Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation

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)

Then provide a source that argues against that statement — based on the exact arguments presented by the statement Hovsepig (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the statement -I'm just saying that not all 800 of those scholars are who the article says they are. Let's deal with this nice and calmly. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how them being from all over the world or this happening two weeks ago is relevant at all, but I do agree that "legal scholars" is not a good representation of the people who signed the letter. There's no need to look for another source because the one currently being used specifically says "800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies" which is not the same as 800 legal scholars. - Ïvana (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware that they were described as "practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies", but not all of them are involved in these fields. I randomly selected Abigail Balbale of NYU, number 6 on the list, and it turns out she's a "cultural historian of the Medieval Islamic world"[2][3] -what the heck does she know about genocide and international law? This whole list is padded with people like her. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A history professor who focuses on political power, religious ideology, and Christian-Muslim relations in the medieval Islamic world probably counts as a scholar of conflict studies. Levivich (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what does studying Medieval conflicts have to do with the role of modern laws in regulating 21st Century warfare? The term "genocide" didn't even exist before the 20th Century.

Here's #12 on the list: Ahmad Al-dissi, University of Saskatchewan, a professor of veterinary science[4]. I suppose treating victims of dog fights qualifies him as a conflict studies scholar?

Here's 62, Anna Bigelow, associate professor of religious studies at Stanford, specializing in ritual practice[5]. And it is interesting she advises graduate students but there's a caveat on her page: "Please note – if your interests are philological, legal, or primarily before the modern period, I am not the right advisor for you and I encourage you to seek admittance elsewhere." By her own admission, she's got no relevant qualifications in conflict law.

And 115, Bilal Maanaki, University of Virginia, a specialist in Arabic poetry/literature who is currently working on love poetry[6].

I'm not going to keep doing this but I'd encourage some of you to check some names. These are not "800 legal scholars" nor are they "800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies." Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Al-Dissi is with Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. Bigelow is a professor of Islamic studies who's done work in shared sacred sites (can you think of any of those that might be relevant to this conflict?). Maanaki is a professor of Arabic literature, communication and culture. They're all scholars. The RSes all say this is a letter written by 800 scholars. Yeah, they're not all legal scholars, but they're all scholars. You don't need to be genocide scholar to denounce genocide. You don't even need to be a scholar. Levivich (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So Al-Dissi is an activist as one would expect with a number of these individuals. You know very well it's misleading saying they're all scholars of international law and genocide, and that this was worded deliberately to make it seem like these are 800 people with expertise in the subject they're writing about. But you're right -if reliable sources say a scholar of ancient Egyptian pottery is a "scholar or practitioner of international law" then that's what we say in the article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to just "scholars" in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

But you raise a good point that the value of all the individuals behind the statement is dubious. Is there a published critique of this statement somewhere that we can cite? Hovsepig (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you want a critique of the statement or just a critique of the signatories? The statement looks pretty solid even if you shoot a few of the messengers. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it's even WP:DUE for inclusion, even counting it as breaking news... MSM is not reporting on this AFAICT. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

TWAILR is more like a journal (calls itself one) than breaking news. Sponsored by UK/Canada university law departments. I think it is OK as long as it is attributed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought TWAILR was the author, or publisher, of the letter? They posted it in the "announcements" section of their website (where they post announcements about their own activities), they're hosting the letter, and TWAILR seems to be what other sources link to as "the source" of the letter. Am I mistaken about that? Is TWAILR an independent RS covering it, or is this "WP:ABOUTSELF" in a sense?

Outside of TWAILR, the only other coverage of this letter I can find that is even arguably RS is from Middle East Monitor, which isn't an RS if the Wikipedia article is accurate, this op-ed by one of the signatories (not an RS), and Common Dreams [7], which I think is an RS. Aside from Common Dreams, I'm not finding any other RS.

So that's either 1 RS, or 2 RS (if you count TWAILR as independent)... in the sea of coverage of this conflict, 2 RS might as well be 0 RS, when it comes to WP:DUE, IMO. BBC, AP, CNN, Al Jazeera... none of them even mention this. This letter does not seem to be a significant aspect of Palestinian genocide studies.

We should consider that one reason this isn't being covered by RS is because it's not actually signed by 800 scholars and practitioners of (whatever that means) genocide studies, international law, or conflict studies. I'm speculating there, but, for whatever reason, this doesn't seem to be covered by the media, even though they're very actively covering the issue of whether there's a genocide going on. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

TWAILR is a journal review of TWAIL. Evidently it is the publisher, it is on their site. If we accept that the signatories are experts then their views are OK on that basis with attribution; en masse, I guess. Anyway, en toto, I still think it is OK. here is a ref by Segal (also a signatory) in the Forward and at Institute for Palestine Studies. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, the Forward I think is actually independent RS coverage -- the author/editor thought it was important enough to mention, so I think that "counts." Doesn't really change my ultimate opinion, but 2 independent RS now (Forward and Common Dreams).

Interesting idea that the letter is like 100s of WP:EXPERTSPS statements (they're not all experts about genocide or IP conflict within the meaning of EXPERTSPS, but surely some hundreds of them are). If they all posted this statement on their blogs, it'd be like 100s of EXPERTSPS sources, and that would be WP:DUE, right? Hmm, hadn't considered that before. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This was precisely my point: it's been 2 weeks since this was published and no mention in mainstream media (has this changed?). The New York Times hasn't exactly shied away from the G word but why no mention of this letter? Probably because it's impossible to determine who's a legitimate expert and who isn't: the list is a crazed mix of academics with relevant credentials, academics with credentials in other fields, and students and 'independent scholars' who have little or no digital footprint. The way the names are presented is kind of deceptive too -some of them have credentials/specializations next to their names/universities while others just have a university or institution listed. And it's a real grab bag when you search up the names with unspecified credentials -some of them are legit, others have no background in any of these fields. It's not there aren't (probably) 100s of experts on this list, but that this list is padded with amateurs and activists and there's no way to tell what percentage of these people are who they're claimed to be.

