Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation

Proposed merge \ rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

More section than article

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

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

Proposed rename + merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Pausing this discussion as the ongoing AfD which includes a similar discussion (one proposed outcome is a merge), and would supercede any outcome here. A new merge thread can be started if needed once that discussion concludes. – SJ + 19:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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

Update: Comments on that page pointed out that apartheid and genocide should not be conflated. The merged section was moved to Criticism of Israel#Allegations of genocide, which includes a proportionate description of the allegations without undue weight. – SJ + 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, please see my message on your talk page. Scientelensia (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with a merge. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• I also agree with a merge. IshChasidecha (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with a merge.

The title is very one sided. YZM1987 (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What would you propose renaming it? If you wish, you can create page entitled ‘Genocide against the Israelis’. I think that what you do not perhaps see is that this article is not objectively saying that the violence is genocide, but that some people think it is. The lede even says it is a view, not the certain truth. Scientelensia (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Having an article with this title, and a redirect from an even more inappropriate title, promotes a phrase and concept into search results that mostly appears in highly polarized political propaganda. While there might indeed be more sources for a page on 'Genocide against the Israelis', considering what has passed for political speech in the past few decades, that is likewise not an appropriate title or concept for an encyclopedia article. The proposal is to merge with an existing page, which both contains many paragraphs that were copied here (there's no reason to conflate apartheid with genocide), offers historical and semantic context, and has an established group of editors to provide feedback. I have made a quick summary + merge, including a few references for each in the merged section. Please be careful about giving undue weight to rare views. – SJ + 20:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See what you are saying, but this is by no means a rare view. Scientelensia (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• also agree with merge SamiBuzaglo (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• I also support the merge Yotamsahar (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge, appears to be fringe and doesn't meet GNG on its own. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 04:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with merge. Also support renaming to something along the lines of "Accusations of Genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", as the article talks about both directions, yet the title incorrectly refers to only one. omervk (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Then there can be two pages. The allegations against both sides of genocide are separate and should be treated as such. Scientelensia (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree:

• there have been other separate pages on genocides before.
• this article has a different subject

Scientelensia (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There are other pages on alleged genocide. The severity and significance of this subject cannot be undermined, which is why we should not merge this article. To merge this subject is to dismiss it. Scientelensia (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge. WP:FRINGE WP:POV as stands. Loksmythe (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge. Zanahary (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge, framing of article prevents WP:NPOV. Marokwitz (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge. Mistamystery (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Do not support merge.

For people who agree, see the discussions below and the discussions in the Apartheid in Israel article, where the conversation was temporarily moved. Scientelensia (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Do not support merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:CC17:DA00:E1A5:9B83:17AB:DCDC (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Please see the discussion on that talk page. I find your actions deeply troubling and also simply wrong. Scientelensia (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't remove the banner for a discussion in progress. Your recent additions made this article more unbalanced, with innuendo and misstated data. – SJ + 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - merge or delete entire thing. Leaving aside the fact that the Palestinian population has only increased since 1948 (interesting "genocide"), this is just a grout of fringe, hyperbolic and extremely biased accusations by radical anti-Israel activists who deprecate the value of words, as usual, just like they did with 'racism', 'fascism', 'apartheid' and, in some cases, even the 'holocaust' itself. Someone could easily start another article called "Genocide against Israelis" with some random writer detailing 100 years of riots, massacres, suicide bombings, rocket attacks, stabbings, car-rammings and shootings, followed by Palestinian and Arab leaders calls to wipe Israel off the map and drown the Jews into the sea. See WP:Advocacy and WP:Competence. Dovidroth (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Article specifically mentions what is happening in the Gaza strip which specifically falls under the definition of genocide. Your description of these "radical anti-Israel activists" is laughable considering the article itself is listed as a view. If you would like, feel free to start the Genocide against Israelis" article as a "radical Zionist". 2600:8807:C600:EF60:CED:466B:D6B7:B868 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Do not support merge. Topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. HalfHazard98 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge to Criticism of Israel due to to the same above arguments. Marokwitz (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Do not support merge, since I guess we're allowed to vote twice. HalfHazard98 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  sorry for the snark, the person above voted for a second time HalfHazard98 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is because the was proposed merge target was changed and I support the new target. Marokwitz (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, my bad. HalfHazard98 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I support merging into Criticism of Israel. This article is about an interpretation of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the suffering caused to Palestinians. The claim that there is a genocide against Palestinians is not broadly accepted and therefore a Wikipedia page with such a name suggests that there is a broad consent that the genocide against Palestinians is a fact rather than an interpretation. Omri2424 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do not support merge, as the genocide is explicitly stated to be a view and not the objective truth. The claims of genocide are very severe and have enough weight to deserve their own article. Anything else, for me, is somewhat disrespectful. Scientelensia (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge into "Criticism" of Israel. False lies should be framed and put in their true context, without tampering with facts. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Name the lies, if you please, and see the bottom conversation about remodelling the page. Scientelensia (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge into "Criticism" of Israel. Lilijuros (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  See the remodelling the article post at the bottom of this page. Scientelensia (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge and object to the discussion procedurally as one that has become chaotic, with the proposed target of the merger being shifted mid-discussion, which I've never seen before, but obviously creates absolute bedlam in terms of assessing any sort of consensus. The discussion has also been shown to be premature with material substantiating the topic (or at least one version of it, potentially under a different name) rapidly building up. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. The whole question is this merge is obviously flawed and muddled. Scientelensia (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge Drsmoo (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. This is a notable and complex topic that deserves an article. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - this is a complex topic that warrants its own article. Plenty of sources support the "allegations" of genocide. - Ïvana (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merge – a lot of the scholarly debate on this topic revolves around questions of how "genocide" is to be defined; I think scholarly debates over how to define the word "genocide" are getting too far from the core focus of a page such as "Criticism of Israel", even when those debates are carried on in the context of Israel's (alleged) actions. There is really an intersection here of two distinct topics (1) Israel's actual or alleged treatment of Palestinians, (2) how to define "genocide"; and given that specific intersection has received some serious scholarly attention, I don't see why we can't have an article on it, nor do I think it would make sense to merge that intersection to either of those ancestor topics, since it arguably involves too much which is specific to the other. Of course, the article needs to make clear that it is a debate without a conclusion – both what Israel has and hasn't done, and how "genocide" should be defined, are scholarly controversies on which no consensus has yet been reached. I do however support rename to a title which makes clearer this is a topic of active debate, e.g. Palestinian genocide debate. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge to Criticism of Israel due to to the same above arguments. Zanahary (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• All I know is that the current title is ridiculous. An example of petty activism trumping over neutrality. The article also doesn't belong in the category "genocides in Asia", that category is for real genocides. Less POV-pushing please. –Daveout(talk) 06:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Merge but, if the merge is not successful, support renaming to Allegations of Genocide against Palestinians or an equivalent title. For renaming, the current title is without a doubt incorrect as there is no consensus among reliable sources as to whether or not genocide is occurring. While I do concur that this is an important topic, I believe it should be merged because a significant portion of this article overlaps with the Criticism article (e.g. History section). It appears that, as a stand-alone article, it is impossible for this to be told from NPOV. No matter how it's reworded, the consensus is nonexistent, suggesting that the existence of this article as an independent page is at fault and that the only way to establish consensus is to merge (merging at least poses a possibility of us reaching consensus in the future, whereas leaving it clearly is not going anywhere). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: Merge proposal seems like an attempt of censorship. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD discussion

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

Should I ping the people in the discussions bellow as well? –Daveout(talk) 19:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Renaming of article due to disputed factuality

