy did seem like padding compared to the rest. NadVolum (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Being notable enough to have a WP page doesn’t make someone noteworthy in this article. I agree Lerman is more relevant than the others on my list, particularly on the topic of antisemitism. But he’s here in an unreliable/fringe source. Given the vast (probably excessive) number of references here, I would have thought we’d want stronger not weaker sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And that what Lerman says about the two examples mentioned is clearly factually incorrect shows why Declassified is not an RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would note that Boulton is non notable (no wl), a recent PHD and that the book being cited is "A Guide to Identifying Antisemitism Online". Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Bolton doesn't have a WP article (nor do many of the people we cite in this article) but he's a heavily published scholar of antisemitism BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This RSN suggests that Declassified is an RS. Israeli officials commenting on the genocide accusations apparently can't help themselves but accuse all and sundry of antisemitism, whether it has anything to do with Jews or not. Here's Ben Gvir "The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people". OK then. Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Selfstudier that Anthony Lerman's inclusion is due as a subject matter expert, but I also agree that citations to Owen Jones, Seraj Assi, Jonathan Cook, & the like aren't necessary.

However, I see no issue with some staying in the "Further Reading" section. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Short description (again)

Regarding this edit with no description: I have gone ahead and reverted it. Per the previous discussion on this talk page, I gave other editors ample time to express their objections to my short description proposal. As I mentioned before, a short description of "Accusation of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza" is ambiguous (is the accusation being leveled against Palestinians?). In contrast, the short description "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" is far less ambiguous and is a description of this article's content. Again, if anyone has comments/concerns/thoughts on this issue, feel free to raise them here. JasonMacker (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Reverts re critiques of Fassin and UK Labour MPs

A few of my edits reverted in this diff with which I disagree.

Why do we need details of the UK Labour Party disciplining "several" (our citations indicate three) MPs and candidates "for comments they made against Israel"? Andy McDonald (politician) did not mention genocide in the comments (which involved the "river to sea" phrase) for which he had the whip removed (it was later returned when an investigation found he hadn't broken any rules. Nor did Graham Jones (he said British people shouldn't be allowed to serve in the IDF or any foreign army) or Azhar Ali (he said October 7 was a false flag). Moreover, that all happened when Labour was in opposition, so completely irrelevant to UK complicity. I'm sure we have an article where this belongs, but this isn't it.
Illouz seems inappropriate to cite here considering how her opinion has changed in the months since this first interview - I don't see why that's a reason to remove her opinion. She is as least as qualified as Fassin to comment on this topic; if she changed her position on Fassin we can say that rather than remove her because of that.
Bruttmann may be the only one of the three critics cited to question Fassin's expertise, but nonetheless he does exactly that, so I don't understand the grounds for removing that.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1. 100% agree, also neither the BBC or Guardian article mentions genocide nor suggests complicity in any kind of Israeli actions(criminal or otherwise) as a result of doing this.

2. I don't know what they're referencing in terms of her opinion changing, but you could do that, although that might be putting undue weight on one opinion.

3. Looking at the edit summary you've linked and the article now that seems to still be in the article, it hasn't been removed.

@Cdjp1 Pinging editor who reverted Originalcola (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Removed the note, there is one instance of a Labour MP being disciplined for calling Gaza a genocide, but probably undue for even a note.

2. Per the expert opinions list, Illouz has released a couple of pieces since her initial one, each time moving towards a position that this is more likely a case of genocide (stating there is clear incitement from some political figures and sections of Israeli society, stating the requisite intent may be there)

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Osamor wasn’t disciplined for calling it a genocide (I believe many Labour MPs have) but for the apparent Holocaust analogy. Does Illouz speak about Fassin in her other texts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Improper attackt types in Infobox

Multiple attack types are either making statements that go beyond what we should say in our own voice (genocide, without alleged), not part of the standard genocide terms (ethic cleansing, torture, sexual violence) or are not appropriate in this case (targeted killings). It should be trimmed down to those that are actually broadly alleged, that being mass murder, collective punishment, bombardment and starvation as method of war. Anything else is undue. In addition, the source about rapes doesn't actually make the claim and is therefore synth. FortunateSons (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with this change. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Just FYI, I'll wait a bit for others to respond, just because this change was reverted before. FortunateSons (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is also alleged by multiple reliable sources, and I would consider removal of that highly problematic.