FYI -I had no idea this article existed until I listened to a debate/interview on Youtube where a woman claimed "800 legal scholars have accused Israel of genocide" and then said the US is complicit (around 13:30[8]). I googled this and was taken to this article. Mehdi Hasan with MSNBC also cited "800 legal scholars" in a segment on genocide earlier this evening.[9]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say about this. TWAIL is described as:

"Third World approaches to international law is a critical school of international legal scholarship and an intellectual and political movement. It is a "broad dialectic opposition to international law", which perceives international law as facilitating the continuing exploitation of the Third World through subordination to the West." Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for us to deal with a primary source that has been analysed by a secondary RS. In this article, written by Raz Segal and published in The Guardian, they are described as more than 800 scholars of international law, conflict studies, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The article also mentions that it's been signed by scholars whose work has shaped the field of Holocaust and genocide studies, such as Omer Bartov and Marion Kaplan. M.Bitton (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's opinion, not RS. Levivich (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not just an opinion, it's an opinion of a scholar and is therefore RS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a signatory of the letter talking about the letter. It's not independent RS, it's not secondary RS. Raz Segal's oped is the same as Raz Segal signing the letter itself. There is still the argument that the letter itself is EXPERTSPS, but the letter is not covered by mainstream media outside of op-eds written by its signatories -- with the three exceptions I know of: Common Dreams, Forward and MSNBC (all linked here). Although it may receive more coverage in the coming days. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That adds to the relevance of the letter. I can also see that he's also been interviewed by the NJ Spotlight News (the secondary source also mentions the 800 scholars).

In any case, it would be good to know what this discussion is about: the relevance of the letter, its reliability or its media coverage? M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Two of these points are at issue: reliability (are these 800 objective experts offering a professional opinion or 800 activists throwing their academic credentials around to influence public sentiment?); media coverage (there's a paucity of MSM coverage and this is not insignificant). As far as relevance goes, I suppose it's relevant insofar as it discusses "genocide", but then again it talks of the "possibility" of genocide but stops short of making an accusation. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Made Huffpost now, although if this counts as politics, it's a nocon RS. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

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

Agree with Ymblanter. There's only one point of view detailed presented. The counter arguments are just like "some disgree and call it racist". C'mon!. This is a very fringe narrative and must be presented as so. One of the biggest counter arguments I've been hearing is that the Arab population never stopped growing (both in Israel and controlled territories). Apparently it is growing faster than the Jewish population. What kind of genocide is this??? In Israel you can see many Islamic cultural spots preserved and secured (like the golden mosque). These type of things should be mentioned and have equal detailment. Yes it is up to us to fix that, but until we find the time, the placement of the tag is warranted. –Daveout(talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea that because a population of growing there can be no genocide is only an argument in circulation among the clueless on social media. It reflects more on the lack of understanding of the concept of genocide among its proponents than anything else. You will see a genocide scholar stating this. Ever. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The first thing people think when they hear "genocide" is an orchestrated "great population elimination". People normally don't equate bad living conditions to genocide. The theory that "I'm oppressed thus my ppl is being genocided" is very VERY new and fringe. I'd like to see the population growth mentioned (even if followed by an ideological "rebuttal".) I bet this "population growth doesn't mean no genocide" theory must be mentioned and "rebutted" in the sources of this very article already (or somewhere else). Just give us a couple of days. –Daveout(talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias don't pander to ignorance, however widespread. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a common persistent misunderstanding about self-determination that was famously invoked by Barack Obama when he said the Palestinians have a right to be a people in their own state. Self-determination doesn't mean the right of a political minority (often an ethnic group) to a state of their own. Self determination is simply the right of political minorities to have the same political rights as the political majority, if they are to have the same obligations. This is significant in the study of justifications of political violence like terrorism - and, historically, denial of self-determination has overlapped with cases of ethnic cleansing that have progressed to genocide. Ben Azura (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You should look further into the actual definition of genocide.

The term genocide was coined in 1944 by a Jewish Polish legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin, who explained that for him “the term does not necessarily signify mass killings”.

"More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong."

So, you see it's definitively not about population numbers. Please don't speak authoritatively in such a high-stakes conversation without doing the appropriate research. 2603:8000:DB00:1182:7193:5D3F:2D4D:E619 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Read the literature sometime, population growth has nothing to do with genocide just "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.", note that it says "in part" so a little bit of OR yields the conclusion that the current killings in Gaza would qualify under that definition. It's no use Israel saying they have no "intent" either, casualties of war/collateral damage doublespeak won't wash. If anything this article understates the case against Israel so I don't really care about the tag, I will appropriate that for my position. Raz Segal nailed it "Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open and unashamed,..Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly." Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The first thing people think when they hear "genocide" is an orchestrated "great population elimination". People normally don't equate bad living conditions to genocide. The theory that "I'm oppressed thus my ppl is being genocided" is very VERY new and fringe. I'd like to see the population growth mentioned (even if followed by an ideological "rebuttal".) I bet this "population growth doesn't mean no genocide" theory must be mentioned and "rebutted" in the sources of this very article already (or somewhere else). Just give us a couple of days. –Daveout(talk) 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy to wait for the sources to go with that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Just the intent to destroy part of a culture is genocide." C'monnnnnnn.

• From Britannica: "Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
• Merriam Webster: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

This "intent" and "partially" are stretches. Potentially OR. –Daveout(talk) 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Tertiaries? No OR from me What is Genocide? definition right there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Or Genocide here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"bad living conditions" - well acquainted with drinking sea water, eh? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

are you ok?