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

• Support. That would make this article similar to the "Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" article. HalfHazard98 (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  See Talk:Genocide against Palestinians#Remodelling the article. Scientelensia (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, We also have the Uyghur Genocide article, despite the supposed genocide only being allegations with little to no evidence too. It would also have to be renamed to include "Allegations" to keep things consistent. FF toho (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. However, I think it should be a case-by-case basis. Evidence aside, the Uyghur Genocide article must not appear contentious enough to the people editing it, but this one certainly is. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This may be a good solution. Scientelensia (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

We should change the title to:

Allegations of genocide of Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Scientelensia (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Deletion of Article 1

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

Agree. Highly lack of WP:NPOV, poorly sourced. In addition to the timing, seems like an ugly attempt to justify the terror attack and the Re'im music festival massacre. A shame that this piece of antisemitic propaganda is gonna probably stay here until a vote. Just shows how messed up and horrible is the bias in English Wikipedia. I'm not gonna be suprised if The Holocaust article or articles related to it are the next ones who are gonna be effected. Trying to rewrite history through Wikipedia. dov (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You do realise that the creator of this article Buidhe, is in fact, one of Wikipedia's most prolific writers about the Holocaust and genocide generally? I really don't think this was a bad faith creation, maybe it wasn't the best idea, but "antisemitic", really? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And people can add more info to the page, reducing any possible POV, rather than deleting it. Scientelensia (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the restoration of this page. For more, see the section about the merge here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_apartheid Scientelensia (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

(The next section down) Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is so (" that the creator of this article Buidhe, is in fact, one of Wikipedia's most prolific writers about the Holocaust and genocide generally").

then it is not clear the lack of standards of the value's visibility, for example in the pictures in it. About showing a picture of skulls from the Rwandan genocide it is misleading. In addition, a picture of a non-representative anecdotal case of a Jew with an ultra-Orthodox appearance who supports a Palestinian demonstration as encyclopedic evidence for what? Even showing coffins in which it is claimed that they belong to unarmed dead can be found in Israel about jews as well and how is this an example of the issue? מי-נהר (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That they can be found in Israel bears little resemblance to the subject matter. I invite you to put similar images which relate to Israel on other pages, if you wish, although not this one, as that would be insensitive. Also, the skulls image belongs to the template of genocides and is automatically added when one adds this template to the page. The coffins image symbolise the tragedy of the matter. Even if you do not like Palestinians, you must see that this scale of death, whoever caused it, is a tragedy. The image of the man shows that not all Israelis oppose Palestine. And also, what is wrong with being “ultra-Orthodox”? You sound like you may hold a prejudice in this regard; if so, please say why, if not, I issue my apologies.

If you wish you can create an opposing page (e.g. Genocide against Israelis) Scientelensia (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's the other way around, and the Re'im music festival massacre is being used in the ugly attempt to justify the litany of sins and war crimes that we now see unfolding in Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I do support the restoration of this page. For my thoughts, see the section about the merge here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_apartheid Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

(The next section down) Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Using the adjunct 'ugly' on an "attempt" rather than a massacre is where the problem starts. dov (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it is not lost on you that I was using your own turn of phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not state that those who are not Pro-Israel are also anti-Semites, as this is deeply alarming and untrue. Many clearly do not understand the concept that those who are against Israel are not inherently anti Jews. Scientelensia (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Add appropriate content and sources here: Genocide against Palestinians#Rejection of characterization Scientelensia (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

100% agree. Is there any way to make the process move quicker of addressing this issue? IshChasidecha (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Israel_and_apartheid#Allegations of genocide – SJ + 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sj@Homerethegreat@Hemiauchenia@Iskandar323@דוב@VeronkiaStein@Nableezy

What do you think of this: Talk:Genocide against Palestinians#Remodelling the article? Scientelensia (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is an obvious propaganda. I wished for higher standards in the Ewiki... Please Don't fail your audience. Lilijuros (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Instead of advocating the deletion, you can implement these higher standards by adding content. Scientelensia (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is politically motivated and the contents already exist on the Israel apartheid page. So I don't see why there should be a page that is misinformative. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Article 2

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

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

No, because ... sources Iskandar323 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source Drsmoo (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There are many other sources throughout the article. Scientelensia (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

News flash: that's not the only source on the page; far from it. And I think you can expect more in the coming days if Israel keeps bombing trapped civilians. Also, the consensus on Mondoweiss specifically is no consensus, so it's not not reliable either. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Many sources are unreliable, by pundits or authors known for fringe or controversial ideas or employed by think tanks with a related political goal. That doesn't mean they can not be a ref in some article, but they can't prop up a one-sided one. While future developments may merit an article, this one is presently just a hatrack for fringe or discredited ideas and aspersions. – SJ + 22:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This view was always going to be subjective however, thus the sources are also. What one cannot deny (I believe?) is that Israel have breached the UN’s Genocide Convention and around 2-3/5 of its terms. I’ve tried to make this article as neutral as possible, and cannot do this alone.

These are not discredited ideas, they are becoming much more relevant and already were too.

I really would appreciate your help on developing the page.

Please also see my thoughts on your talk page. Scientelensia (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read my message to you on your talk page and reconsider your actions. Scientelensia (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This article, aka Hamas propaganda, is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Hamas publicly calls for the destruction of Israel and worldwide murder of Jews. Last week he took the most significant step in this direction. Efforts are now being made in the field of propaganda as well. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

How is this propaganda? It may not be 100% but we, the editors, are working in this. Many government officials have called also for the destruction of Palestinians, and perhaps you do not regard this as as severe? In the words of Raz Segal:

“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—more bombs than the US dropped on all of Afghanistan in any year of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by “act accordingly”: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza “as such,” in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a “complete siege,” in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals.

It’s not only Israel’s leaders who are using such language. An interviewee on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 called for Israel to “turn Gaza to Dresden.” Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news station, published a report about left-leaning Israelis calling to “dance on what used to be Gaza.” Meanwhile, genocidal verbs—calls to “erase” and “flatten” Gaza—have become omnipresent on Israeli social media. In Tel Aviv, a banner reading “Zero Gazans” was seen hanging from a bridge.” Scientelensia (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is a strong case for this current war to be classified as unquestionable Genocide. It will soon be added to the 'List of Genocides' page as well. This particular instance may be called "Genocide of Gaza" as it appears to be contained within Gaza (for now).

https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide VeronikaStein (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the immediate deletion of this article. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you give your reason(s)? HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the deletion of this article, for reasons I have stated in other sections (topic isn't to be taken lightly, notability, has sources, title can be changed to make the article more neutral, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfHazard98 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

This is not one war however, it is a series of wars, skirmishes and general ethnic cleaning since 1948. It’s different. Scientelensia (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't just "some war", the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the world's oldest ongoing conflict, in which tens of thousands have perished. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep this article

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

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

False claims? not on Wikipedia!

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

• Support merge into Criticism of Israel.

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

• Disagree :No, because, there are numerous sources FF toho (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Any credible source to show that? TaBaZzz (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

• Suggestion: You should move your merge suggestion into the discussion above: 'Proposed rename + merge'. Marokwitz (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Name one fact that is a lie. Scientelensia (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please name facts. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The stats and sourced facts in the article!? Scientelensia (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a credible source. TaBaZzz (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Which ones aren’t? Scientelensia (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading viewpoint, blatant tropes of New Antisemitism

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

Your entire post reads like a blog post. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where you post your personal opinions. We follow what the reliable sources say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This article never actually states that it is a genocide, just that a view of it being a genocide exists. Your post reads like a very biased post.

You must try and separate the fact that the Jews have suffered genocide before from the fact that they can commit it now, potentially.

Saying that Israel has committed genocide is not inherently anti-Semitic, as if Israel was not made up of Jews it still could commit a genocide. Scientelensia (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, nobody is blaming the entire people of Israel for the crimes. Scientelensia (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone "could commit genocide." The same anyone "could murder Christian babies." But when thisdemonizing claim is so blatantly false, it's just a modern day blood libel. IshChasidecha (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, nobody said the view is inherently true. Also, your opinion seems to be highly biased. Scientelensia (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles should be about topics, and in said topics viewpoints should be presented, both for and against. This article, somehow, only shows one side of the viewpoint. Would you not say that is very biased?