However that entire field needs a note such as "The following are alleged:" Bogazicili (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think genocide can stay as an allegation, even if it’s technically tautological (after all, any genocide would include the attack type genocide). However, it seems to be commonly done on similar articles, so no serious objection from my end to keeping this one as well. Do you mind the removal of the other ones as well, or are you ok with those? FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know yet, I have to review the sources. Did you review the sources and find out that other types are not mentioned? Bogazicili (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I support the changes as well. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s a bit of both; sources primarily discuss actions that have or are likely to cause significant causalities, and don’t generally discuss torture, targeted killings etc. as acts of genocide. Even sources that do mention those (example: Albanese) do so as a minor point to draw a general picture of mistreatment (for torture) or the possibility of it counting as either an action or an indication of intent (for cleansing). Those topics have a place in other articles, or potentially in the body, but according to my reading of the sources, they aren’t due for the Infobox. FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Pings: @Ecpiandy for reversion, @Smallangryplanet for potential synth. FortunateSons (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential synth? My edit is sadly abundantly supported by RS. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. What do you mean? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have had the same issue in the past, don’t worry; the issue isn’t the occurrence of sexual violence, the synth/potential coatrack issue would be that the source doesn’t claim that it’s genocidal. (unless I missed that?). FortunateSons (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I can add some other sources that do, if that would help? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I still think it’s undue for the lead, but yes, that fixes the synth issue for the body, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah sorry I'm confused again (it's been a long week already...) I thought this was about the infobox itself, not the lead or body? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s maybe poor phrasing: there are two separate issues: which content should be in the infobox, and that there was a sourcing problem within the infobox. This solves issue two for your content, so it can definitely stay (in my opinion), it’s just a question regarding whether or not it’s due for the lead or just the body. FortunateSons (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense - thank you for clarifying. I think it can go in the infobox + body, I'll make that edit. I don't want to set precedent for it never being in the lead, so I'll say here that I think there could come a time where it is due for the lead, even if we leave it out for now, and this conversation shouldn't be used as evidence or justification for not adding it there in future. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, thank you; for example, if it’s widely analysed or shown to be sufficiently widespread, it will be obviously due for the lead/infobox FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think these changes make sense. Genocide is generally regarded to be inclusive of and built upon "lesser" acts of group-directed violence. Removing mentions of torture and sexual violence is not in line with the way that other genocides are covered on-wiki or with the broad consensus in the field. I'd consider Yazidi genocide a strong contemporary and comparable example that demonstrates this point. A close reading of certain wiki policies may provide some justification for your edits, but I think they ultimately buck common sense and the broader mainstream scholarly understanding of genocide. I think that rather than trying to remove this material, we should focus on finding a better source and/or a larger number of sources that explicitly connect institutional sexual violence and torture to the allegations of genocide. If those sources aren't available now, they will likely emerge as we begin to gather a more historical view of these events. Unbandito (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good contemporary example, but it’s not comparable: during the Yazidi genocide (and similar contemporary cases, potentially even including Ukraine), torture and sexual violence were one of the primary means of perpetuating the crime, which is not the case here: during the Israel-Hamas war, it seems like (based on current sourcing and reporting) that both sexual violence and torture are relatively rare, affecting a significantly smaller part of the population compared to the other alleged actions. It’s possible that later sourcing will broadly connect those acts to the allegations of genocide, but for now, this isn’t the case, both due to a lack of sources and because of the limited evidence that there is special intent to destroy (compared to the “normal” justification for such acts, as seen during the American war on terror). If this becomes a majority view in a month or a year, I’ll support its inclusion, but this isn’t the case for now. FortunateSons (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is a crime against humanity is a war crime so yes, I think "built upon" is as good a way to express it as any. The special intent thing is theoretically applicable at ICJ level but won't impact on whether others call it a genocide so that's something of a red herring. It's not difficult to find sources that connect crimes "while Amnesty International was the first nongovernmental organization to call it genocide, other groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Israeli group B’tselem have meticulously documented the country’s alleged war crimes, including using starvation as a weapon of war, committing torture and sodomy in Israeli prisons, deliberate attacks on civilians, among other charges." Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I’m not opposed to mentioning them in the body for context, they’re just undue for the lead. For example, we don’t mention them in the box for the Holocaust, Armenian genocide or Unit 731, despite known occurrences and a likely higher frequency. There is just a lack of strong sourcing for “torture/rape as means of (allegedly) committing genocide” instead of “torture/rape while (allegedly) committing genocide” for this case, and as long as it isn’t broadly discussed, it’s not due here. FortunateSons (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty's recent investigation, which concluded that Israel is committing genocide, explicitly links Israel's practice of incommunicado detention, torture and sexual violence in prisons to its conclusion that a genocide is taking place. From section 7.1.4 on page 233:

As another indication of intent, Israel was responsible, during the nine-month period under review, for a pattern of incommunicado detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ill-treatment), including sexual violence, of Palestinians from Gaza, according to documentation by Amnesty International and other organizations. Genocidal intent may be inferred from evidence of “other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group.”961 This pattern of incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment underscores the systematic dehumanization and mental and physical abuse of Palestinians in Gaza and may also be taken into account with a view to inferring genocidal intent from pattern of conduct.