The term genocide was coined in 1944 by a Jewish Polish legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin, who explained that for him “the term does not necessarily signify mass killings”.

"More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong." 2603:8000:DB00:1182:7193:5D3F:2D4D:E619 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Daveout: - that's a lot of words and arguments without any sources beyond... dictionaries? This is your chance to show what reliable sources are missing from the article, instead of simply claiming the lack of a POV with no actual evidence. starship.paint (RUN) 15:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed dictionaries and encyclopedias mean nothing when your goal is to change a well stablished concept and give it a new, fringe and bizarre meaning (Tailored to fit a political agenda). It's not just dictionaries. Just look at every article or history book, genocide is the extermination of a significant part of a people. And not "living in bad conditions" or "feeling distressed". (lucky you I dont have the time to compile the sources right now, but this is a "the sky is blue" case.) But you activists aren't fooling anyone. Everybody knows what genocide is and what it isnt. –Daveout(talk) 15:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Read this Israeli families have filed a genocide claim against Hamas at the ICC for the death of 9 people. Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

So....??? another good example of what genocide is not. (did you really think I'd back them bc they're Israelis?) I think their complaint is retarded unwise and inappropriate. –Daveout(talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But I do think they have a good case of "war crimes" tho. Just like the Palestinians do as well. Israeli incursions are often reckless and the number of civilian deaths is unacceptable. They could do better to lower civilian casualties. –Daveout(talk) 16:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

More opinions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. –Daveout(talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Everybody knows what genocide is and what it isnt the popular usage is mass killing based on ethnicity - ie trying to destroy an entire ethnic grou by killing everyone in it. The legal and scholarly (and Lemkin's own) definitions are not the same and don't necessarily involve large numbers - or any - deaths. The Uyghur genocide is not known to have killed anyone, whereas the Cambodian genocide killed several millions, but not because of their ethnicity. Some of these examples are/have been controversial, but they are very mainstream legally and in academia.

The 'legal' definition dates back to 1948 and includes acts such as making the life of a group unviable, and emphasises intent rather than deeds. However to date no one anywhere has been prosecuted for anything other than mass-killing.

Srebrenica didn't involve killing women and children or the very elderly and was confined to one place, but courts ruled that the intent was to destroy the future viability of the group by killing the able-bodied men, and therefore it was genocide. Pincrete (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im sorry but it is your responsibility to demonstrate a POV issue with sources when claiming one exists with a tag on an article. You cant just say this doesnt feel like NPOV to me, we dont base our articles on our feelings. You do have to bring sources to show that there are issues with the weight as shown or there is some significant POV being neglected. You dont necessarily have to edit the article to incorporate those views, but you do have to establish the basis for the tag, and that is only done with reliable sources. nableezy - 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I did establish the basis of the tag, if you do not like it, I can not help. Hopefully other users will join the discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The operative part of my comment was with sources. You can tell because I bolded it. nableezy - 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

• Rashed, Haifa; Short, Damien; Docker, John (2014). "Nakba Memoricide: Genocide Studies and the Zionist/Israeli Genocide of Palestine". Holy Land Studies. 13 (1): 1–23. doi:10.3366/hls.2014.0076. ISSN 1474-9475. (already cited in the article)
  • Rashed, Short & Docker 2014, p. 13, "The University of Oxford’s first professor of Israel Studies Derek Penslar recently stated that pro-Israelis needed to catch up with the past 30 years of academic scholarship that has accepted the ‘vast bulk of findings’ by the New Historians regarding the Nakba. He said: ‘what happened to the Palestinians, the Nakba, was not a genocide. It was horrible, but it was not a genocide. Genocide means that you wipe out a people. It wasn’t a genocide. It was ethnic cleansing’ (Kalmus 2013)."
  • id, p. 18 "The fact that these Palestinians are Israeli citizens means that we could view these policies from a minority rights perspective, as the acts of a selectively ‘repressive’ government. This does not preclude individual victims experiencing this as genocidal. Indeed, if we take the view that the Nakba – including the ‘transfer’, denial, elimination and discrimination against Palestinians – is still taking place as part of a process of settler colonialism, the relevance to Genocide Studies cannot be ignored. ... Yet it is apparent to Palestinians in different contexts experiencing discriminatory policies intended to drive them away from their land that the ‘Nakba’ of 1948 did not end in that era and is an ongoing process. Thus in this essay we have re-emphasised the possibility of viewing the Zionist project as a structural settler-colonial genocide against the Palestinian people, one that started with early Zionist colonisation and that continues until the present day."
• Lentin, Ronit (2013). Co-memory and melancholia: Israelis memorialising the Palestinian Nakba. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-84779-768-1. (not currenty cited in the article)
  • Lentin 2013, ch. 2 "While neither ‘categorial murder’ nor genocide, the Nakba has been described variously as ‘ethnic cleansing’ (Pappe 2006) or ‘spaciocide’ (Hanafi 2005), perpetrated by people categorising themselves as ‘Jews’, ‘Zionists’ or ‘Israeli Jews’, against people categorised as ‘Palestinians’, ‘Arabs’, and later ‘Israeli Arabs’."
• More sources not currently in the article
  • Lustick, Ian S. (2006). "Negotiating Truth: The Holocaust, "Lehavdil", and "Al-Nakba"". Journal of International Affairs. 60 (1): 51–77. ISSN 0022-197X.
  • Fierke, K.M. (2014). "Who is my neighbour? Memories of the Holocaust/ al Nakba and a global ethic of care". European Journal of International Relations. 20 (3): 787–809. doi:10.1177/1354066113497490. ISSN 1354-0661.
  • Auron, Yair (2017). The Holocaust, Rebirth, and the Nakba: Memory and Contemporary Israeli–Arab Relations. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-5949-2.
  • Bashir, Bashir; Goldberg, Amos, eds. (2018). The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54448-1.
  • Wermenbol, Grace (2021). A Tale of Two Narratives: The Holocaust, the Nakba, and the Israeli-Palestinian Battle of Memories. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-84028-6. (TWL)

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

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

• Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

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

  71.105.144.74 (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  from the man who coined the term, genocide ned not be the immediate destruction of a nation.