Would it be appropriate to have a separate article under the headline “Palestinian genocide of Israelis” given recent attacks, and show a survey that fits the desired outcome?

Hiding behind a “this is just stating a viewpoint” is the same fallacy as saying “some people are saying…” when stating an argument. Would the viewpoint to the contrary also deserve its own article?

You keep using the “I’m not saying it’s true just mentioning there’s such an opinion” as if you don’t know how actual articles are written and formed.

This, without mentioning the extreme bias in the article itself. 2A06:C701:4505:5600:384B:9E67:5C9E:7536 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Calling it antisemetic simply reinforces the erroneous view that the Israeli-Palestenian conflict is a religious one, it's not. If it was then we could call it the Jewish-Hamas conflict. 2600:8807:C600:EF60:CED:466B:D6B7:B868 (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the article is rife with misinformation as well as manipulation of facts in order to support ideologies. I fear this article may be a ploy to legitimize the actions of Hamas. This article has anti-semetic motives. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What facts are wrong? Who is supporting a terrorist organisation? What is anti Semitic? Saying that Israel has committed genocide is not inherently anti-Semitic, as if Israel was not made up of Jews it still could potentially commit a genocide. Scientelensia (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Genocide, as defined by international law, involves the deliberate and systematic extermination of a specific ethnic, religious, or racial group Under international law, it involves any one or more of five acts (killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy, preventing births, or forcible transfer of children) committed with genocidal intent. That definition is so broad that genocide can be committed even without anyone being killed, and a mere intent to destroy a group can render an act legally genocidal even if the act fails to actually achieve its genocidal goal (a "failed genocide" is still legally a genocide). Given the breadth and vagueness of the international law definition of genocide, the question of whether or not Israel has committed the crime of genocide against Palestinians is far more difficult to answer than you think it is. As an example of how broad the international law definition of "genocide" can be, here is blog post by a law professor arguing that Hamas has committed the crime of genocide against Israel. I'm no international law expert, so whether the professor's conclusion is right or wrong is beyond my competence, but his argument doesn't seem prima facie unreasonable. However, if one accepts that law professor's argument that Hamas has indeed committed genocide against Israelis, then we are defining "genocide" broadly enough that the converse claim, that on one or more occasions in the period 1948–2023 Israel may have committed genocide against Palestinians, doesn't seem prima facie unreasonable either. The 1983 MacBride Commission into Israeli actions in Lebanon (including the Sabra and Shatila massacre) concluded with the recommendation that "a competent international body be designed or established to clarify the conception of genocide in relation to Israeli policies and practices toward the Palestinian people"; which reflects the reality that the legal definition of "genocide" is so broad and vague that whether Israel legally committed genocide in Lebanon is far from an "open and shut case" either way. You can disagree with the MacBride Commission's conclusions, but simply dismissing them as antisemitism seems unfounded. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not Genocide

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

The existence of a strong anti-Israel sentiment in Hamas's propaganda does not preclude Israel from trying to infringe upon the rights of Palestinian people. Both statements may be true as they are not mutually exclusive. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between rights infringement and genocide. 176.231.102.238 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is "Genocide against Palestinians is a characterization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which argues that Israel has carried out and/or is carrying out some kind of genocide against the Palestinian population, sometimes related to the view that Israel is a settler colonial state."

By doing this, the concept of genocide being committed is acknowledged but neither outright confirmed nor denied. The article merely states that some scholars, activists, and groups have dubbed various Israeli activities as genocide. Whether or not it is genocide or not, it is Wikipedia's goal to accurately and comprehensively cover the various opinions on the topic, hence the existence of this article. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Novo Tape is correct :) Scientelensia (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Add appropriate content and sources here: Genocide against Palestinians#Rejection of characterization Scientelensia (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, please remove the unrelated images of skulls from Rwanda and the picture of an Orthodox Jew with a flag. These images do not pertain to the subject matter and serve only to reinforce the propagandistic elements in this entry.שלומית ליר (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What is propaganda? You seem to have a heavy bias. Scientelensia (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey Scientelensia, you seem to be the most prominent voice on this talk page in support of the article, yet essentially every one of your responses to well articulated arguments is just: "What are you talking about? You're biased."

While the removal of the unrelated/egregious images is a start, I'm saddened to see the article still up. I really don't like throwing the term "Nazi" around, but Goebbels would be proud, especially the way this article was initially written.

- Themes in Nazi propaganda

- Propaganda in Nazi Germany

It would be like if in the 1930's we had an encyclopedia article titled "Jewish caused German national woes" with all the Nazi's claims, labeled as "an important categorization of" all of Germany's problems. We could cite so many "unbiased," "expert" opinions who would support this stance, and then we could defend the article's existence in an encyclopedia by claiming that it just represents "one view."

This article should be deleted ASAP. The timing of its conception speaks for the motivation of its creator. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My motive is only to detail the allegations. It’s quite a statement to compare this page to something on Nazis and me to a potential sympathiser: I would appreciate you striking such comments. I have merely been trying to bring people’s attention to their bias which I have been discerning. Forgive me if I am wrong, but this bias is a major obstacle to positive contribution. Everyone has bias; feel free to point out mine for the greater good. Any bias I may have however is not directed in the insulting way you suggest. Scientelensia (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked this before below and this is my answer. Read your question below to contextualise this:

That they can be found in Israel bears little resemblance to the subject matter. I invite you to put similar images which relate to Israel on other pages, if you wish, although not this one, as that would be insensitive. Also, the skulls image belongs to the template of genocides and is automatically added when one adds this template to the page. The coffins image symbolise the tragedy of the matter. Even if you do not like Palestinians, you must see that this scale of death, whoever caused it, is a tragedy. The image of the man shows that not all Israelis oppose Palestine. And also, what is wrong with being “ultra-Orthodox”? You sound like you may hold a prejudice in this regard; if so, please say why, if not, I issue my apologies. Scientelensia (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, no matter one's opinion. It is nigh impossible to assert that Israel is commiting genocide against Palestinians and Arabs. I fear much of the text of this article was written with clear political interest, especially concerning the circumstances of its publication (the war between Hamas and Israel). Homerethegreat (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an anti-Palestinian bias. Remember that the article presents a SUBJECTIVE VIEW which is presented as such and is not inherently true!! It is presented as an ‘alleged genocide’! How can people not understand this? If you like, you can create an alternate page, e.g ‘Genocide against Israelis’. What do you think, @Novo Tape? Scientelensia (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Scientelensia, please strike all comments accusing other users of being/having a bias and/or prejudice. Such comments are unacceptable on Wikipedia and are sanctionable. Drsmoo (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that should be directed to the user calling others anti-semites and promoting a blood libel? Or the user above who is claiming that editors are editing with clear political interest? nableezy - 23:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t see those comments, however the same advice would definitely apply to those users. @Scientelensia Tagging you to ensure you see my message above. Calling users biased/prejudiced is sanctionable. Please strike those accusations. Drsmoo (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I never objectively said that they had a bias, only that they ‘seemed’ biased, ‘perhaps’ had a bias or ‘may’ have held a bias. Thus, I am not stating 100% that these people are biased, because how would I know?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=prev&oldid=1180086873 Scientelensia (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I lack competence handling controversial article subjects to judge whether or not this article is biased and, if so, the extent of that bias. While I do stand by my earlier responses in that I believe the article attempts to be phrasee in neutral language, it may or may not still have major biases because of lack of due weight. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: Indeed, no matter one's opinion. It is nigh impossible to assert that Israel is commiting genocide against Palestinians and Arabs It is far from impossible given that (1) the legal definition of "genocide" is very broad (far broader than the average person thinks it is), (2) the original definition of "genocide" (by Rafael Lemkin, the inventor of the word) is even broader than the legal definition – in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin argues that Nazi Germany was guilty of genocide - not just against Jews, but also against (non-Jewish) Dutch and the French. If your definition of "genocide" is broad enough to include not just the Nazi mass murder of Jews, but also how the Nazis treated the average Dutch or French person (i.e. including cultural genocide), then you are defining the word so broadly that the idea that either (or even both!) sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict may be guilty of "genocide" seems much more plausible. But, while that very broad definition of "genocide" is one alien to the popular consciousness, it is one many genocide scholars take seriously, given it is the original scholarly definition of the word. The legal definition is narrowed somewhat; the popular definition is narrowed a lot further. Some genocide scholars advocate a narrow definition close to the popular one (i.e. genocide = mass murder with genocidal intent), others advocate broader definitions equivalent to the legal one or to the even broader original one. There is a lack of scholarly agreement on how to define "genocide", and the question of whether either or both sides has committed it depends at least as much on how we choose to define the word, as it does on what either side may or may not have done, and what intentions may or may not have been behind their various actions. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Where people tend to go wrong.