IMO this should be more than enough to justify inclusion of the material at any level in the article. Unbandito (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, but this is a common misconception: this specifically cannot, because that would be the wrong section. This source would be potentially due for genocidal intent, and attack type is part of the act category. This of course isn’t a problem for the body, but it is for the infobox. To stick with the obvious example, Antisemitism isn’t listed as an attack type for the holocaust, despite the fact that the widespread beliefs and actions by German and other citizens and officials can obviously be used as an indicator for intent. FortunateSons (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty is saying that the pattern of abuses (an action or attack type) is evidence of genocidal intent because that pattern fulfills the criteria by which genocide is defined. In plain language, the abuses in Israeli prisons are both a part of the genocide, and support the assertion that genocide is taking place. I don't think the distinction you're making makes sense. Moreover, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any example in history where a source asserts that a genocide is taking/has taken place and yet the contemporary mass detentions, torture and sexual abuse of members of the targeted group by the same perpetrators should be treated separately from the overall genocide. That strikes me as an inherently absurd position. Unbandito (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Unbandito, great find. This can be used as a source for multiple attack types. "Rape" should be changed to "sexual violence". Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there won’t be a clear consensus for any of the options here; does anyone mind if we just do this as an RFC? FortunateSons (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You started this discussion on 17 December 2024. Today is 18 December 2024. We are still going over the sources. See WP:RFCBEFORE. Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy to wait, just pre-empting what I think is likely end. FortunateSons (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Since 'type' is an optional field, if there is an RFC, perhaps one of the options should be to leave it blank and cover things in the article body. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice catch, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

German law professor opinions

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

~~I have taken the time to write up the expert options of the missing German legal scholars from the list of experts.~~ This is a selection of a few relevant legal scholars from the German-speaking world, which I originally added to the template for expert opinions and which are due to be added to the relevant section of the article. fixed per Selfstudier As I have a conflict of interest for at least one, but don’t want to disclose which, please treat this edit request as if I have a COI for any person or institution mentioned.

In December 2023, Kai Ambos, a professor of international and criminal law in Göttingen and judge at the Kosovo Special Tribunal, warned that potentially genocidal statements by politicians, while potentially beneficial for proving specific intent, could not necessarily be applied to the evaluation of military decisions. In January 2024, Christian Walter, a professor of Public Law and Public International Law at the LMU, argued in the Verfassungsblog that the extent of harm to both civilians and infrastructure weren’t conclusive, and that attempts to evacuate civilians were an indication against genocidal intent. . Matthias Goldmann, a professor of international law, stated in April that there a conviction before the ICJ was uncertain and that there was no “smoking gun” proving the special intent.

Marco Sassoli and Oliver Diggelmann, professors of international law in Gevena and Zurich, argued in May that while some statements by politicians may be genocidal, the same did not apply to the actions of the Israeli military; Diggelmann believes that a conviction for genocide is unlikely. Andreas Müller, a professor of international law in Basel, stated the the term genocide was being used as a term of criticism instead of according to its legal definition, and added that “there was no sufficient ground of genocide if one takes the legal term seriously”. Daniel-Erasmus Khan, professor of international law at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, stated in June that there was no clear evidence of a special intent among Israeli leadership. FortunateSons (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Cdjp1 due to the talk page discussion. We weren’t sure if I should name the universities; for now, I just left the ones from Munich, as there are two different ones. FortunateSons (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Just add them as "No" to the Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that poorly: they are on the list, they are missing from the article.FortunateSons (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding? You want these two no's added to the list of expert opinions, right? Selfstudier (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry: those are people already on the list (or technically originally on the list, those professors are among the ones the list started with), that haven’t made their way into the “Academic and legal discourse” section FortunateSons (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, crossed wires, what's the point in adding these two specifically to the article? Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

To cover the relevant expert opinions from the German-speaking legal world (Germany, Austria and Switzerland). I would have just added them myself, but that would be against policy, so I need someone else to review them and (or not do) that :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes but then we would have to add all the yes's as well, there are a lot.