  "The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

  In my opinion, clearly this is lost on many. Perhaps include Lemkin's explanation of word he coined for use at nuremberg for context.

  In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

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

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

  ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • (a) Killing members of the group;
  • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

  71.105.144.74 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

The tag should remain because if anything the article understates the case, although I agree that ftb, we should not imply that it is an actual thing, but the title couches it as accusation, so.. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus and Selfstudier: - you are both invited to present here reliable sources in furtherance of your view so that we may expand the article. @Levivich: - I've added content from the first source you provided Rashed, Short, and Docker. I've read through Fierke but I don't think it's appropriate, it's not explicit enough on whether there is a Palestinian genocide, instead discussing a Nazi genocide. As for the book sources - are you using Wikipedia Library or something to access them, Levivich? starship.paint (RUN) 10:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, for example: "In recent years US Islamist groups and leaders have increasingly sought common cause with progressive left-wing groups that promote minority rights and intersectionality among racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in their efforts to build coalitions around common interests. In doing so, the Islamist groups and the progressive left-wing organizations have formed a red-green alliance, a coalition that crosses ideological lines between the far left (red) and the Islamists (green). Such coalitions are built both by forming a narrative of victimhood of U.S. Muslims, and by utilizing the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, portraying it as an anti-colonial struggle. This has already brought about the formation of a new type of hybrid group which brings together under one roof activists of various fringe backgrounds".[10] Outside the jihadist-progressive alliance, the view that this was a “genocide” is not widespread. See, for example, the entry for “genocide” in Britannica [11] or other mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias (I looked, from those available to me, The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion (1998) and Genocide. World history (2016) by Norman M. Naimark. There is no “Nakba”, no “Gaza Concentration Camp” or the like. The topic must be described in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. You've taken a not particularly mainstream think tank source spouting some opinion and then come up with your own term "jihadist-progressive alliance" that even that source doesn't mention. Now that's just WP:OR and self-sourced fringe. Not sure where to begin, but first things first: Islamist ≠ jihadist. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely, definitely not WP:FRINGE.

• Note the title of this book: Hasian Jr., Marouf (2020). Debates on Colonial Genocide in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-030-21278-0. It has four chapters, Chapter 3 is about Palestine. Here's a quote from page 78:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Masalha, Nur (9 August 2012). The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84813-973-2., page 10, The work also, crucially, argues that the Palestine Nakba is an example of both ‘politicide’ and ‘cultural genocide’ (see below)., p. 11 Moreover, the term ‘cultural genocide’ is particularly relevant to illuminating the history of the Palestinian Nakba., and on it goes for almost 300 pages.
• And of course there's Ilan Pappe, the guy who, 17 years ago, famously wrote The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and in that book, page 4, he called out Wikipedia for not calling it "ethnic cleansing" in wiki voice, that guy was already calling it "genocide" 13 years ago (which is already cited in this Wikipedia article).

It's not WP:FRINGE because lots of scholars are talking about it. BTW, this isn't some comprehensive review, this is just me searching the PDFs I happen to have for "genocide." There is so much more about this topic out there. It's not FRINGE. It's not the mainstream view, but it's not fringe. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a very useful review. Now I see that there was indeed an academic debate, but for someone who has not followed it, these views (against the backdrop of real examples of genocide, such as what is happening right now in Darfur) seem completely fringe. Nicoljaus (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The title says accusations? Whether this is adjudicated as a genocide at some point remains to be seen, meanwhile we report what relevant rs are saying about it, quite a lot as it turns out, and more with each passing day. So no, not fringe at all. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And one more moment. Are there meaningful accusations of genocide beyond the decolonization narrative? It might be worth using Montefiore's article [12] more widely. Nicoljaus (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: - I don't find the INSS source or encyclopedia sources as persuasive. (1) INSS source only mentions genocide once, and it says Qaradawi, asserted that Hitler’s genocide of the Jews was “divine punishment.” The quote you provided just says there is an alliance among progressives and Muslims, some of whom have fringe backgrounds, but does not say that what is being espoused is fringe, or that the idea of genocide is fringe. (2) For the encyclopedias, you assume that if the alleged Palestinian genocide is not listed, it must not exist, but we cannot assume that the encyclopedias have completely listed every genocide that has occurred. It would be stronger if the encyclopedias outright stated that there was no Palestinian genocide, but I don't think you found that? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. starship.paint (RUN) 14:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

1) INSS says that “Such coalitions are built both by forming a narrative of victimhood of U.S. Muslims, and by utilizing the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, portraying it as an anti-colonial struggle.” Accusations of “Palestinian genocide”, as can be seen from the Levivich's review above, are part of the narrative of Israel as a “colonial state” (“settler colonialism”, “colonial genocide” and so on). This is well written in Montefiore's article: The decolonization narrative has dehumanized Israelis to the extent that otherwise rational people excuse, deny, or support barbarity. […] In a further racist twist, Jews are now accused of the very crimes they themselves have suffered. Hence the constant claim of a “genocide” when no genocide has taken place or been intended[13].

2) These views are propagated for obvious political purposes. At the academic level, the concept of “Palestinian genocide” met resistance (see examples above, in Levivich's review) and looking at the “ordinary” encyclopedias on genocides, this concept not receive enough recognition to be mentioned. That is, the “red-green alliance” can make a lot of noise, write articles and publish books that will talk about the “genocide of the Palestinians.” But they cannot force all the scientists and book publishers who have written on the topic of genocide. Therefore, in encyclopedias about genocides we do not see the “Nakba”, “Gaza Concentration Camp”, etc. As for the requirement for an “outright state that there was no Palestinian genocide,” I have not seen such a statement about any claimed genocide, this is a very unusual requirement.