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

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

Also, populations can grow due to a high birth rate even when there are frequent deaths. Scientelensia (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Less, if there was any, bias:

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

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

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

Good point. Scientelensia (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality.

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

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

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

Propaganda

Not a helpful discussion towards improving the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, this article proves that Wikipedia is just a propaganda project. Today, exactly one week after 1,300 Israeli citizens were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist organization - which publicly calls for the murder of ALL of the Jewish people. An organization that deliberately massacred innocents and tortured innocent people, burned entire families, shot children in front of their parents, killed parents in front of their children, raped young women, beheaded babies and toddlers, and kidnapped women, children, old men and even Holocaust survivors into underground tunnels booby-trapped with explosives. On this very day, the English Wikipedia not only decided not to call all of this with the only appropriate word – terrorism – but to allow the existence of this antisemitic blood libel, which describes the so called "genocide" of the Palestinians by Israel. What a shame. what a disgrace. Facts are not important. The truth is not interesting. Only Palestinian propaganda will be published here. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. Also ironic in pushing established propaganda while declaiming supposed propaganda. nableezy - 22:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) You can detail this on an another, more relevant page. I have said so many times, how about a page criticising Palestine in favour of Israel as you suggest? Please do not state that those who are not Pro-Israel are also anti-Semites, as this is deeply alarming and untrue. Many clearly do not understand the concept that those who are against Israel are not inherently anti Jews. You may perhaps have a disconcerting bias in this regard. And AGAIN, I have to say: Remember that the article presents a SUBJECTIVE VIEW which is presented as such and is not inherently true!! It is presented as an ‘alleged genocide’! How can people not understand this? Please read the discussion above before taking the time to comment in this absurd and disrespectful way. Scientelensia (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Or maybe you have some disconcerting bias regarding antisemitism. I don't care who is pro/anti Israel. I care about anti-Semitic blood libels, such as the one presented before us. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC) "Assume good faith" is described as "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". HalfHazard98 (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC) I reiterate: do not state that those who are not Pro-Israel are also anti-Semites, as this is deeply alarming and untrue. This is not an “anti-Semitic blood libel”. Scientelensia (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Bar, see this: Talk:Genocide against Palestinians#Remodelling the article. Scientelensia (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC) :Hundreds upon hundredes of thousands of Palestinians displaced and murdered by Israeli forces and settlers for decades but one terrorist organization and, the what, 200 something IDF causalities? Just as bad. Right? FF toho (talk) FF toho (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Agreed. Do you support a potential merge (above)? Scientelensia (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC) The debate over whether Israel is guilty of genocide against Palestinians goes back to at least 1982–1983, when the question was considered by the MacBride Commission on Israeli actions in Lebanon (it took the question seriously, but does not appear to have ultimately reached a conclusion either way). The MacBride Commission's report has absolutely nothing to do with Hamas propaganda, since Hamas wasn't even founded until 1987. So, we can't simply dismiss a debate as "Hamas propaganda", when the debate is older than Hamas itself is. And there is no evidence that the President of the International Commission who wrote that report, Seán MacBride (a Nobel Peace Prize winning Irish politician and diplomat) had any sympathy for the viewpoints of Hamas whatsoever. As far as the timing goes, there is no evidence the creator of this article (User:Buidhe) is some kind of Hamas propagandist, since Buidhe has been a heavy contributor to Wikipedia articles on the Holocaust–from a mainstream perspective, not as a Holocaust denier, whereas one would expect a Hamas propagandist to promote Holocaust denial not the mainstream understanding of the topic, given that Hamas' official position is that the Holocaust is a "lie made up by Zionists". For all we know, maybe it is just coincidental that Buidhe decided to create this article at this time; alternatively, it sometimes happens that recent events makes an editor think about a topic, and then those thoughts lead them to broader thoughts about the topic which are not directly related to current events, and they then notice some gap in Wikipedia's coverage which they decide to plug. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC) The article wasn't created in response to recent events, actually because I stumbled across this paper. I was just surprised that a Wikipedia article on the topic didn't exist yet because I already knew from research that it was a notable topic—whether you agree or disagree with it. (t · c) buidhe 02:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you. And obviously that paper you stumbled upon has nothing to do with current events, given it was published in April last year. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Remodelling the article

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

• We should change the title to: Allegations of genocide of Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
• Somebody removed the large info box (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_against_Palestinians&diff=prev&oldid=1180161311); this should be restored. An infobox exists on the Ukrainian page.
• Someone removed the pictures (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_against_Palestinians&diff=prev&oldid=1180134876 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_against_Palestinians&diff=prev&oldid=1180135012). Similar pictures exist on the Ukrainian page. People only removes the ones here because of their seemingly biased views. We neeed to restore these pictures.

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

Broadly agree, yes. The prefixing of the title with "Allegations of" seems fairly reasonable given the current state of things (you may note that this is the way in which it is currently incorporated as a subhead at Criticism of Israel ... though "in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" seems rather needless. Infobox should return. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Scientelensia (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: This is your initial creation - what's your assessment here? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I just started the article because I noticed a content gap. I took it off my watch list and other editors can revise as they see fit (t · c) buidhe 14:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support in the strongest terms possible. This is a perfect compromise. It should eliminate much of the issue people have with neutrality and get us as close to a consensus as we are likely to get. There should be no argument against this. If you don't think there's genocide, and you are correct, then it's only notable allegations and the sources and the evidence will prove your stance correct. If you do think there's genocide, and you are correct, the sources and evidence will prove your stance correct. In other words, if you know you're right, this page existing as "allegations" shouldn't bother you, no matter your stance. I'd also like to remind everyone that this site has considered false allegations related to genocide notable enough to have their own article even if they are false (see "Holocaust denial" and "Rwandan genocide denial"). Thus, an allegations article would only need to pass a notability test. The merge discussion wasn't appearing to be coming to any consensus, so I think this should be the new main discussion moving forward if we want to reach one. In any case, by all accounts, many people are dying in Palestine and allegations of genocide are not something to be taken lightly. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the comparison with Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and reasons well elaborated by HalfHazard98 above. –St.nerol (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis

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

As you say, this material has a totally different scope. Having a bi-directional page on this type of topic (have you ever seen a twin genocide page?) would be a clarion call for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting the two sets of claims should be treated as equivalent – it is clear that much more scholarly attention has been paid to one set of claims than the other. However, the problem with two separate articles, is it creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE problem of a different sort – having a pair of articles, Allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians and Allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis, essentially puts the two topics on an equal footing, despite the fact that the scholarly literature takes one of those topics much more seriously than it does the other. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a second page. Scientelensia (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sporadic acts of terrorism should be seen as a strain of genocide, i.e. genocidal, but cannot be viewed and considered entirely comparable to systematic genocide, which is committed over a sustained period of time and typically by an economically and militarily superior nation state or internationally recognized political entity. 76.126.242.226 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Nice. I suggest removing genocide against Jews and just put the Israeli population as a significant part of this population is non-Jewish and the conflict from Hamas’ side has not yet been directed to non-Israeli Jews. Scientelensia (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be mistaken. Indeed Hamas and other organizations have called specifically for murder of Jewish civilians and not the Arabs of Israel which are viewed as their Palestinian brethren. Indeed, the intent of genocide and the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian organizations are aimed specifically against the Jewish population. Therefore it is fitting that it be against Jewish Israelis. Of course there are some who view Israeli Arabs as traitors, but most of the narrative opinion of anti-Israeli organizations are against the Jews. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of Jews are antizionists and most of them are not Israelis so acting like all of those terms are interchangeable is ridiculous. The issue is against settlers. Even Hamas Charter says they're against Zionists, not Jews (you can choose to believe that or not). - Ïvana (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert?