I actually want the template to be on the article page, if someone can figure out how to do that, I tried and couldn't. Much easier. Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, this sounds like a generally good idea and has already been partially done; I just don’t have the time, so I picked out the significant ones (recognised/well-respected professors cited within decent sources, therefore broadly due) within my field that I originally added to the list and wrote something up after a six month delay FortunateSons (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

.... ....

It's possible to do that, but we'd have to re-work it, both in formatting, and what specific sort of columns and quotes from the sources we want. I would offer to start on that work, but despite my self-hatred, I am in my end of year draw down, so you'd need someone else to do all the discussion and selection work. I can still step in one decided for the markup so it can be easily included as a template. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure that this thread is really a topic for a COI edit request (i.e. the template at the top of the thread). COI edit requests are to ask an uninvolved editor to review the suggested edit with a view to installing it within the article.

Given the topic at hand I think it would be more appropriate if consensus was to be achieved at the talk page, or if the matter was referred to WP:RFC or WP:3O.

I'm therefore going to decline the COI edit request, but I am doing so purely for the procedural reason set out above and entirely without prejudice. Axad12 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is fair. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this proposal, but for now, I would really appreciate that this content would be added to the relevant section, unless there is an issue with the specific content. No objection to it and all other statements by legal/genocide/etc. scholars being removed and replaced with the template later, of course. I can try to make it longer or shorter, but I feel like 7 significant professors split into 2 paragraphs is appropriate? FortunateSons (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this because why? Choosing German speaking professors is just synth unless there is some specific reason to do with genocide reported in RS that means that the category of German speaking law professors has some special significance over some other arbitrary group of law professors. What will we do next? Scandinavian law professors, professors that can speak two languages, one legged professors with a view on genocide law? Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We already have American ones as well, and adding the Scandinavian/Francophone/Arabic perspective is a worthy endeavor, I just don't speak the languages and have limited knowledge of the legal system, unlike with German. The relevant policy-based reason would be the avoidance of systemic bias towards english language and their legal systems. German legal scholars are a significant part of the discourse on international (humanitarian) law and are therefore due. FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's called "International" law for a reason? The main point being made by these two professors afaics is about genocidal intent, there is a section about intent in the article (and more about it in the South Africa case article and even an article on genocidal intent), included there is "In the ICJ's Rohingya genocide case, several states (including the UK and Germany) supported a looser standard of evidence for supporting genocidal intent than the ICJ has used in the past—which is often the most difficult part of proving genocide in a court of law" so that is a relevant point. Now if you could find a source saying most/some/many/nearly all/whatever German speaking lawyers (or any other group) say (whatever they say), then adding that would be fine. Otherwise we are just making a list. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

International law perspectives vary significantly within and between countries; to the best of my knowledge, no such source exist, as it doesn't for most other places and disciplines.

Quite frankly, there is no policy basis for excluding significant views because they are German, and the article already includes a plethora of significant views by professors from English-speaking countries (including less well-known ones), so there is no basis for excluding RS-published views by professors either. The only issue that makes this a question for this thread (instead of a direct edit) is that I might unduely weigh some of the views within my edit request compared to others; do you feel that this is the case?

PS: the number of professors is 7 ;)FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

no policy basis for excluding significant views because they are German Please, no straw men, no-one suggested that.

German or German speaking? And up above you said "German-speaking legal world (Germany, Austria and Switzerland)". A list of German/speaking lawyers that you have located with an opinion on genocide in Gaza without any RS that otherwise connects them together, is just a synthesis/OR. Nothing preventing you making an actual list article of such lawyers if you like but we already have a template that lists all lawyers, you could put a little German/Swiss/US flag next to each one perhaps? Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

German-speaking, defined as them teaching at a faculty in such a country. It's not really a strawman, unless you support removing the American and British professors from the article; we should cover important non-english perspectives. It's less synth and more of a summary, but I'm happy to write a full paragraph for each, if you believe it to be due. Nevertheless, my tone was too harsh, my apologies.

Not that it matters, but they are a plethora of others with statements (and even more if you don't limit yourself to media coverage or comperable editorial control, which I have), but most of those are straightforwardly undue. I have just noticed that this might be an unclear if one is unfamiliar with the discipline: this is a whose-who of known names/faculties within german, austrian and swiss international law scholarship, excluding those for whom I counldn't locate a useful statements. Stylistically, I think grouping by language or region is probably most intutive, but sorting by time might be an interesting option too, if you prefer this compared to my grouping. FortunateSons (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I could for example go through all the opinions (regardless of nationality) and specify which advocate for this or that point but then that would be OR.