3) This is just my opinion. Levivich's review showed that I am not aware of most of the discussions on this topic, but I thought I was familiar with the mainstream views. My opinion, as I said, is that the article is trying to make these accusations seem more mainstream as they are. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling bullshit on settler colonialism sociologizing of genocide like toponyms. No politician should be in jail bevause they didn't give a platform to an enemy's national narrative or because they changed the name of a town. Any official making a policy of targeting children to annihilate the enemy should be in prison. It's not a thought crime

Not surprised this is coming from the nay camp. I dont see Israel as a settler colonial state. I see it as a conflict between two peoples who have been unable to form one nation. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of what I can get into right now. Especially afterthe events on October 7th, one of the most traumatic events for a nation to carry in its own history that is unspeakable it should be obvious to everyone that these two nations are not able to live together. So, on both sides, people like Montefiore are looking for excuses why their violence is justified and they believe that the legitimacy of the national groups claim to the land is determinative. But it is not for genocide - in a worst case situation like this reaching accomodation should be the goal, not justifying annihilation. Ben Azura (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

Craig Mokhiber

Current section reads:

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

From the source:

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

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

It did mention just the relevant part, and then an editor added the irrelevant, off-topic part here Iskandar323 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Yes I am aware but I didn't want to single out a specific person or revert without mentioning it here before. Now that I'm looking through the article history that is the only contribution that this editor made both in the article and its talk page. But still it doesn't hurt to see if anyone opposes to removing/tweaking that section. - Ïvana (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is always good to make a context to a statement. If someone says this is a genocide and then adds that Israel should not exist (i.e. calls for a genocide of Israelis), this is an important detail, isn't it? Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Though I agree the current wording is not good. Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land does not mean that "Israel should not exist". The source says "effectively" and then

"We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” he wrote, adding: “and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land." Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Effective end to the state of Israel" means, well, end to the state of Israel. I am fine with the current version though. Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, editors with different POV will want to quot different parts of Craig's statement. Therefore I prefer to follow the secondary source cited.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

However, this version is satisfactory.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"If someone says this is a genocide and then adds that Israel should not exist (i.e. calls for a genocide of Israelis)" what..? how are those two statements remotely connected? This is exactly what the article cited tries to imply. Craig explicity says "We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews". I think the current section is a good representation of his letter so, nothing more to add. - Ïvana (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Many people (and the cited secondary source too) understands that he is calls "for the effective end of Israel". And he didn’t even condemn Hamas for the October 7 attack (why was this point removed again)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why was it removed? Because it isnt relevant? And why is he supposed to condemn Hamas? Is he a spokesman for the group? Have some association with them? nableezy - 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because this issue is covered in a secondary source. And this is important to understand Craig's real position on genocide. Nicoljaus (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The position is covered in an article on Mokhiber's letter, not in an article on Palestinian genocide. If our article were about Mokhiber's letter then yes we should include the Guardian's view on what a one-state solution means (and that has nothing to do with genocide, so I fail to understand what this is important to understand Craig's real position on genocide even means). nableezy - 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. A pointless waste of time. Nicoljaus (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I think this person's opinion in the article is unnecessary: “as expressed on social media and in televised interviews clearly show an extreme anti-Israel bias and there is therefore a clear failure to comply with the international civil service rules on independence and impartiality and the guidelines for UN staff on social media”[14]--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And that opinion comes from an Israel lobby that will obviously denounce anyone supporting Palestine, and conflate antizionism with antisemitism. You could find similar opinions from these kind of groups towards anyone expressing similar views as Craig. Are we supposed to only include opinions that haven't been critiziced by them? - Ïvana (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

“I can confirm that he is retiring today. He informed the UN in March 2023 of his upcoming retirement, which takes effect tomorrow. The views in his letter made public today are his personal views.” - do his personal views satisfy WP:WEIGHT? --Nicoljaus (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

When they come from an expert in the field and are widely covered by reliable sources, yes. You can dislike that his letter was covered in the Guardian, al-Jazeera, the Independent, the New Republic, the Daily Beast, Democracy Now, al Arabiya, Daily Telegraph (AU), and I can keep going if necessary. Weight is determined by how much weight sources give a viewpoint, and they have given substantial weight to Mokhiber's. nableezy - 15:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

And all of this is mentioned by reliable sources: [15]. Now in the article he is presented as an ordinary, full-fledged "director in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights". This is a clear misrepresentation of the situation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Was he or was he not a director in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? Even if he was about to retire he was still in office when he made those statments. "long-standing problems with his anti-Israel bias" based on one complaint coming from an Israel lobby. A human rights official criticised for denouncing human rights violations. Ridiculous. And you're still insisting that because he didn't specifically mention October 7 in his letter then he cannot talk about genocide, like that invalidates his position about the well documented abuse of Palestinians by Israel since 1948. Pretty disingenuous how anyone criticising Israel is expected to condemn Hamas in the same breath but you won't see people demanding the other side to do the same towards the atrocities commited by the IDF or the genocidal rethoric coming from Israeli officials. Anyways, it's not our job to draw conclusions about his statement or inject our personal views in this article; this is not an opinion piece. All we have to do is accurately report what was said. - Ïvana (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The social media comments complained about were that: "After the death of the Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was almost certainly fatally shot by an Israeli sniper, Mokhiber posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Israel was “whitewashing the cold blooded murder of its own citizen”. He went on in that tweet to say "“No accountability. Just an official cover-up. A pattern of supporting #impunity that goes back 75 years and includes covering up war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, apartheid & state terrorism.”