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

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

Agreed. Scientelensia (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Rename or merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Definitely not a merge to Nakba, this covers way more than 1948 and the surrounding years. No opinion on a rename but oppose "allegations" as a rule. nableezy - 15:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, "claims" and similar are not recommended by MOS, but obviously the current title implies an active genocide against Palestinians as opposed to a disputed term. Any suggestions? Andre🚐 15:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Accusations". nableezy - 17:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The analogy is not exact but imagine "Apartheid against Palestinians" iso "Israel and apartheid" (a title arrived at with much effort with "accusations" being ditched in the process).

Suggests "Israel and (accusations of) genocide". Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm cool with these improvements if y'all are. Andre🚐 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think wait and see if the other afd closes keep or merge or delete and decide from there. nableezy - 18:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I looked and thought it was already closed no consensus. There's one still open? Andre🚐 18:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This one?, closed as redirect. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Although seems to be some difference of opinion as to the redirect target... Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, but that shouldn't block the RM of this page. But, if there's another AFD open against this page that would. So let me know if there is one. I can't find one though. Andre🚐 18:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hadnt seen that close, the question was if that closed to merge that here and combine the articles in to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I see my vote did not carry the day (honestly tho, yall should really just let me write these articles and trust my judgment, it would be much better than this system we have now), so thats moot. And in that case my comment about waiting is not relevant, and you can feel to propose a move at your leisure. (er you did that, nvm) nableezy - 22:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'm quick on the trigger, but all is well in this case. Andre🚐 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 October 2023

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

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

---

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

I think Allegations of genocide against Palestinians is preferable given that it is similar to existing article titles and directly states what it is about. Israel and accusations of genocide is unclear because it could also refer to accusations of genocide that someone else is committing against Israel, which is not within the article's scope. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: When you just put "allegations of" out in front, it can read like allegations against Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 I see your point. What title do you support? (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

See below. (I was already typing.) Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I also support "Palestine genocide question/allegations" etc. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

True, but "Palestinian genocide accusations/allegations" has the same problem even if to a lesser degree. Fundamentally, when you mention a person/group alongside the word "accusations" or "allegations", people infer guilt rather than victimhood. DFlhb (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fooian Genocide seems to always means the Genocide of Fooians in any example I can care to think of. I can't see there being serious confusion with this. Rather than the possible source of confusion that you're suggesting, if anything, the one possible semantic confusion with "Palestinian genocide accusations/allegations" is that it could be about "genocide accusations/allegations" made by Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - DFlhb (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I believe that the label of "genocide" is accurate and pertains to the situation of Palestinians, they are indeed allegations and few international bodies or academic scholars classify it as definitively a genocide. I support the title "Allegations of genocide against Palestinians." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Gave this some more thought, I realize that my proposed title would be ambigious and could mean that the Palestinians are the ones committing genocide. I think there are two titles that work: Allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians or Allegations of Palestinian genocide by Israel. Both of the make it pretty unambigious that Israel is being accused of genocide. 18:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If one were to go down the tempering route, Palestinian genocide accusation(s) would be better. "Foo-ian genocide" is a pretty standard format and "accusation" is more suitable (and accurately descriptive) than allegation, which should be avoided, per MOS:ALLEGED and the point that alleged can imply inaccuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus to keep, merge, or delete this page, but significant dissatisfaction with its name, it should be renamed (the closer said there's not enough support for any one of the proposed alternatives). Palestinian genocide question seemed to me like the best of the choices that was proposed in the AfD... not only does it recall the landmark 1948 debate cited in the article (the question of genocide in Palestine), and the Holodomor genocide question, but the word "question" is wishy-washy-lukewarm-neutral whereas "allegations" and "accusations" are hot and could lead to shrinkage. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Question" works too. Also briefer. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Would prefer Accusations of genocide against Israel. nableezy - 22:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just sounds better in my head. nableezy - 23:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: That has the reverse problem of potentially sounding like "Accusations of" + "genocide against Israel", i.e. Israel as the target (even though it's a state not a people in this context). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Israel and accusations of genocide sounds fine to me and better than Accusations of genocide against Israel which I am tempted to parse as accusations that unnamed actors have been accused of committing genocide against Israel. A fully explicit title like Accusations that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians might be necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a much better proposal than the others I've seen in this discussion. Other pages discussing issues concerning the nature of Zionism / Israel, such as settler colonialism, are given titles like Zionism as settler colonialism. Removing "Israel" from the title when it is the entity in question being accused of genocide seems like it's almost minimizing its involvement, violating WP:NPOV. Titles such as Palestinian genocide question or Allegations of genocide against Palestinians almost sound like it's Palestinians being accused of doing genocide here, which is definitely not what this article is about.

Edit: As mentioned below Palestinian genocide is a term that's been mentioned a fair bit in RS, and like Armenian genocide it's more clear about who the victim is. Given the clarity of what the subject is and use in RS, I'd also support this as the title. aismallard (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My vote is to merge this page and Second Holocaust (and are there any others out there?) to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. I'd be fine with that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Levivich I oppose this proposed merger because the main uses of "second Holocaust" include to decry the practice of Jews marrying non-Jews outside the context of the Israel Palestine conflict, as well as antisemitism in the Jewish diaspora. Relatedly, Holocaust is not synonymous with genocide. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Then I'd leave Second Holocaust alone, still merge this page to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and retarget Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis there. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that for whatever that is worth. Andre🚐 04:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This suggestion works. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I should note this is actually Nableezy's idea (in case there's a boomerang later) Levivich (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not it. nableezy - 04:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support moving to "Palestinian genocide question". Failing that, I would support "Allegations of genocide against Palestinians" over the current title as well. The current title does not reflect the fact that this is a contested interpretation of a long and complex history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. I would also support Levivich's solution above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  This option, as inherited from Holodomor genocide question, is not a bad one. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Support Agreed. I like this one best (especially in line with Holodomor comparison). Mistamystery (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't like "Palestinian genocide question" because I'm getting zero Google hits for that phrase, so I worry Wikipedia would be the first to use it, and coin the term in a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Allegations [or accusations] of genocide of Palestinians" is clearer to me than "against." Levivich (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I get virtually the same result for "aogap (1) and "aogop" (0) and even "agape"... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ironically, the term "Palestinian genocide" is actually relatively quite well used, popularized in part by the use of the chapter title "Ongoing Palestinian Genocide" in the 2010 book The Plight of the Palestinians, which spoke of the violence in 2008 in terms eerily similar to those now in circulation today. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bit like apartheid, I think we should not imply this is a thing at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ironic, indeed. I had noticed that "Palestinian genocide" is used in the literature, but "Palestinian genocide question" does not seem to be used anywhere. One of my concerns is that we would call it a "question" when nobody else seems to...?