At some point, we will reach a level of RS that is more analytic of all the different opinions out there and just summarizes them and then that is not OR because an RS is doing that and not me.

See the difference? The RS is doing the grouping, if we do grouping, whether by time, nationality or any other basis, then we are just making a list with some inclusion criteria.

The fact that there are 7 (or any other number of) lawyers in some list is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the purpose of the list and what the criteria are for being in it.

Leaving aside lists, I am still stuck on the question of why 7 (or any other number based on whatever OR criteria) legal opinions should be included in the article. You argue dueness, so then why are 7 German speaking legal opinions due for this article? Your saying that it's a bias not to include them is also OR unless there are RS saying that. Are there? Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You could, but saying “Professor A and Professor B argue that C ” wouldn’t be synth, right? Systemic bias is generally not a question of RS, but of editorial discretion, so there obviously aren’t. In this case, the proposed text is significantly shorter “per Professor (particularly accounting for their reputation)” than existing coverage in the relevant sections, and therefore due. Particularly Ambos (highly relevant past academic and judicial experience) and Walter (article in one of the foremost “new” legal publications) as well as arguably Khan, Goldmann and Müller are rather significant voices even by themselves, and the sourcing is more than sufficient for a longer paragraph each. I acknowledge the problem with the way I structured them together, that’s a good point and may actually be Synth. Would writing a separate paragraph per prof fix the issue for you? If you want to cut down on the actual number, it would be quite helpful if you told me which of the 7 I selected are particularly interesting/useful/encyclopaedic? FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Systemic bias is generally not a question of RS, but of editorial discretion, so there obviously aren’t This is false, we have an article on systemic bias and there are plenty of RS about bias in the media. There may well be the bias you describe but if no RS speak about it, it's irrelevant.

It's not me that has to tell you or for you to decide which, it's for RS to do that so first some RS says Ambos (we'll use them for example) is a top drawer lawyer/expert/whatever, so far so good. Then dueness, we need some RS to say that Ambos opinion is worth more than some other lawyer/expert opinion so that we should include their opinion in preference to some other. Or another possibility, Ambos himself analyzes the opinions of other lawyers or the state of play in general wrt some legal points, then that might be useful.

But just you saying he's a great lawyer and we should include him because he is, that's not enough.

That's just for one lawyer, and if some or all of the remainder are just saying the same thing, why do we need them? Unless an RS is saying these 7 lawyers all say x. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks; so if I provide a one or multiple high-quality sources per expert, you’re fine with inclusion of their opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said, why are they due? Anyway, hopefully now it is not a problem, the "template" (ie a list) is now in the article so you can just include them there if they are not already included. In case it is not clear, I am also suggesting that we apply the same logic to other expert opinions that are in the article, that is just being an expert and having an opinion is not by itself sufficient for inclusion in the article, they can however be included in the template/list. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

They are all already in the list, thanks. Just a quick request for clarification: does this apply to all expert opinions in your view? Or should we have a section with some of the most significant views in full text? FortunateSons (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to explain above, there needs to be something more than just being an expert and having a view on the South Africa case. If there isn't anything more, then I think being in the list is sufficient. Which ones merit inclusion in the article is something we could discuss case by case.

For example the sentence "The opinions many scholars of Holocaust and genocide studies (HGS) expressed in late 2023 were discordant with others in the field as well as experts in other academic fields: they did not condemn Israeli violence despite the far larger loss of Palestinian life in the war." is a useful sentence, it generalizes the opinions of expert without naming them.

The sentence "In November 2024, Bartov called recent operations in Jabalia "blatantly genocidal"." is not so useful, it is simply a quote about some incidents from one expert whose view is included in the list. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Ambos (as an example); for Israel + genocide:

General indication of significance regarding Israel & International law:

Do you agree that this is sufficient for inclusion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If all those do is cite him for his opinion, no. Better would be other experts citing him. Do any of them contain meta material? Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ll look into that. Just to be clear, that standard would exclude almost all currently cited experts in the article, right? Not opposed to such a standard, just want to keep it consistent FortunateSons (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I already said we should be consistent and look at them case by case. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I’m referring in this case to using this as a localcon for the removal of other experts, not objecting to the standard per se; in the interest of transparency, I plan to turn this into an RfC and therefore need an RfCbefore (such as this discussion), and “cited by other experts” a nice addition to the positions I had in mind (those being “1. RS, 2. expert, 3. expert cited by media, peer reviewed or comparable, and now 4. expert cited by experts) for having someone in the article proper and not just in the list FortunateSons (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What I want to avoid is turning the thing into a list of experts with an opinion (because we already have such a list). Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to be awkward here, I would like to include him. For instance, he has a well cited piece on intent to destroy that could go in a section devoted to that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I know, I don’t think you’re acting in any sort of bad faith/obstructionist manner here, don’t worry. The article is a good catch, I read it about a year ago and totally forgot it; I’m not sure where and for what to cite it without it becoming SYNTH, do you have a suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, RFC is a possibility of course but I would try and edit the article a bit first and see what happens with that. If you think an opinion that is in the article doesn't really belong there on the basis that it is only an opinion of one expert and nothing more, I would support that.

As for Ambos, there is a discussion on the page here at #Any other possible reason requirement for genocide and there is Gaza genocide#Genocidal intent and genocidal rhetoric at the article but since the rhetoric is also to do with the intent, we can just title it as that.

Now Idk whether that material should be first done in detail at the case article and then summarized here or vice versa, if it doesn't matter that much, we can do it here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s reasonable, I’ll think about the placement/use as well, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I am not endorsing the current content of the article, which I don't agree with in many respects but one thing at a time. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I got the template to sit in the article without messing everything up (I think). By direct copy. I put it at the intro to Academic and legal discourse section.Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It works for me, considering that I’m on mobile, that is quite impressive. What do you think about removing the notes section? FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Why did you put that template into the article? It was intended as a separate page, to be linked in the talk page I think? Bogazicili (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Per discussion above, things have moved on from the debate over the article title, now we are instead trying to analyze what exactly the expert opinions are saying and which of them merit direct inclusion in the article. It is also convenient to have direct access to that material in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be too long and not formatted for inclusion in the actual article page. It has external links and lengthy quotes for example. Bogazicili (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

An alternative is just to make a list article and reference that as a main. The template is not useful as is unless you happen to know where it is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A list article may work, but please do not add that template into article page again. The lengthy quotes could be problematic due to WP:Copyright and Misplaced Pages:Non-free content Bogazicili (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Such problems are fixable. At any rate, the existing template is not so useful. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

FortunateSons, English-language sources are preferred in English-language Misplaced Pages. See: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English_sources.

Foreign language sources are allowed too, but I think your proposal may be too much, with 2 paragraphs. Should we give the same space to Arabic scholars for example? A lot of your sources seem dated too. I would recommend you to condense your proposal. Instead of saying what everyone thinks individually with lengthy separate sentences, you can summarize such as "several German scholars thought ...". See: WP:Summary Bogazicili (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I can condense it down somewhat, if there is appetite for that. And yes, we should absolutely have 2 paragraphs for Arabic legal scholars as well, that’s a significant perspective FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The article prose is getting close to 14k words. See Misplaced Pages:Article size. Bogazicili (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

So a separate article for expert opinions might be the solution? FortunateSons (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I put in a link to the "template disguised as an article" so at least there's that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s definitely a good addition no matter what FortunateSons (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That apart I still hold to the idea I outlined above, if there is support for doing it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have the time for a project of this size, but I think it’s a good idea; I did most of the German translations, so feel free to ping me if there is an issue FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I support the inclusion.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, I meant going through on the article and trying to focus on what opinions are the most important/relevant/useful. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that too, I agree FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@David A did you read this section before your revert? Which of the policy interpretations do you agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not see this beforehand. I would appreciate if you summarise the relevant justifications for your removals of information. David A (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Per this discussion, there is (maybe) a local consensus that even a notable expert cited by media is not necessarily due for this article. A person notable for reasons outside of her field, working for a arguably barely notable (or at least non-major) advocacy organisation is maybe due for the list of experts, but not for the article as a whole. Do you disagree with either of those assessments? FortunateSons (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The second removal appears to be an earlier version of the first or at least includes some of it. Leaving aside the issue of whether L4P is RS itself or for opinions given there, we discussed above the merits of dealing with intent more generally, for instance the opening paras of the section do not address intent at all. Rhetoric is evidence of intent, Idk that 500 statements is any different to 100 or 1000, again we want to deal with that issue as generally as possible. Maybe we can focus for now on the introductory sentences and maybe that will tell us what of the other sentences are most relevant/due? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is significant overlap. I have no hard preference on the structure, just concerns about the quality (and consistency) of this article, so your suggestion works for me. Would just describing the standard/definition from a general source be synth, or is that allowed? FortunateSons (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think that it is hard to become officially specialised in the academic field of collecting and counting genocidal statements by people in positions of power, so as long as the sources and research are reliable, I think that the information should be kept here. David A (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