That tweet could of course be added to his recent comments - along with the complaint from "an organisation called UK Lawyers for Israel" that his posts did not "comply with the international civil service rules on independence and impartiality and the guidelines for UN staff on social media”. - which they are probably right about, but that hardly invalidates his comments IMO, nor does it indicate that the person has long-standing problems with his anti-Israel bias, or at least, not sufficient to negate his assessment. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Does this mean there is nothing to add to the description "director in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights"? Well, let everything take its course.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that what he was? We can add human rights lawyer too. Just in case someone wants to remove that section again, let me mention this here: the (now former) director of the NY office of the UN human rights agency is not an obscure figure, and his statement has been covered by more than a dozen RS (The Guardian, CNN, Reuters, The Washington Post, New York Daily News, The Independent, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, The Indian Express, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, Yahoo News, Rappler, The Jewish Chronicle, etc). - Ïvana (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

'his statement has been covered by more than a dozen RS' - The sources add a lot of detail (see above). They are all thrown out to make the statement more meaningful than it actually is.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we can mention that his letter did not mention the Oct 7 attacks. The bit on "his letter calls for the effective end to the state of Israel" doesnt belong in my view, that is an incredibly disputed view of “We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” he wrote, adding: “and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land. That is saying that anybody that calls for a one state solution is calling for the "end to the state of Israel". And his letter did not do that. nableezy - 16:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how either the 'no denunciation of Oct 7th' nor his favoured solution have any bearing on the genocide allegations - especially if the 'end of Israel' is robbed of the obvious fact that he was calling for 'a one-state solution' , not the elimination of Israelis. Do all sources even mention the 'no denunciation' ?

However I have no objection to a brief mention of the complaint of anti-Israeli bias made resulting from his prior social media post. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone who wants this content included needs to just go through those sources, figure out what details most of them include, and include those details in this article, with cites to the sources. If most of the sources mention "he didn't denounce," then we mention it. If most of the sources mentioned his opinion on X, then we mention it. Until someone does the work of going through the sources and determining what's WP:DUE, this won't be resolved. Once that work is done and and the DUEness of details have been demonstrated, it's time for everyone else to stop objecting to the inclusion of what has received significant coverage in reliable sources. (I haven't gone through the sources myself, so I don't know what's DUE and what's not.) Levivich (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing section

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

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

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

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

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

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

The distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" is nowhere close to cut-and-dry. Considering the topic of this article, it makes sense for this to be here. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Relationality considered, it is a wholly separate crime. And as the page is currently formatted, it is placing “population transfer” in the same category as accusations of actual acts of genocide.

Either create a new section about continuum related matters or observations, or remove it. Very simply - ethnic cleansing - while a precursor or connected element of a genocide - is not genocidal on its own. Mistamystery (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"while a precursor or connected element of a genocide" - which means they are related. But what actually matters here is that the sources discuss ethnic cleansing as part of the topic of accusations of genocide by Israel of Palestinians. And, as a result, so does this article. nableezy - 19:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If it’s in sources, then mention it in the paragraph. Right now the paragraph (outside of one free floating sentence) doesn’t mention genocide at all, or its connection to ethnic cleansing.

Recommend getting to work on connecting the two, or pending a clearly outlined direct connection in the paragraph, it should go. Mistamystery (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And a correction/clarification on what I said above: “ethnic cleansing - while may be a precursor or connected element of a genocide in certain circumstances, it obviously not always a universal precursor to genocide.

If the assertions of claims of ethnic cleansing here are connected to accusations of genocide, they need to be made abundantly clear, or else general unconnected items pertaining to just ethnic cleansing on its own are not meant for this article.

Mistamystery (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is a completely separate matter than Genocide. Only when the harshest definition of genocide (attempt to kill an entire ethnic group) and the mildest definition of Ethnic cleansing (eviction of an ethnic group from an area) are employed. In practice scholars and lawyer not infrequently disagree about a particular instance. There is serious dispute as to whether Srebrenica was genocide or ethnic cleansing, judges ruled the former whilst some - more literal -scholars the latter. In practice it's sometimes hard to pin down where the difference lies, but has to do with issues like intent as much as with severity or kind of mistreatment. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

to do with issues like intent +1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

See Atrocity crime#Ethnic cleansing Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if it starts as ethnic cleansing they can't find anywhere to resettle the full population. This is why some people blame the mufti for the "Final Solution". The frustrations and group feelings underlying support for ethnic cleansing progress to genocide when they can't do the ethnic cleansing. Ben Azura (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Defining sentences in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

What does this sentence have to do with the article?

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

It's the tail-end of a quote by a head of state about genocide, and a line that clearly reflects on the irony that the head of state feels is inherent in democracies supporting genocide. Hence the relevance. Context. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Put more bluntly, it's a thinly-veiled 'dig' at the hypocrisy of the US (and I imagine European allies of Israel) for endorsing long-term denial of rights to Palestinians. I'm neutral about whether it should be included - it says nothing about the genocide question, but implies complicity by allies. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also on the fence about inclusion, but I don't see it as glaringly undue per the reasons above. WP:BOLDly removing the tag; feel free to add this if premature. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed removal of expulsion numbers from infobox

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

Agree. There seems to be some widespread confusion on a number of pages as to the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide.

A proposed ethnic cleansing number absolutely has no place on this page, no less in an info box. Genocide = fatalities.

Mistamystery (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some widespread confusion on a number of pages as to the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide., except in popular usage genocide does not equate to fatalities. It equates to intent to destroy a people as opposed to necessarily "destroying people". I thought this was debunked many times above and that editors here would have checked their facts by now. That looser notion dates back to Lemkin's 1944 book and the 1948 legal definition and is not some crazy new-fangled idea.