  I was just looking at Plight of the Palestinians yesterday. It's available via TWL. Weird book. The editor appears to be an English prof from University of La Verne who, AFAICT, has never published anything in this field ever before or since. I haven't checked all the authors, but a whole bunch of them are not academics and AFAICT not published -- kinda low profile or no profile in the field. The book and its chapters have been cited (per GS), but not very often, and I can't find any academic reviews. Yet, it has chapters by Ilan Pappe and Robert Fisk (two names that jumped out at me), so... I don't know what to make of it. Many of the chapters of this book use the word "genocide," not just the one you pointed to. But it seems to be kind of an obscure work, as compared to, well, say anything else written by Pappe, for example.

  For Wikipedia policy purposes, I think that book is an example of a work that shows "Palestinian genocide" is at least a significant minority viewpoint (in WP:NPOV parlance) and not fringe. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Seems to me the more accurate long-form title of this article would be "Does Nakba constitute a genocide or mere ethnic cleansing?" because that seems to be the relevant debate in the scholarship. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree Parham wiki (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, any move should be to a simpler Palestinian genocide. Idol Destroyer (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

Off topic discussion

*Comment I can't tell you how messed up it is that this is even a discussion. It beggars belief. This page shouldnt even exist but of course, too many want it to do so. The irony of course about this is that there's no page devoted to Genocide against Jews despite the fact of what's happened through the ages. How is this even possible? Genocide of Jews is the core tenet of Hamas' charter and was on full display on October 7 and is well documented as opposed to this based on a paper written by a couple of anti-semites. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) there's no page devoted to Genocide against Jews what do you think the Holocaust is about? M.Bitton (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Lol if you think the Genocide against the Jews is just what happened in the Holocaust from 1941-1945. Goes back thousands of years. Blood libel, pogroms, Spanish Inquisition. Everything outlined on Antisemitism. Educate yourself! MaskedSinger (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) My response to the baseless assertion stands and your crappy comment goes straight to the toilet (where it rightly belongs). M.Bitton (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) which part is baseless? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) "Everything outlined on Antisemitism." - sounds like the page exists. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Yes and no. Not all antisemitism is genocide. But the point is, the Jews have been the victims of Genocide for thousands of years and no such page exists. Yet this flimsy excuse of a page is allowed to stand. It boggles the mind. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC) a paper written by a couple of anti-semites Suggest you delete this comment. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Suggest you delete this page. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Furthermore has anyone actually gone through this line by line and checked all of the sources and what they actually say? He's using Ilan Pappe to which I refer you to this article - https://newrepublic.com/article/85344/ilan-pappe-sloppy-dishonest-historian which says - At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two. Based on this and other somewhat dubious sources the page will be out there for all to see. (Personal attack removed) MaskedSinger (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no need to cherry pick quotes, Ilan Pappé is there for those who are really interested in the scholar. M.Bitton (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I support a move to Allegations of genocide against Palestinians as it is a less controversial/ contentious title. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  @GMH Melbourne: What about the issue of potential confusion in meaning there? I.e. that the title could be interpreted to mean that the allegations are directed against Palestinians, not about about them. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, perhaps Allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israel? ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  @GMH Melbourne: Yes, so it's a complete minefield - doesn't that sound almost like it's about Palestinians committing genocide against Israel? The 'against' is the cause of a lot of ambiguity problems: one alternative that's been suggested on page is Allegations of genocide of Palestinians to avoid this, but it's clunky. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  but it's clunky I agree. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would be against changing to a title with "Israel" in it. The focus of this article is what's happening to Palestinians, so I think it makes sense to frame the title around that. For example, the Uyghur genocide article isn't called China and accusations of genocide. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Support, this is the simplest solution and the reasoning is good. DFlhb (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this idea is fine. Andre🚐 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That works. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would also support this title. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Aye, that'll do. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support, this is the simplest solution and the reasoning is good. Parham wiki (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support this as a potential different title. XTheBedrockX (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support, right now the article makes an impression that genocide against Palestinians is an accepted mainstream concept, which it is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Palestinian genocide accusation Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support this move per reasoning by Iskandar323 (although I'm not sure whether it should be accusation (singlular) or accusations (plural)) GnocchiFan (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine with this too. nableezy - 21:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This works well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Are the last 12 responses supporting Israel and accusations of genocide, or Palestinian genocide accusation? Please consider editing your comments to make it clearer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Until you raised the question, I had not doubt it was the latter. I still think so. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Same. DFlhb (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Same. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

All aboard the same train. nableezy - 16:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support PGA and will risk being the unlucky #13 to do so... When's the last time there was snow for Halloween? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect creation

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

@Novem Linguae: Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; please revert your restoration of the content until such a consensus is obtained. BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a very binary thing. There was an AFD a week ago. It can close as certain things: no consensus, delete, keep, redirect, merge, etc. In this case it closed as no consensus. You cannot then go "per AFD, we are redirecting this". –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What "no consensus" means varies depending on the context.

In this context, where there is no prior consensus for the inclusion of this context, per WP:ONUS the article cannot exist. How it ceases to exist isn't overly relevant; I believed a redirect was more appropriate, but if you prefer to delete it outright or move it to draft space I will not object.

The only way we are permitted to keep this article is if I am mistaken about the "prior consensus" aspect; if I am, can you please link that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A bunch of experienced Wikipedians just talked about this article's existence a week ago and did not come to a consensus to take a deletion action. Don't you think that if this article needed to be redirected for WP:ONUS reasons, it would have been mentioned and decided there? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS isn't and shouldn't be brought up during a formal discussion, because it has no bearing on what the consensus is; it only becomes relevant if there is no consensus. For example, if an RfC is held proposing to include disputed content, and there is no prior consensus to include that content, then a "no consensus" result means the content is not included, per WP:ONUS, even if no one raises WP:ONUS during the RfC.

It's no different here; if we don't have an affirmative consensus for inclusion, we must exclude - which is why I am asking you to revert your restoration of the article unless you can point at such a consensus. I would note that consensus via the existence of the article being the status quo would be appropriate, but I don't believe that applies here as the article is only a few weeks old. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Using WP:ONUS to dispute an entire article containing 41 citations... I'm scratching my head here. Anyway, I decline to self-revert at this time. Per WP:BLAR, contested BLARs should go to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many citations the article has; as ONUS says, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

Let me ask you two questions:

1. Is this disputed content?
2. Is there a consensus for its inclusion?

BilledMammal (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The AfD clearly produced no consensus for redirecting. Your attempt to then do this unliterally was at bare minimum wholly unconstructive. And just why? - with zero chance it would not be reverted. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It clearly produced no consensus for its existence either, and per WP:ONUS this means the article cannot exist - unless you know of a consensus formed elsewhere, either before or after the AfD, for it to exist?

Redirecting was one way to bring the article into compliance with policy, but if you prefer a different method then I have no objection. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS refers to the inclusion of content within a page; it does not address a page's existence - I'm sure you actually know this. Hence why WP:PAGEDECIDE is a see also link. And a resounding 'no consensus' result at a well-attended AfD is likewise extremely resoundingly not an endorsement of any unilateral action. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS refers to the inclusion of content within a page - the inclusion of any content within the page is disputed, and there is no consensus to include it.

You're right that ONUS is silent on how to handle the resulting page when we have removed the content, but as I said if you don't believe a redirect is appropriate then I have no objection to an alternative method of handling the resulting page.

And a resounding 'no consensus' result at a well-attended AfD is likewise extremely resoundingly not an endorsement of any unilateral action. Unilateral action, which includes the initial creation of the article. How to determine our actions under such circumstances is why we have policies like ONUS.