the academic field of collecting and counting genocidal statements by people in positions of power lol, is not an academic field, nevertheless, material such as Van Hout, T., Velásquez, L., Vingerhoets, N., Steele, M., Cay, B. N., van Heuvel, L., Christiano, A., Lychnara, J., Glenn, J., Pastor, M., Kayacılar, G., Mardones Alarcon, C., & Tibbs, A. (2024). Claiming genocidal intent: A discourse analysis of South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel. Diggit Magazine. https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/claiming-genocidal-intent-discourse-analysis-south-africa-s-icj-case-against-israel is helpful, is it not? More helpful than a count? Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No, but you can have sufficient expertise and renown in relate fields, which is lacking here as well FortunateSons (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Settler Colonialism

This motive appears to be in a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. The fact that Settler colonialism is included in this article's infobox implies that its one of the main motives behind the alleged genocide in Gaza Strip by Israel. However, I have examined two sources cited (other two sources are broken), and none of them support this claim (none of the texts use the term "settler colonialism"). What should be done about it? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I was able to access the abstracts of all four papers at least. Here's the relevant links:

I have not had a chance to read the papers as of yet - and if they aren't open access I'll probably only have the abstracts but if others have better access this might speed along validation of the information. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In "Screaming, Silence and Mass Violence" we have the following Comparing and contextualizing Israeli violence and Palestinian suffering not only lend themselves to moral clarity, but also to intellectual consistency. If it is the body count, then next-door Syria or Iraq should be a concern too; if it is racism, then Darfur should not be forgotten; if it is the urgency, then Nagorno-Karabagh should not be ignored; if it is settler colonialism, then the Uyghurs should be included. In fact, to characterize Israel as the “last bastion of colonialism” turns a blind eye to Turkish-nationalist settlerism in emptied Armenian villages, or the Arabization policies of Kurdish regions in Iraq and Syria in the 1970s – which uprooted hundreds of thousands. One could even ask if there is a colonial gaze in not focusing on the next-door Arab lives as grievable; in other words, do the Israeli nation-state boundaries ironically function as a type of moral boundary? If “decolonial” means all human lives are fundamentally equal, then holding a settler colony’s perpetrators to higher standards of scrutiny, or its victims to more compassion is hardly decolonial. - While this is apologia for Israel's colonialism rather than criticism of it, it certainly admits to it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I only have the abstract of "Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change" but I will say that what I can read of it establishes that Russia escalated from colonialism to genocide before going on to use the measures of this progression to argue that Israel reached the stage of genocide before October 2023. While this abstract does not say "Israel is a settler colonial state" it would not surprise me if the full text supports the statement of settler colonialism even if it then suggests that genocide is something beyond settler colonialism. I would suggest someone with full article text should conduct an additional review.Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I only have the abstract of "Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0" but the text available to me makes no overt or oblique reference to colonialism. Again recommend someone with full article text should conduct an additional review. Unlike the above I suspect this may not be an appropriate reference. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Simonm223 in have access to all of these, I'll post the relevant quotes later when I have time. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok:

Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0, pp. 1-2 Al-Arouri not only emphasized Israel’s abovementioned actions in Al-Aqsa, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, but also placed it in the context of Israel’s Finance Minister and head of the far-right Jewish Zionist party Bezalel Smotrich’s “Decisive Plan” from 2017. According to this plan, Israel should make clear that there is “room for only one expression of national self-determination west of the Jordan River: that of the Jewish nation.” Israel should apply full sovereignty over this entire area, establish new cities and settlements throughout the West Bank and bring in hundreds of thousands of additional settlers. The Palestinians will thus have to “shelve” their dreams of self-determination, as Smotrich put it, and will basically have two options: they could either accept Jewish rule or leave.4 Al-Arouri noted that Smotrich, being responsible for West Bank along with Israel’s Defense Minister, was now in a position to implement his plan, and was planning to transfer “at least one million settlers to the West Bank.” Essentially, argued Al-Arouri, this government “says you either accept being our slaves, or we will uproot you from this land"5

Inescapably Genocidal, p. 1 Later, 55 “scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence” felt “compelled” to warn of the danger of genocide in Israel’s counterattack. While “deeply saddened and concerned” by both Hamas’ atrocities and the death and destruction which Israel had caused, their statement focused on the latter, itemizing it together with “dozens” of statements by Israeli leaders that indicated genocidal intent. Referencing a longer history, they argued that we should place it within the context of Israeli settler colonialism, Israeli military occupation violence against Palestinians since 1967, the sixteen-year siege on the Gaza Strip since 2007, and the rise to power in Israel in the last year of a government made up of politicians who speak proudly about Jewish supremacy and exclusionary nationalism. The statement concluded by calling on governments to uphold their obligations under the Genocide Convention.