Whether the expulsion figures should be there is another matter, but can we be clear about what genocide is and isn't (necessarily). Pincrete (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the article is about accusations relating to a whole series of events, many involving some degree or other of temporary or permanent displacements I think on balance a single 'expulsion' figure would inevitably be problematic and probably WP:SYNTHy. Figures can be more accurate, specific and contextualised in individual text sections where apt. Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti-zionism amongst ultra-orthodox Jewish people

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

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

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

Unless the ultra-orthodox have something specific to say about the Palestinian genocide accusation, I can't see why they should be mentioned in the article at all.

I agree to the extent that we have no idea why the individual UK Jewish gentleman was demonstrating in solidarity with Palestinians. Perhaps he is anti-Zionist for religious or other reasons, perhaps he thinks that the Oslo accords haven't been fully and fairly implemented, perhaps he just thinks that the treatment of Palestinians has been shameful. I know that last position to be not uncommon among UK Jews, but we have no way of knowing what motivated this individual.

As long as our caption is fair to the individual Jewish man, I don't see a problem with the photo's use. It does certainly imply that not all Jews agree with Israel's policies or practices, but that is hardly a surprise and is anyway clear from the text.Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, then how is this picture related to the subject of the article? The act of engaging in pro-Palestine protests does not support any claims of genocide, nor does it oppose them. Jacobjr23 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the picture; Jacobjr has a point in that its relevance is unclear. BilledMammal (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

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

Victim count in infobox

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

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

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

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

American involvement section

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

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

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

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

Removal of Sabra & Shatila section

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

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

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

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

restoring, disagreeing with the sources, and the Kahan Commission for that matter, isnt a reason to remove them. nableezy - 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also restored Mokhiber, who himself is a reliable source for an attributed view as an expert in the field and whose statement has been covered by other reliable sources around the world. nableezy - 14:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Events during the Lebanese Civil War

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

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

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

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

Sabra and Shatila - only one of the points, it is incorrect to transfer general conclusions only to this event. If you think that the commission is unimportant, well, let's remove its mention, agree? The events in Sabra and Shatila are part of the Lebanese Civil War, what's wrong? Meanwhile, many people think (70% do not read the article beyond the lead) that this is a massacre somewhere in Palestine carried out by Jews themselves.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Further, We know that no Israeli "wielded the knife" - So what's stopping us from saying it clearly? And point out that the misconduct of the Israeli officials was condemned despite the opposition of the government itself and the Israeli far-right radicals? Information about the march and the killing is important because it greatly influenced the government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Kahan Commission, and it is mentioned everywhere in RS.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor matters first, "We know that no Israeli "wielded the knife"" - So what's stopping us from saying it clearly?. We do already - the section's opening para (which I added myself) says ; The killings were carried out by the Lebanese Forces, one of the main Christian militias in Lebanon at the time.. It says this immediately after when, where and how many of which people were killed. The next para says what Israel was accused of as clearly and neutrally as possible. I deliberately ommitted any mention of the militia's motives mainly because their wish for revenge is fairly irrelevant to what Israel is accused of - ie enabling that revenge.

This article isn't about the massacres per se, nor 'everything bad that happened' in the Lebanon war, not any commission(s). The article is about the accusation of genocide and the section is about such accusations relating to the massacres.

I've never said - or thought - that either the McBride Commission or the Kahan commission are irrelevant or unimportant. I said the title of the McBride Commission was irrelevant, since in THIS article about genocide accusations, we deal only with the massacres, and even were we to deal with other 'Lebanon' charges, the focus of our text is accusations relating to the massacres.

Similarly I think that the Kahan commission text should be confined to their principal findings. Broadly that Israel wasn't directly responsible, but - very senior - named individuals were indirectly responsible for a number of failings relating to failing to foresee what would happen in an area under their control and failing to do anything as the massacre unfolded, despite knowing what was happening. Incidentally, I think referring to Begin and Sharon and other very senior figures as 'officials' is again euphemistic. But I'm happy for other editors to agree or disagree about the Kahan paragraph.

I fail to see how even the most careless reader could possibly conclude that because of a single neutral mention of the massacre in the lead this is a massacre somewhere in Palestine carried out by Jews themselves. Changing it to 'events during the Lebanese Civil War' is evasive and euphemistic IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

We do already - This is three paragraphs above, but, well, I understand your position. How about disbanding the second para ("Between the evening of 16 September..." and so on)?

I deliberately ommitted any mention of the militia's motives - The point is that the motives of the Lebanese militias were obvious, Sharon and other officers should have taken this into account.

THIS article about genocide accusations, we deal only with the massacres - But the MacBride commission didn't deal only with massacres, I'm telling you. They assessed all Israeli actions during the invasion of Lebanon.

Incidentally, I think referring to Begin and Sharon and other very senior figures as 'officials' is again euphemistic - well, English is not my first language. I meant persons holding high official positions in the country and the army and I would greatly appreciate it if you could find a more appropriate term.

I fail to see how even the most careless reader - But that's exactly what happens. “Genocide” + “Palestinians” + “Israel” + “Massacre” - and the impression is created. We are not talking in the article about Black September, for example. Israel does everything bad, it directs thoughts in a certain direction.

The article is about the accusation of genocide and the section is about such accusations relating to the massacres - Do you want to keep silent about the fact that Israel seriously investigated the event, despite resistance within the country? Do you want to leave only the blaming narrative? I think this is a serious violation of neutrality.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

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

Doesn't mention genocide and WP is anyway not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"The final solution" was most definitely a genocide. FF toho (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: See BBC, The Guardian, and The Jewish Chronicle just to mention a few RS. - Ïvana (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

First one is good, maybe can use that, of the other two one is opinion and the other is a dreadful source. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Genocide scholars who say it is/is not genocide

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

Geoffrey Robertson said "genocide is not normally the term used in the current situation, since it does not apply to political groups, but to racial groups" which seems to be a technical point, namely that Hamas is the target rather than Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What an odd position: that would seem to suggest that he is broadly ignoring who is actually being killed and the large number of very much indiscriminate statements of genocidal intent that have been made. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Genocide law - and even more so its implementation - is odd and seemingly inconsistent. Sometimes you don't have to even try to kill anyone, sometimes you can kill people for reasons other than ethnicity and still be found guilty of genocide, sometimes you can only target the men and adolescent boys from one locality and bus the women and children away, but again be found guilty of genocide.

Some of this relates to the concept of 'intent', you can kill 100s of thousands, with wanton, careless, or incompetent targeting, if they are - in that grotesque euphemism - 'collateral damage' rather than your 'prime targets'. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to be found guilty of genocide against Palestinians. The legal proceedings of other genocides have done a lot of fact finding which has been of more value than their so-called jurisprudence. Every country is different so it's not just genocide law but many genocide laws in the national laws. The value of trying to compare them is a flaw of approaching this as something other than a legal determination. But...some cases are more clear than others.

When you get into things like having command orders to kill and keep killing (like Himmler's very important speech in Poland) it can't be "collateral damage" anymore. Ben Azura (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Aren't both of those scholars "no" for genocide but "yes" for ethnic cleansing? Ben Azura (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In terms of experts against the view, Geoffrey Nice (barrister, judge and former war crimes prosecutor) takes this position but not because he doesn't think it's happening (it is unclear), but on the grounds of the technical-legal definition of the term. In this Al Jazeera report[16] he cites the definition of genocide but emphasizes that it's a premeditated act that involves the mental state of those implicated in it. Since it's usually incredibly difficult to prove someone's mental process, he argues that it's unhelpful to think of this situation in terms of genocide. He goes on to remind us that war crimes and crimes against humanity can be just as serious and do not involve lawyers and judges having to prove a technical definition of genocide. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There aren't any lawyers or judges involved. No one is going to jail. There is nothing going on here other than "Shame on you" shaming. I've read a lot of studies recently about how much that has been studied and proven that it probably increases atrocities. International courts can't even abide by their own decisions. There are people who should be going to prison. Not least of all the people who recruit child soldiers. But nothing is going to happen except more Shame rhetoric. Fanning the flames of conflict and ethnic hate is not law.

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

By the way, Omer Bartov has recently commented that the situation could become genocide: his op-ed today in the NYT. He's still taking a cautious approach, not saying that the situation is there yet, but he's definitely sounding the alarm, to the extent it may be relevant to this article. WillowCity^(talk) 23:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

He signed on to another open letter signed by hundreds of Jewish writers stating "we are horrified to see the fight against antisemitism weaponized as a pretext for war crimes with stated genocidal intent." Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting, and more or less aligns with his comments in NYT. But if he acknowledges that acts have been carried out, with specific intent, I'm not really sure why he hasn't taken that to its logical conclusion? If actus reus and mens rea are present, the elements are of genocide are established as a matter of law. WillowCity^(talk) 23:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

He did not say 'specific intent' -he is speculating and uses vague language, like most of these accusations thus far. He writes: "Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly," and then cites an exception to the rule. I linked to an interview of war crimes prosecutor Geoffrey Nice who argues that the absence of clear intent is a major flaw in proving genocide. Bartov also mentions the use of phosphorous bombs as a genocidal act, but the law that regulates the use of this weapon is nuanced and does not impose a blanket ban: "As per international laws, the use of white phosphorus shells is prohibited in heavily populated civilian areas. However, the laws allow its usage in open spaces to be used as cover for troops. White phosphorus weapons are not banned, but their use in civilian areas is considered a war crime."[17][18] There's simply nothing of any substance here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"human animals"

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

Already in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Template discussion

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

Have legal definitions of genocide or ethnic cleansing been met?

Definitions of genocide, ethnic cleansing etc 218.215.40.14 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor rename to plural "accusations"

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

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

"Accusations of genocide against Palestinians" would sound more precise and correct. Current one "Palestinian genocide accusation" sounds vogue, like Palestinians made accusations of genocide. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The principle here is WP:SINGULAR, which is best encyclopedic practice unless there are overwhelming reasons not to use the singular. If you take, as a parallel form, articles ending in "denial", no doubt they cover numerous instances of individual denial, but the topic is one of denial overall, in the collective sense. The same applies here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of "Palestinian genocide debate"? My thinking is that the RSes (or at least the academic ones) are more about a debate between genocide and ethnic cleansing (and various permutations like "cultural genocide"), than being about an unproven accusation (eg, the quotes I posted in another section above). And it's a descriptive title instead of a neologism like "Palestinian genocide question". Levivich (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My only thought here is that there isn't so very much debate going on. There is a minor historical debate on terminology around the Nakba, but only between a handful of scholars, and what we now seem to be gravitating towards is a lot of assertion and accusation, but not a particularly noticeable amount of active debate. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

True, the historical debate is kind of separate from the current accusations. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Then “Accusation of genocide against Palestinians” should work. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That discussion was already had and concluded just over a week back. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is an issue of combining the content about Nakba/ethnic cleansing with the post Likud related content. Even if Sharon/Netanyahu can be considered together many of the more serious accusations have been about these governments and their ideology. IMO, carelessly and without explanation grouping these as an accusation against Israel without being able to identify a perpetrator more specific is probably not justified by RS. It should be moved to a more accurate title but not one that was rejected only one week ago. Ben Azura (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The principle here is WP:SINGULAR - 'Denial' is often used generically, I'm not sure 'accusation' is, certainly not in my experience. But possibly that's a UK thing or maybe I'm wrong. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The 'problem' has been solved by consistently using singular. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

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

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