Let me ask you the same questions I asked Novem Linguae:

1. Is this disputed content?
2. Is there a consensus for its inclusion?

BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe go with less of the trying to come up with novel procedure interpretations to engender the change you voted for at the AfD, and more of respecting the community and process. I'll also note that while you were busy with your extremely point-y redirect, you didn't find time to actually copy any material at all to your chosen redirect destination at Criticism of Israel, making it pretty transparent that your sole aim here is deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect was reverted within three minutes of me making it; hardly time to identify and copy over any content that was not disputed.

more of respecting the community and process I would ask you to do the same; there hasn't been a consensus for your creation of this article, and until there is it cannot exist. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaking me for someone else. Create it I did not. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I apologize; you did not create the article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What a lot of tosh, that is not at all how ONUS (or AfD) works and I expect this nonsense to cease pdq. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Unilaterally turning an article about a contentious and much discussed subject into a redirect – without any consensus to do so – is still highly inappropriate, and I would advise against trying to do that for similarly contentious topics the future. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Bold editting is absolutely allowed. No-one is required to get pre-approval for their edits, and (as happened) any editor can revert it if they disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s true. I strongly disagreed with the decision to redirect, but you are right about bold edits. XTheBedrockX (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

At the same time, there is still a thing called context that can still make certain permissible actions disruptive and time-wasting in a given context. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  Ok, thank you, AE it is. nableezy - 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

It is insane, it would turn every no consensus outcome to delete. Imagine if every editor who was upset about not "winning" an AFD decided to ignore the outcome and impose their desired one instead. I have nominated lots of articles that I think merited deletion and it ended with no consensus. You know what I did? Moved on with my life. nableezy - 16:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that a no-consensus AFD outcome should default to delete rather than keep is not insane. I happen to think it's a good idea. It's not consensus, but it ought to be. More generally, the principle that nothing should appear on the pages of Wikipedia that doesn't have affirmative consensus to be there, is a good principle. I wish it was consensus. It's what ONUS says, but ONUS is an example of one of the many Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia does not apply. Why we even still have it, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that it should is not, the idea that it does is. nableezy - 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

For interest I posted this for commentary at the current onus go round at V, here Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:ONUS, it applies pretty clearly to content within or part of an article, and is not intended to be read with respect to an entire article. WP:ONUS means "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" for "certain information"; it doesn't mean that all RS information on a topic can be excluded short of consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the "no consensus" close of an AfD can be connected with the idea of consenus expressed in ONUS. The AfD close is that there is no consensus to delete the article, not that there is no consensus to keep the article (that would be AfK). It's that second form of the consensus that ONUS is discussing, and it's not something you can just invert as it's based on the original question asked. Just because there's no consensus for the negative form doesn't immediately imply that there's no consensus for the positive form (if you asked "should we keep this article?" you may get a different answer than "should we delete this article?"). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

not that there is no consensus to keep the article Above, the closer actually clarifies that there was both no consensus to delete the article and no consensus to keep the article. I feel this adds strength to the position that WP:ONUS applies here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

About those 800 "legal scholars"

The 800 scholars who signed a letter of concern regarding the possibility of genocide two weeks ago were not just "legal scholars": they were also scholars of genocide studies, conflict studies and a bunch of other fields that don't seem to have any relevancy to this subject (gender studies, journalism etc), and the list was also padded with several Phd students and 'independent scholars' with ambiguous credentials. They were also drawn from all over the world which I think kind of diminishes the significance of this number. They wrote/signed this 2 weeks ago before mass evacuations had taken place, and were fearful that the "safe" routes weren't safe because civilians were being targeted by the IDF. Well, two weeks later we know there are 600,000 displaced Palestinians[1], out of the war zone although suffering miserable conditions (as you'd expect). Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

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

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

My point is very simple. The article makes an an impression that genocide of Palestinians is an established mainstream academic concept. It said at the moment that I restored the template that the concept (i) not shared by all Israelis (ii) (which I added myself) that Montefiore thinks this is not genocide. This is pretty much all opinions mentioned in the article which disagree with the concept of genocide. It does not even mention that the last war started with the massive terrorist attack HAMAS carried out specifically targeting civilians (it was added to the article and immediately removed). Until a significant number of comprehensive sources has been added to the article showing that the majority of academics do not think occupation of the West Bank and the war against Gaza is genocide (or until it was shown that a large majority think it is genocide), the article is one-sided, and the POV tag must not be removed. I do not feel that this is my responsibility to find these sources. Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Hamas attack. That is a prominent Israeli and Western talking point in the media, for sure, as a means of deflection, but it is irrelevant to the accusation of genocide - a crime which of course cannot be justified, regardless of the proceeding circumstances. In addition, the views of Israelis are largely irrelevant to the picture here. What we need are the views of reliable authorities and experts, with an emphasis on the latter. The only contrasting views that one would really take seriously here would be genocide experts demurring on the use of terminology here. Such a case applies to the Srebrenica massacre, where William Schabas has prominently demurred on the language of 'genocide'. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I am bringing the HAMAS terrorist attack because it is mentioned in the article. I would actually be in favor of removing everything related to the current war because obviously we have zero academic articles related to it. Views of Israelis are mentioned in the article, and not by me. I would be also in favor of removing it, because the statement reads now as "only some Israelis oppose the notion" which is obviously incorrect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not even mention that the last war started with the massive terrorist attack HAMAS carried out specifically targeting civilians - the article does have some sort of a mention of that now: The 2023 Israel–Hamas war began when Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing 1,400 Israelis, most of whom were civilians; this led to an Israeli counteroffensive. starship.paint (RUN) 08:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: majority of academics do not think occupation of the West Bank and the war against Gaza is genocide (or until it was shown that a large majority think it is genocide) - how do we know either way what a large majority of academics think unless the reliable sources are brought here? There are two circumstances here - either (a) you know that the article is one-sided because you are familiar with what reliable sources say about whether there is Palestinian genocide (of which then please provide the reliable sources), or (b) you assume that the article is one-sided. Which is it? starship.paint (RUN) 08:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If the article represents one view and does not represent the opposite view, it is by definition one-sided. I am not even sure what we are discussing. Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I am inviting you to present the opposite view with reliable sources that there is no Palestinian genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 08:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As I already said, I do not feel this is my responsibility. If you claim EVERYBODY think it is genocide and there is no opposite view, this is a highly unusual claim which needs to be justified. Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You're asking to prove a negative with evidence that there is no opposite view. Far easier to prove a positive by providing evidence of the opposite view. You're simply claiming a problem exists without providing any evidence in reliable sources to support yourself. Disappointing. starship.paint (RUN) 08:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, the article is now entitled Palestinian genocide accusation, which means that the scope of the article is "some people accused the existence of a genocide against Palestinians". It does not mean EVERYBODY think it is genocide. Rather it implies "some people think it is genocide". starship.paint (RUN) 08:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

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

• @Raneemh: - we literally had a page move discussion open for 7 days and this was the page title with the strongest support. It appears that this is not as textbook as you claim. starship.paint (RUN) 02:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm directly citing the Wikipedia article itself. I'm not claiming anything. I'm using the words of historians directly cited in the article. Please do change it to better represent the articles contents. Raneemh (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We've just had a massive conversation about this with over a dozen people. This is the least bad title that was come up with. I really don't think you'll be able to overturn this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware there was a conversation around this. Unfortunately I couldn't participate then. It's illogical for this to be titled an "accusation" when you cite historical scholars, who determine these instances of genocide. If we do not trust a scholars statement, then how do we determine whether or not something is genocide? It doesn't make any logical sense to state this as an accusation when there is history to back it up, citing similarities to other historic genocides. Why is it an accusation when it lines up with different genocides practically 1:1 in both rhetoric and action? Is it because it's an ongoing genocide?

More than 400 Palestinians were incinerated just a few hours ago from writing this message. How is that not genocide? Raneemh (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We generally only title articles as explicitly "genocides" when there is a broad scholarly consensus to classify them as such. For example the Amhara genocide article was renamed recently because the only sources describing it explicitly as a genocide were Amhara advocacy groups. There is no scholarly consensus that Israel's decades long persecution of Palestinians counts as a genocide. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well the issue that automatically arises with "scholarly consensus" is that:

1. this is an ongoing issue so we've yet to have a multitude of sources yet that have undergone peer review, meaning that we can only define a genocide after it happens rather than during it, which is in itself problematic

2. I'm unclear with how "scholarly consensus" is defined — if needed I can provide different resources of scholars who have claimed independent from journals that genocide is what is happening

3. Does that not mean we value the voices of a select few rather than the victims of said genocide? There may not be a consensus, but already scholars are stating this falls in line with the pattern of past genocides. When coupled together, does that not provide consensus enough? Many Palestinian advocacy groups are headed by scholars themselves — does that mean they are not subject to be listened to brcause they are advocacy groups? Raneemh (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s possible for more than 400 people of any type to be killed (via incineration) and yet not be a genocide. I'm not sure why you are arguing that it automatically counts as genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Raneemh appears to be a Palestinian herself, so I can understand her quite personal anger expressed here, even if I don't agree with her opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

When they are all Palestinian, meaning they all were targeted because they are part of an ethnic group, then it is genocide. What other definitions of genocide do you have? Or are you claiming that they were targeted for some unknown reason? When a single ethnicity occupies a space and you bomb that space without concern for casualties, then you are committing genocide. Unfortunately, it's not a radical conclusion to draw. Raneemh (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a possible argument (and I’m not saying that this definitely happened) that there were Hamas operatives in that area that Israel wanted to eliminate, and that there were civilians killed as collateral damage. In that case this may not have been genocide. As such I find no automatic presumption of genocide just because 400 Palestinians died. starship.paint (RUN) 03:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, you look at something like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which caused mass civilian casualties (over 100,000 deaths). There has been debate about whether or not the bombings were justified, but I don't think many people argue that the US government were trying to commit a genocide of the Japanese people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats why rhetoric is important. Israeli media outwardly calls for the death of Gazans. Within their government systems, even. This obstructs from the fact that various points of genocide align 1:1 in this case. So we have:

1. Media outwardly proclaiming from the state of Israel itself its intention to "wipe gaza from the map."

2. Indiscriminate killings where people are killed. It doesn't matter if it's collateral as you claim. Once the rhetoric is established, intention is established, therefore it must fall within the constraints of genocide.

To ignore the hand media and propoganda plays in determining genocide is a willful simplication of the aspects of genocide. Raneemh (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Killing people because of their ethnicity is not genocide. See genocide definitions. Not every hate crime, war crime, crime against humanity, or ethnic cleansing, is a genocide. Genocide has multiple definitions, most require genocidal intent, and there isn't even a universally-agreed-upon definition of that, and there is no such thing as a "textbook genocide," because they're all different, and genocide studies is full of lively scholarly debate about which mass killings were genocides v. ethnic cleansing v. war crime, etc. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, there are Israeli government officials that explicitly state their intent. I'm not pulling something out of thin air—the people bombing gaza indiscriminately have openly called for erasing Gazans, a group of Raneemh (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians. To state that rhetoric is hard to pinpoint in this situation is again, willful misconstruction of the actual facts. Raneemh (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

According to your own sources they have vowed to wipe out a group Western governments have classified as a terrorist group (Hamas) and said nothing about wiping out Palestinians. People of Palestinian descent are Israeli citizens and serve in the IDF and in senior positions in the Israeli government and legal system. These claims of 'genocide' and 'apartheid' are bizarre. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I never mentioned apartheid? But yes, that was a poor link. Apologies. I meant to link the one in the next comment. Raneemh (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Gazans" is not an ethnic group, though. And the link you linked to is about an Israeli government official vowing to wipe Hamas off the face of the Earth, not Gaza, or Gazans, or Palestinians, speaking of willful misconstruction... Levivich (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I realize now that my link was incorrect. You are right, that was a poor link. I had meant to link this one. Or perhaps this one, which mentions dehumanization, a telling sign of genocide. Raneemh (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As Hemi said above, Wikipedia is not going to call something a "genocide" unless there is broad scholarly consensus to use that label. See WP:NPOV. Your first link is an opinion piece, so not a reliable source (see WP:RSOPINION), and reprinted from Mondoweiss [2], which is yellow at WP:RSP. The second link is about a UN agency warning of Gaza "being dehumanized." Neither are indicators of scholarly consensus, or even scholarly opinion. Even the scholarship cited in this article isn't broad scholarly consensus, it's a "significant viewpoint" in the parlance of WP:NPOV policy. It's not enough that some scholars say it's a genocide, and it doesn't matter at all what opinion writers or UN agencies say, it has to be broad scholarly agreement, essentially uncontroverted by scholarship. It's a very high bar, and intentionally so, to prevent misinformation. We can't state one scholarly viewpoint on a contested issue as if it were an uncontroversial fact, that would be misinformation. It would similarly be misinformation if we didn't cover all significant viewpoints, so Wikipedia does what's being done in this article: it describes the significant viewpoint, while presenting it as one viewpoint that is not the only viewpoint. Levivich (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You know, this is a highly emotional subject that's bringing out a wide range of opinions and perspectives. A lot of the discussion around genocide is speculation (the article you link talks about 'possible genocide' based on comments from one Israeli). There really is no scholarly consensus here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Raneemh: I understand your frustration, given that the Israeli government has clearly expressed genocidal intent and perpetrated systematic killing, as now recognised by many genocide scholars, particularly in relation to the current travesty of a conflict. However, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, and it is still quite early in the day for the groundswell of shifting opinion during the recent conflict, and the human rights and academic literature will obviously take some time to catch up. That, in essence, is what we are waiting for here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Raneemh: - what exactly is the new title you propose? Given that the old title was “Genocide against Palestinians”, if you propose that or “Palestinian genocide”, or frankly any of the article name options already raised in the requested move, the proposal will likely be seen as disruptive due to the very recent consensus established. starship.paint (RUN) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Alright. I'll end the discussion here. Thanks for holding this discussion with me. This is one of my first times disputing a page. I suppose I will come back then with scholarly articles and sources at a later time. Raneemh (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Keep in mind though: There are 1.3 to 1.6 million Palestinian-Israeli citizens with equal legal rights. In the Palestinian territories (Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem) there are over 4 million Palestinians. As of 2021, there are over 7 million Palestinians living outside of Israel and the territories (some estimates are even higher). There were approximately 1.4 million Palestinians before 1948.

  The population data does not support the claim of genocide. In order to make a case for this on Wikipedia, you would need an abundance of scholarly sources stating unequivocally that this is happening or has happened -not opinion pieces, but robust scholarly consensus. And this very unlikely to exist. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  The sources may appear as the war goes on. Personally, I wouldn’t propose a different name change within six months. But that is something editors have to decide for themselves. I’m just a regular editor, not some overlord. starship.paint (RUN) 05:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of sources appearing: Houghtaling, Ellie Quinlan (2023-11-01). "He Went There: Top U.N. Official Resigns Citing "Genocide" in Gaza". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2023-11-01. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  If this is such a clear and obvious case of genocide, then why is he stepping down from his role at the UN? Apparently most of his colleagues don't see it his way. Considering that the IDF has total air superiority, if a genocide were really occurring we would not be talking about a few thousand deaths -it'd be 100s of thousands. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Please keep your opinions to yourself. It is not about pace. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  In light of all your biased, non-neutral edits, you ought to take your own advice. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I heed genocide scholars. Such crazy bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Move on, guys. No need to bicker. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this needs discussion since we just had an RM on this. #Requested move 24 October 2023. Hatting this section may be appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The whole scope of this article is biased in favor of Israel

I find it amazing, the amount of bias pro-Israel propaganda here in this article. It is a insult to the years people have spent trying to make encyclopedias non-biased. Just as I find it amazing that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Jews in America that DO NOT support Israel in any way, shape or form and their voices are constantly ignored by the pro-Israeli corporate news media. What is so hard to understand about the fact that European colonizers have no rights to land in West Asia? Israel is a heavily armed fortress for US/British interests in West Asia. 162.194.141.247 (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)