Gaza as Twilight, p. 4 This weaponization of the Holocaust, as Zoé Samudzi has discussed in this forum, erases Israeli history and turns the world upside down: a powerless people, forcibly displaced and attacked under decades of Israeli settler colonialism, military occupation, and siege become the worst perpetrators in modern imagination. This image then casts the settler colonial state in its current form, armed with nuclear weapons and backed by its western allies, as the ultimate victim.20

p. 5 Nazism and what we now call the Holocaust were imagined on a hierarchy as more terrible than genocide, which placed Israel on another imagined hierarchy as more moral than any other state in the world. This gave rise to a common view in Israel and the west that the Israeli army is the most moral in the world, so that from Israel’s establishment in May 1948, it became unimaginable that it would perpetrate any crime under international law, let alone genocide.21 Maintaining this foundational image of Israel required the denial of the Nakba, which also stemmed from the broader impetus to deny the nature of the Israeli state as a settler colonial project.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That clarifies these sources are appropriate for indicating "settler colonialism" in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Of these three, only the second one says that settler colonialism is part of the motive for the genocide in Gaza. The first doesn’t mention the term and is about Israeli actions in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The third says Israel is settler colonial and that’s it committing genocide, but doesn’t attribute the latter to the former. These two citations should be removed here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Lederman (Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0) links it explicitly on page 5, where he highlights the views of the settlers who formerly lived in Gaza post the first incursion in the 2000s. I've removed Segal & Daniele, added Abdo and Segal. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment isn't the clearest. Lederman links the desires and political pressure of the former settlers of Gaza, to engage again in settler colonialism throughout the Gaza strip to recent actions by Israel through 2023, and to the Israeli assault on Gaza post-October 7. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I only have the abstract of "Inescapably Genocidal" but the text available to me explicitly quotes Raz Segal, "Statement of Scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies on Mass Violence In Israel and Palestine since 7 October" which, in the quoted text, describes Israel as being explicitly settler-colonial. As such it not only supports the characterization but provides with a full citation for another reliable source that is explicit on this topic. The full bibliographical detail for the Statement of Scholars is:

Raz Segal, "Statement of Scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies on Mass Violence in Israel and Palestine since 7 October," Contending Modernities, December 9, 2023. https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/global-currents/statement-of-scholars-7-october." Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just added an additional source into the article. Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential source

Putting this here for review: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/genocide-definition-mass-violence-scholars-gaza BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That is an annoying piece, as while Gaza has forced the relative fields to confront the question of Israel-Palestine, all these issues existed for decades prior, with authors highlighting the fear the field seemed to have to place Israel-Palestine under their analytical purview. But, that's an annoyance beyond the question of the Wiki article. We cite the majority of pieces the Guardian article highlights, and discuss many of the same points. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting that some people seem to have questioned even the Holocaust:

“There was already a controversy in the aftermath of the Holocaust – everybody was like, ‘Where’s Hitler’s order?’ And there was no order,” Hirsch said.

I now think saying a sentence or 2 about the interpretation of Genocide Convention with non-news sources, and how it relates to this case with sources like the one above can be done in Gaza_genocide#Legal_definition_of_genocide. Bogazicili (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

"seem to have questioned even the Holocaust" I have heard people dismiss the Holocaust as mostly a topic relevant to the Hollywood hype machine and its propaganda films rather than an actual genocide for the last 30 years of my life. What else is new? Nearly every article which I have encountered on the Wannsee Conference has noted that the participants did not include the actual leadership of the Nazi Party, that the decisions taken used vague phrases and euphemisms for the goals of the project, and that the approval by their superiors was mostly an unstated assumption.Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The only thing there is that there are a bunch of genocide scholars (in the US presumably) hiding in the closet but we can't really say anything about their views until they come out. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem though with saying with attribution that many scholars are holding back from expressing an opinion because they fear the consequences for themselves. Overall it seems a good introduction to the problem and suitable for citing in the article. NadVolum (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I added it into the Holocaust and genocide studies section with a refname "Split" since it might be used at other points in the article as well. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: