Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Gaza genocide

Complicity

I like to check every once in a while this article about this very serious topic, to see what aberration will I find this time. Last time it was an accussation that my country, Romania, was supposedly complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Now I found that "European Union states" are complicit. The only source for this was an Amnesty International report concluding Israel was committing genocide [15]. It barely discusses complicity by other states, mentioning the word once: "States that continue to transfer arms to Israel […] are at risk of becoming complicit in genocide". It's not even a direct accussation, it is not elaborated on, it does not appeal to other authors and experts, it is not the focus of the report.

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

Though I would really rather have the mentioned cabinets removed. It is practically reducing the complicity accussation from an entire country to a reduced number of individuals. Individuals who have nowhere as near of a level of attributed responsability as Netanyahu or Gallant. Now that, that should be very heavily sourced before even being proposed for inclusion. Super Ψ Dro 01:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Gaza_genocide#International_complicity? Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is nothing about the European Union there. Super Ψ Dro 01:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I didn't say that there was. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote before replying? This is the edit that prompted my comment [16]. Super Ψ Dro 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that edit before I left my comment. I agreed with it, so didn't revert it. I asked you whether you read Gaza_genocide#International_complicity mostly because you said:

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

There are multiple sections on this subject with dozens of sources at Gaza_genocide#International_complicity. There's no acknowledgement of that in your first comment. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources should be in the infobox in the first place. That something is mentioned in the article doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the infobox. Let us see the sources, and then we can judge their value and the weight of their claim and whether it should be included in the infobox. And if editors find the listed supposedly complicit countries next to six academic sources for each, maybe they'll think twice before adding a random country to the list again.
Actually, this whole segment of the infobox is quite exceptional for Wikipedia practices. We have an entire article on Germany and the Armenian genocide which argues some level of complicity, but Armenian genocide's infobox does not have such a segment called "Potential complicity". The case on the direct perpetrator of this hasn't even ended, and we are quick to jump and list countries and people that have allegedly helped them commit genocide as a certain fact. Super Ψ Dro 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this all comes under the heading of "third states" responsibilty, required by the convention to actively (within reason) prevent genocide. If they do not, then they may be complicit, it's not that complicated. Sourcing is not that difficult to locate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden on reading and citing sources is not on me, given my apparent position. Super Ψ Dro 12:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Super Dro that the EU as a whole aren't complicit simply on the vague say-so of Amnesty, and it's a stretch to even say that the source supports the statement in the article. Actually, I've been recently thinking that Amnesty and other orgs who appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict, presumably in some small part also to raise more money for their orgs by talking up a cause celebre, should be considered advocacy org think tanks or advocacy charities with a bias that should generally be attributed as treated as WP:RSOPINION when they are weighing in like this without any real new substance in their report. Similar to how we use SPLC or the ADL but don't treat them as similar to more neutral sources like reputable news or academic sources. Anyway, unless there are better sources I'd say remove this. Andre🚐 02:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI recent RFC is green, need to distinguish between factual reporting, which AI is very good at and when they are engaged in advocacy. Attacks on Amnesty reliability are rarely made based on the evidence, appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict being more the usual thing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was writing a comment justifying why in the end I was going to tag the potential complicity segment of the infobox as undue, but Elshad has removed it [17]. I expect that to be reverted, so I will continue.
Reading the United Kingdom subsection, there is not one single source that is directly accussing the UK of genocide complicity. The entire subsection is lawyers, NGOs and human rights groups saying the UK may risk being complicit, or individuals who are actually not making use of the word genocide.
Regarding Germany, there is Lena Obermaier writing for a socialist magazine, not very solid. Then there is a mention of German lawyers sueing Scholz and his cabinet, and Nicaragua's sue against Germany. This is at least something more than the UK, but they are ongoing cases without a resolution. The subsection completely lacks academic sources.
Why should we list these two countries and their governments as supposedly complicit in the infobox, when their respective subsections lack accussations with certainty? I don't see credible sources arguing in long papers why these two countries may, in fact, be complicit, nor do I see direct accussations from international organizations. The infobox uses the wording "Potential complicity", but having countries listed on the top of the article under such a segment has its obvious effect on readers. Considering the claims have a weak substantiation in the article, I do not think allowing this effect is appropriate. Super Ψ Dro 12:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the section on the genocidal actions is titled "Alleged genocidal actions", and that of complicity, "International complicity", treating it as uncontroversial fact. I have renamed it to "Alleged international complicity". I am open to other titles such as "Discussion on international complicity" or other alternatives, which do not treat complicity as an already certain fact. Super Ψ Dro 12:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet, I reverted you, and invite you to discuss here the header of the complicity section. As I said, I am open to discuss alternatives to "alleged", but considering the name of the second section of the article, I don't think it should keep the header I changed. Super Ψ Dro 00:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide, and there is consensus that referring to it as "Gaza Genocide" does not have to include "alleged", but at any rate the complicity component is not alleged. I also removed some of the text that referred to alleged or unconfirmed complicity, making the header "International complicity" accurate. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide this implies that whether there is a genocide is the only controversial part, and that if we consider there to be a genocide, we must necessarily also consider the perpetrator to have accomplices, for which there is no reason. The section is filled with hypothethical language, at least for the UK and Germany, that Israel has accomplices in genocide is not uncontroversial fact. Nicaragua has started an ICJ case against Germany on the topic of facilitating genocide, your interpretation presents the ongoing case as having a verdict already. Complicity in genocide seems to be a defined thing in international law. Does any help provided to Israel's war effort fall within this legal space? I doubt sources say this. Super Ψ Dro 11:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, thanks for the header rename, it's an improvement. Super Ψ Dro 12:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Selfstudier's header rename resolves this portion of the dispute. Thanks for that! Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources for this. Besides Amnesty International link:

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

    [18]

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

    [20]
  • WP:DUE: We don't have any WP:Tertiary sources about this yet, but complicity is mentioned pretty early in this WP:Secondary source. page 4:

    Genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances, including purported self-defence.32 Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states.33

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need a consensus among sources for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims such as that these three countries are complicit in genocide. You are proposing to restore a disputed exceptional claim that isn't even presented as certain. I will tag the content upon restoration. Super Ψ Dro 16:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the argument that supplying arms may make you complicit is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Also, if you go to the policy you cited, none of the bullet points seem to apply. This has been covered by "multiple mainstream sources". Complicity is in secondary sources. Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit?
The only appropriate tag would be {{Template:Better source needed}}, requesting a secondary source for the countries mentioned. But this is a recent and ongoing event, so it'll take time for those type of sources to emerge. Bogazicili (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, please explain the relevance tag you put.[21] Complicity is in secondary sources, so it is relevant. See above. Provide a valid argument based on sources and/or Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines please. Bogazicili (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Complicity is nowhere. I am disputing the existence of consensus among sources that Israel has accomplices in genocide, and I am disputing the relevance of adding specific countries to the infobox when the accussations are only potential and non-direct. Super Ψ Dro 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the claim that the US, UK and Germany are complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip is an exceptional claim. Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit? yes, most of the sources I've seen here use language employing "could"s, "may"s and "risk"s. Super Ψ Dro 19:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean Complicity is nowhere?
Complicity is mentioned in this WP:Secondary source:page 4. There's obviously another ICJ case against Germany.
Are there any sources that say these countries are definitely not or unlikely to be complicit? Bogazicili (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? This is all page 4 says: Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states. No third states that may have violated these obligations are mentioned. That an ICJ case against Germany is currently open does not increase the argument's strength a lot in particular, as obviously we don't know what will the veredict be yet. The ICJ hasn't made any pre-veredict comments either, as, if I am not wrong, has happened with South Africa's case.
I doubt such sources exist. I am not disputing the existence of allegations against these countries. I am disputing whether they're relevant enough to specifically mention them in the infobox. I propose to mention the existence of allegations of complicity by third states in the Accused parameters, as a fourth bullet point. But the mention of specific countries sets a pretty low bar that can be exploited to include random countries, so long as one source establishes concern on a risk of complicity over a country that is otherwise undiscussed in this regard among reliable sources. Because one source would not suffice, in my opinion, to give credit to an exceptional claim such as genocide complicity. Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one source. Multiple sources are there.
Super Dromaeosaurus, are you disputing WP:DUE, or WP:V (based on WP:Exceptional, or both? Bogazicili (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already expressed what do I disagree with. Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations. What criteria would you set, Bogazicili, to avoid the inclusion of fringe claims in this part of the infobox by other users who may be incited by seeing three countries already listed? Super Ψ Dro 20:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking your personal opinion. I'm asking you to reference a specific Wikipedia policy. I need a blue wikilink in your response. If the concern is about DUE, I can direct you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
Note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Bogazicili (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be either attempting to disregard my argument based on a lack of appeal to a specific Wikipedia rule, or attempting to get me to cite a specific Wikipedia rule and then state it does not support my point. You have an editor who has expressed a concern, and even a proposed solution; if you are unable to discuss that concern or a potential middle ground, you should disengage from the discussion.
I have not expressed any personal opinion, nor engaged in a forum discussion. Super Ψ Dro 20:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the personal opinion part: Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations.
Unless a valid rationale is provided, I'm going to remove the tag. You added the tag, so you need to provide the valid reasoning. Your personal opinion about setting a bad precedent is not a valid reason.
This isn't the Wikipedia:Village pump Bogazicili (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend other users to express their opinion on this dispute, as discussion with this user is completely unfruitful.
Obviously, if I find myself in disagreement with a bunch, I will back down and accept the current text and my tag's removal, as, for all those wanting blue links, a WP:CONSENSUS will have formed against my position. So, do you think it is warranted to mention specifically these three countries as complicit? Based on what, these specific three? Why not previous inclusions like Australia, "European Union states" or Romania? Maybe because these three are more often mentioned in secondary sources? May we reflect this with some heavy citing, discouraging any users from potentially adding any other fringe claim again along these currently lightly-cited (previously uncited) ones? Or will I come back to this page in some months, and see that Hungary is complicit of genocide in the Gaza Strip [22]? Sorry for the rhetorical tone, but I think it gets my point across. Super Ψ Dro 20:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary I find an accusation of those three countries in particular being complicit in a genocide to not be extraordinary in the least considering their various histories - however an historical record of participation in genocide isn't what's needed here. What is needed is reliable secondary sources which, per @Bogazicili, have been provided. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To appeal to the past, and link the Holocaust, as evidence of something happening in the present, is a pretty weak argument unworthy of consideration. Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also linked to the Trail of Tears and the Bengal Famine because my point is that complicity in genocide is not, exactly, extraordinary for any of these countries, all three of which have committed at least one, if not more than one genocide. See also: 1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic and Irish Potato Famine. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My dispute, specifically, is that you are describing complicity per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Of course reliable sources should provided for complicity in this event which is increasingly being described in reliable secondary sources as a genocide. However it's not extraordinary for the USA to be involved in a genocide. They do so often enough in other theaters. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One way of looking at this is whether it would be possible to create, for example, an article US complicity in Gaza genocide, looking at the refs in the article, there is at least enough for a stub and there exist I think, other sources in addition, like the one I gave above already, or This legal view
"In light of the above, Israel might be committing the international crime of genocide, by killing civilians in Gaza; deliberately inflicting serious bodily and mental harm; and imposing conditions of life to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza. However, the US has continuously supported Israel's war efforts via diplomatic and military assistance, with knowledge of a plausible genocide being committed in the territory since at least January 2024. This may render the US internationally responsible for not merely failing to prevent genocide but also being an accomplice to the crime of genocide in Gaza."
Accusation of course but if the sources are there to back it up, then we should show that, I am not that fond of infoboxes because they frequently produce tedious disputes, but as long as we make clear that it is still an accusation and show proper sourcing, I don't see a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish potato famine was not a genocide. The article you link makes it clear that the vast majority of historians reject this view, and so should not be linked here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I only hope that, given you Bogazicili completely refused to have a proper discussion with me, that you at least do care enough to remove fringe claims about other countries if they appear in the future. Super Ψ Dro 14:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refuse "proper discussion". I asked you to base your arguments on sources and Wiki policies. Bogazicili (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my arguments and you linked the village pump or WP:FORUM for some reason. Much of my arguments asked for the removal of content; an argument like this cannot really be based on sources. I also asked for listed countries to be more strongly sourced to visually discourage editors from adding poorly-sourced claims. This is just proof of the disregard of the other side from your part. Super Ψ Dro 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources such as [23] were provided. You refused to give a Wikipedia policy to back up your argument: You seem to be either attempting to disregard my argument based on a lack of appeal to a specific Wikipedia rule [24]. If you want, you can proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already expressed what I want: that the diligence that was missing in the past be applied in the future. I don't think I should repeat it once again. Super Ψ Dro 15:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other possible reason requirement for genocide

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

I think Becker explains it well, the formal issue will be argued and decided in court. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this issue is not specific to just Israel:[25]

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

Not sure if the above also needs to be added into the article to explain the definition issue. Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should. It explains a lot about what the article is about. NadVolum (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is now more information on this.

European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights:

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

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

Well, we should be clear about it, this refers mainly to the South Africa's genocide case against Israel and the arguments being or that will be made there. Also see #German law professor opinions below and the discussion around Amnesty legal argument. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is about the legal case, so can be added into this section: Gaza_genocide#Legal_proceedings. Maybe a sentence about this since it is mentioned in a secondary source. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: this is the interesting note on the position of these countries I mentioned in the Ireland to intervene section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short description (again)

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

@JasonMacker: How about "Accusation of genocide [or genocidal acts] perpetrated [by Israel] against Palestinians in Gaza"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...why? What's wrong with characterization? I don't understand the motivation here. Can you first explain what your problem is with the current short description? JasonMacker (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely suggesting an improvement of the original description that addresses your criticism of ambiguity. But since you ask, I'm not enamoured with the new description; it sounds oddly vague and anemic. It's best to name names, both who and whom – and preferrably also when. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current short description is 49 characters, including spaces. Your suggestion, "Accusation of genocide perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza" is 73 characters, which would make it among the 3% longest short descriptions on Wikipedia. Again, per WP:SDESC, the whole point of a short description is to provide a one-sentence summary of the article's content. Here, the article's content is to discuss how Israel's mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza ought to be characterized, with a large number of scholars & experts characterizing it as a genocide, but government officials and other figures characterizing the mass killings as not a genocide. I don't see how the current short description is "oddly vague and anemic." It's a direct description of the article's current content. On the other hand, I don't see how the "Accusation..." proposal can satisfactorily describe the subject matter of the article. There are just too many articles that can have "Accusation of" added to their short description and also still be true, which indicates that those two words are superfluous. Imagine if the climate change article (whose current short description is "Human-caused changes to climate on Earth" was changed to "Accusation that humans cause climate change on Earth." I mean sure, that would be true, but the problem here is that it doesn't actually provide the reader with additional information. At the same time, this article is not specifically about genocide the way that, say, the Armenian genocide article is. And it's for that reason that your proposed short description, minus "Accusation of" would be an inappropriate short description of this article's content. Instead, this article is mostly focusing on the characterization of genocide. And so I don't understand the logic behind changing it to begin with "Accusation of" again, and that's ignoring the issue of having too long of a short description. JasonMacker (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German law professor opinions

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

In December 2023, Kai Ambos, a professor of international and criminal law in Göttingen and judge at the Kosovo Special Tribunal, warned that potentially genocidal statements by politicians, while potentially beneficial for proving specific intent, could not necessarily be applied to the evaluation of military decisions. [26] In January 2024, Christian Walter, a professor of Public Law and Public International Law at the LMU, argued in the Verfassungsblog that the extent of harm to both civilians and infrastructure weren’t conclusive, and that attempts to evacuate civilians were an indication against genocidal intent. [27]. Matthias Goldmann, a professor of international law, stated in April that there a conviction before the ICJ was uncertain and that there was no “smoking gun” proving the special intent. [28]

Marco Sassoli and Oliver Diggelmann, professors of international law in Gevena and Zurich, argued in May that while some statements by politicians may be genocidal, the same did not apply to the actions of the Israeli military; Diggelmann believes that a conviction for genocide is unlikely.[29] Andreas Müller, a professor of international law in Basel, stated the the term genocide was being used as a term of criticism instead of according to its legal definition, and added that “there was no sufficient ground of genocide if one takes the legal term seriously”.[30] Daniel-Erasmus Khan, professor of international law at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, stated in June that there was no clear evidence of a special intent among Israeli leadership.[31] FortunateSons (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Cdjp1 due to the talk page discussion. We weren’t sure if I should name the universities; for now, I just left the ones from Munich, as there are two different ones. FortunateSons (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just add them as "No" to the Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I phrased that poorly: they are on the list, they are missing from the article.FortunateSons (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I misunderstanding? You want these two no's added to the list of expert opinions, right? Selfstudier (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry: those are people already on the list (or technically originally on the list, those professors are among the ones the list started with), that haven’t made their way into the “Academic and legal discourse” section FortunateSons (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, crossed wires, what's the point in adding these two specifically to the article? Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To cover the relevant expert opinions from the German-speaking legal world (Germany, Austria and Switzerland). I would have just added them myself, but that would be against policy, so I need someone else to review them and (or not do) that :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but then we would have to add all the yes's as well, there are a lot.
I actually want the template to be on the article page, if someone can figure out how to do that, I tried and couldn't. Much easier. Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this sounds like a generally good idea and has already been partially done; I just don’t have the time, so I picked out the significant ones (recognised/well-respected professors cited within decent sources, therefore broadly due) within my field that I originally added to the list and wrote something up after a six month delay FortunateSons (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.... [internal screaming] ....
It's possible to do that, but we'd have to re-work it, both in formatting, and what specific sort of columns and quotes from the sources we want. I would offer to start on that work, but despite my self-hatred, I am in my end of year draw down, so you'd need someone else to do all the discussion and selection work. I can still step in one decided for the markup so it can be easily included as a template. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure that this thread is really a topic for a COI edit request (i.e. the template at the top of the thread). COI edit requests are to ask an uninvolved editor to review the suggested edit with a view to installing it within the article.
Given the topic at hand I think it would be more appropriate if consensus was to be achieved at the talk page, or if the matter was referred to WP:RFC or WP:3O.
I'm therefore going to decline the COI edit request, but I am doing so purely for the procedural reason set out above and entirely without prejudice. Axad12 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is fair. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposal, but for now, I would really appreciate that this content would be added to the relevant section, unless there is an issue with the specific content. No objection to it and all other statements by legal/genocide/etc. scholars being removed and replaced with the template later, of course. I can try to make it longer or shorter, but I feel like 7 significant professors split into 2 paragraphs is appropriate? FortunateSons (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this because why? Choosing German speaking professors is just synth unless there is some specific reason to do with genocide reported in RS that means that the category of German speaking law professors has some special significance over some other arbitrary group of law professors. What will we do next? Scandinavian law professors, professors that can speak two languages, one legged professors with a view on genocide law? Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have American ones as well, and adding the Scandinavian/Francophone/Arabic perspective is a worthy endeavor, I just don't speak the languages and have limited knowledge of the legal system, unlike with German. The relevant policy-based reason would be the avoidance of systemic bias towards english language and their legal systems. German legal scholars are a significant part of the discourse on international (humanitarian) law and are therefore due. FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "International" law for a reason? The main point being made by these two professors afaics is about genocidal intent, there is a section about intent in the article (and more about it in the South Africa case article and even an article on genocidal intent), included there is "In the ICJ's Rohingya genocide case, several states (including the UK and Germany) supported a looser standard of evidence for supporting genocidal intent than the ICJ has used in the past—which is often the most difficult part of proving genocide in a court of law" so that is a relevant point. Now if you could find a source saying most/some/many/nearly all/whatever German speaking lawyers (or any other group) say (whatever they say), then adding that would be fine. Otherwise we are just making a list. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International law perspectives vary significantly within and between countries; to the best of my knowledge, no such source exist, as it doesn't for most other places and disciplines.
Quite frankly, there is no policy basis for excluding significant views because they are German, and the article already includes a plethora of significant views by professors from English-speaking countries (including less well-known ones), so there is no basis for excluding RS-published views by professors either. The only issue that makes this a question for this thread (instead of a direct edit) is that I might unduely weigh some of the views within my edit request compared to others; do you feel that this is the case?
PS: the number of professors is 7 ;)FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no policy basis for excluding significant views because they are German Please, no straw men, no-one suggested that.
German or German speaking? And up above you said "German-speaking legal world (Germany, Austria and Switzerland)". A list of German/speaking lawyers that you have located with an opinion on genocide in Gaza without any RS that otherwise connects them together, is just a synthesis/OR. Nothing preventing you making an actual list article of such lawyers if you like but we already have a template that lists all lawyers, you could put a little German/Swiss/US flag next to each one perhaps? Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German-speaking, defined as them teaching at a faculty in such a country. It's not really a strawman, unless you support removing the American and British professors from the article; we should cover important non-english perspectives. It's less synth and more of a summary, but I'm happy to write a full paragraph for each, if you believe it to be due. Nevertheless, my tone was too harsh, my apologies.
Not that it matters, but they are a plethora of others with statements (and even more if you don't limit yourself to media coverage or comperable editorial control, which I have), but most of those are straightforwardly undue. I have just noticed that this might be an unclear if one is unfamiliar with the discipline: this is a whose-who of known names/faculties within german, austrian and swiss international law scholarship, excluding those for whom I counldn't locate a useful statements. Stylistically, I think grouping by language or region is probably most intutive, but sorting by time might be an interesting option too, if you prefer this compared to my grouping. FortunateSons (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could for example go through all the opinions (regardless of nationality) and specify which advocate for this or that point but then that would be OR.
At some point, we will reach a level of RS that is more analytic of all the different opinions out there and just summarizes them and then that is not OR because an RS is doing that and not me.
See the difference? The RS is doing the grouping, if we do grouping, whether by time, nationality or any other basis, then we are just making a list with some inclusion criteria.
The fact that there are 7 (or any other number of) lawyers in some list is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the purpose of the list and what the criteria are for being in it.
Leaving aside lists, I am still stuck on the question of why 7 (or any other number based on whatever OR criteria) legal opinions should be included in the article. You argue dueness, so then why are 7 German speaking legal opinions due for this article? Your saying that it's a bias not to include them is also OR unless there are RS saying that. Are there? Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could, but saying “Professor A and Professor B argue that C [Source for A][Source for B]” wouldn’t be synth, right? Systemic bias is generally not a question of RS, but of editorial discretion, so there obviously aren’t. In this case, the proposed text is significantly shorter “per Professor (particularly accounting for their reputation)” than existing coverage in the relevant sections, and therefore due. Particularly Ambos (highly relevant past academic and judicial experience) and Walter (article in one of the foremost “new” legal publications) as well as arguably Khan, Goldmann and Müller are rather significant voices even by themselves, and the sourcing is more than sufficient for a longer paragraph each. I acknowledge the problem with the way I structured them together, that’s a good point and may actually be Synth. Would writing a separate paragraph per prof fix the issue for you? If you want to cut down on the actual number, it would be quite helpful if you told me which of the 7 I selected are particularly interesting/useful/encyclopaedic? FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias is generally not a question of RS, but of editorial discretion, so there obviously aren’t This is false, we have an article on systemic bias and there are plenty of RS about bias in the media. There may well be the bias you describe but if no RS speak about it, it's irrelevant.
It's not me that has to tell you or for you to decide which, it's for RS to do that so first some RS says Ambos (we'll use them for example) is a top drawer lawyer/expert/whatever, so far so good. Then dueness, we need some RS to say that Ambos opinion is worth more than some other lawyer/expert opinion so that we should include their opinion in preference to some other. Or another possibility, Ambos himself analyzes the opinions of other lawyers or the state of play in general wrt some legal points, then that might be useful.
But just you saying he's a great lawyer and we should include him because he is, that's not enough.
That's just for one lawyer, and if some or all of the remainder are just saying the same thing, why do we need them? Unless an RS is saying these 7 lawyers all say x. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks; so if I provide a one or multiple high-quality sources per expert, you’re fine with inclusion of their opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I said, why are they due? Anyway, hopefully now it is not a problem, the "template" (ie a list) is now in the article so you can just include them there if they are not already included. In case it is not clear, I am also suggesting that we apply the same logic to other expert opinions that are in the article, that is just being an expert and having an opinion is not by itself sufficient for inclusion in the article, they can however be included in the template/list. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all already in the list, thanks. Just a quick request for clarification: does this apply to all expert opinions in your view? Or should we have a section with some of the most significant views in full text? FortunateSons (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was trying to explain above, there needs to be something more than just being an expert and having a view on the South Africa case. If there isn't anything more, then I think being in the list is sufficient. Which ones merit inclusion in the article is something we could discuss case by case.
For example the sentence "The opinions many scholars of Holocaust and genocide studies (HGS) expressed in late 2023 were discordant with others in the field as well as experts in other academic fields: they did not condemn Israeli violence despite the far larger loss of Palestinian life in the war." is a useful sentence, it generalizes the opinions of expert without naming them.
The sentence "In November 2024, Bartov called recent operations in Jabalia "blatantly genocidal"." is not so useful, it is simply a quote about some incidents from one expert whose view is included in the list. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that makes sense, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ambos (as an example); for Israel + genocide:
  1. Large public broadcaster citing him for genocide
  2. Opinion-Article in large newspaper
  3. Interview in respected newspaper
  4. Article in (left-leaning) journal by respected foundation
  5. Background for Nicaragua vs. Germany
General indication of significance regarding Israel & International law:
  1. Large public broadcaster citing him for ICC
  2. One of the largest legal newspapers in Germany citing him for the ICC
  3. Newspaper of record interviewing him for Israeli war crimes 1
  4. Newspaper of record interviewing him for Israeli war crimes 2
  5. Pleathora of highly relevant publications in significant journal
Do you agree that this is sufficient for inclusion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all those do is cite him for his opinion, no. Better would be other experts citing him. Do any of them contain meta material? Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll look into that. Just to be clear, that standard would exclude almost all currently cited experts in the article, right? Not opposed to such a standard, just want to keep it consistent FortunateSons (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said we should be consistent and look at them case by case. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I’m referring in this case to using this as a localcon for the removal of other experts, not objecting to the standard per se; in the interest of transparency, I plan to turn this into an RfC and therefore need an RfCbefore (such as this discussion), and “cited by other experts” a nice addition to the positions I had in mind (those being “1. RS, 2. expert, 3. expert cited by media, peer reviewed or comparable, and now 4. expert cited by experts) for having someone in the article proper and not just in the list FortunateSons (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to avoid is turning the thing into a list of experts with an opinion (because we already have such a list). Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be awkward here, I would like to include him. For instance, he has a well cited piece on intent to destroy that could go in a section devoted to that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I don’t think you’re acting in any sort of bad faith/obstructionist manner here, don’t worry. The article is a good catch, I read it about a year ago and totally forgot it; I’m not sure where and for what to cite it without it becoming SYNTH, do you have a suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, RFC is a possibility of course but I would try and edit the article a bit first and see what happens with that. If you think an opinion that is in the article doesn't really belong there on the basis that it is only an opinion of one expert and nothing more, I would support that.
As for Ambos, there is a discussion on the page here at #Any other possible reason requirement for genocide and there is Gaza genocide#Genocidal intent and genocidal rhetoric at the article but since the rhetoric is also to do with the intent, we can just title it as that.
Now Idk whether that material should be first done in detail at the case article and then summarized here or vice versa, if it doesn't matter that much, we can do it here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s reasonable, I’ll think about the placement/use as well, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I am not endorsing the current content of the article, which I don't agree with in many respects but one thing at a time. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It works for me, considering that I’m on mobile, that is quite impressive. What do you think about removing the notes section? FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you put that template into the article? It was intended as a separate page, to be linked in the talk page I think? Bogazicili (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion above, things have moved on from the debate over the article title, now we are instead trying to analyze what exactly the expert opinions are saying and which of them merit direct inclusion in the article. It is also convenient to have direct access to that material in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be too long and not formatted for inclusion in the actual article page. It has external links and lengthy quotes for example. Bogazicili (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative is just to make a list article and reference that as a main. The template is not useful as is unless you happen to know where it is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list article may work, but please do not add that template into article page again. The lengthy quotes could be problematic due to WP:Copyright and Wikipedia:Non-free content Bogazicili (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such problems are fixable. At any rate, the existing template is not so useful. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can condense it down somewhat, if there is appetite for that. And yes, we should absolutely have 2 paragraphs for Arabic legal scholars as well, that’s a significant perspective FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article prose is getting close to 14k words. See Wikipedia:Article size. Bogazicili (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a separate article for expert opinions might be the solution? FortunateSons (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a link to the "template disguised as an article" so at least there's that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s definitely a good addition no matter what FortunateSons (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That apart I still hold to the idea I outlined above, if there is support for doing it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have the time for a project of this size, but I think it’s a good idea; I did most of the German translations, so feel free to ping me if there is an issue FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant going through on the article and trying to focus on what opinions are the most important/relevant/useful. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that too, I agree FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David A did you read this section before your revert? Which of the policy interpretations do you agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not see this beforehand. I would appreciate if you summarise the relevant justifications for your removals of information. David A (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Per this discussion, there is (maybe) a local consensus that even a notable expert cited by media is not necessarily due for this article. A person notable for reasons outside of her field, working for a arguably barely notable (or at least non-major) advocacy organisation is maybe due for the list of experts, but not for the article as a whole. Do you disagree with either of those assessments? FortunateSons (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second removal appears to be an earlier version of the first or at least includes some of it. Leaving aside the issue of whether L4P is RS itself or for opinions given there, we discussed above the merits of dealing with intent more generally, for instance the opening paras of the section do not address intent at all. Rhetoric is evidence of intent, Idk that 500 statements is any different to 100 or 1000, again we want to deal with that issue as generally as possible. Maybe we can focus for now on the introductory sentences and maybe that will tell us what of the other sentences are most relevant/due? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think there is significant overlap. I have no hard preference on the structure, just concerns about the quality (and consistency) of this article, so your suggestion works for me. Would just describing the standard/definition from a general source be synth, or is that allowed? FortunateSons (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that it is hard to become officially specialised in the academic field of collecting and counting genocidal statements by people in positions of power, so as long as the sources and research are reliable, I think that the information should be kept here. David A (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the academic field of collecting and counting genocidal statements by people in positions of power lol, is not an academic field, nevertheless, material such as Van Hout, T., Velásquez, L., Vingerhoets, N., Steele, M., Cay, B. N., van Heuvel, L., Christiano, A., Lychnara, J., Glenn, J., Pastor, M., Kayacılar, G., Mardones Alarcon, C., & Tibbs, A. (2024). Claiming genocidal intent: A discourse analysis of South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel. Diggit Magazine. https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/claiming-genocidal-intent-discourse-analysis-south-africa-s-icj-case-against-israel is helpful, is it not? More helpful than a count? Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think a count is a clearly understood illustration that these genocidal intent statements are not aberrations, but rather commonplace occurrences, so wouldn't it be better to include both? David A (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to clarify, I was using gallows humour mild sarcasm when I said "academic field". I apologise if this caused confusion. David A (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can have sufficient expertise and renown in relate fields, which is lacking here as well FortunateSons (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What related fields? It seems like an unrealistic demand here. David A (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would take this claim a lot more seriously if it came from renown professors of law/genocide studies (comparable to the ones above) than from activists, for example. Because collecting and counting genocidal statements by people in positions of power requires them to have expertise in, among other things, being able to distinguish those from grandiose statements made in war, statements advocating for the commission of other non-genocidal crimes such as extermination, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment or the targeting of civilians, or other political statements, that, abhorrent as they may be, do not constitute an intent to destroy (even based on the less stringent requirements of one among multiple motives). FortunateSons (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This legal view for example says "In the case of Gaza, it remains to be seen whether this intent will be found in the case brought by South Africa, which has cited dozens of statements made by high-level government officials in support of its case against Israel (pp.59-67)"
This is not to say that the L4P database, that includes other things besides these statements (see https://roadtogenocide.law4palestine.org/) is of no value, only that a narrow focus on a list (basically) of such statements is of lesser value in the overall context.
As well, L4P is not that bad of a source and deserves an article perhaps, furthermore, when compared to individual statements in the article from such as Kontorovich, I'd be looking to remove the latter rather than it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t, for example, disagree with citing your ejil source in place of L4P, but disagree strongly with the use of L4P, a mostly unknown source with what is at best a highly partisan leaning and at worst no significant expertise. I believe that everything of value can either be sourced elsewhere or shouldn’t be used. On the other hand, Kontorovich can at least be considered an expert writing in large (not necessarily equalling good) national media, which is due based on our current standard. I have no objections to him being cut at a later point based on an altered generalised standard, but based on this discussion, we do need an RfC. FortunateSons (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed Kontorovich, makes no difference to me, the value of that opinion is obvious to any reader simply by reading the article.
Although I did remove the other piece as undue/duplicative, see L4P Board of trustees, no comparison really. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The board of trustees is pretty good, and it’s quite possible that they will develop into a renown (and reliable) activist organisation in a few years.
While you’re definitely aware of this, it’s important to generally note that trustees usually don’t control content, and that even an impressive board of trustees would not directly impact reliability. No disagreement on the value of the opinion, but if what I consider reasonable would impact what is due, many of our articles would appear very differently than they do now FortunateSons (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settler Colonialism

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

I was able to access the abstracts of all four papers at least. Here's the relevant links:
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
I have not had a chance to read the papers as of yet - and if they aren't open access I'll probably only have the abstracts but if others have better access this might speed along validation of the information. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Screaming, Silence and Mass Violence" we have the following Comparing and contextualizing Israeli violence and Palestinian suffering not only lend themselves to moral clarity, but also to intellectual consistency. If it is the body count, then next-door Syria or Iraq should be a concern too; if it is racism, then Darfur should not be forgotten; if it is the urgency, then Nagorno-Karabagh should not be ignored; if it is settler colonialism, then the Uyghurs should be included. In fact, to characterize Israel as the “last bastion of colonialism” turns a blind eye to Turkish-nationalist settlerism in emptied Armenian villages, or the Arabization policies of Kurdish regions in Iraq and Syria in the 1970s – which uprooted hundreds of thousands. One could even ask if there is a colonial gaze in not focusing on the next-door Arab lives as grievable; in other words, do the Israeli nation-state boundaries ironically function as a type of moral boundary? If “decolonial” means all human lives are fundamentally equal, then holding a settler colony’s perpetrators to higher standards of scrutiny, or its victims to more compassion is hardly decolonial. - While this is apologia for Israel's colonialism rather than criticism of it, it certainly admits to it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have the abstract of "Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change" but I will say that what I can read of it establishes that Russia escalated from colonialism to genocide before going on to use the measures of this progression to argue that Israel reached the stage of genocide before October 2023. While this abstract does not say "Israel is a settler colonial state" it would not surprise me if the full text supports the statement of settler colonialism even if it then suggests that genocide is something beyond settler colonialism. I would suggest someone with full article text should conduct an additional review.Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have the abstract of "Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0" but the text available to me makes no overt or oblique reference to colonialism. Again recommend someone with full article text should conduct an additional review. Unlike the above I suspect this may not be an appropriate reference. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 in have access to all of these, I'll post the relevant quotes later when I have time. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok:
    Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0, pp. 1-2 Al-Arouri not only emphasized Israel’s abovementioned actions in Al-Aqsa, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, but also placed it in the context of Israel’s Finance Minister and head of the far-right Jewish Zionist party Bezalel Smotrich’s “Decisive Plan” from 2017. According to this plan, Israel should make clear that there is “room for only one expression of national self-determination west of the Jordan River: that of the Jewish nation.” Israel should apply full sovereignty over this entire area, establish new cities and settlements throughout the West Bank and bring in hundreds of thousands of additional settlers. The Palestinians will thus have to “shelve” their dreams of self-determination, as Smotrich put it, and will basically have two options: they could either accept Jewish rule or leave.4 Al-Arouri noted that Smotrich, being responsible for West Bank along with Israel’s Defense Minister, was now in a position to implement his plan, and was planning to transfer “at least one million settlers to the West Bank.” Essentially, argued Al-Arouri, this government “says you either accept being our slaves, or we will uproot you from this land"5
    Inescapably Genocidal, p. 1 Later, 55 “scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence” felt “compelled” to warn of the danger of genocide in Israel’s counterattack. While “deeply saddened and concerned” by both Hamas’ atrocities and the death and destruction which Israel had caused, their statement focused on the latter, itemizing it together with “dozens” of statements by Israeli leaders that indicated genocidal intent. Referencing a longer history, they argued that we should place it within the context of Israeli settler colonialism, Israeli military occupation violence against Palestinians since 1967, the sixteen-year siege on the Gaza Strip since 2007, and the rise to power in Israel in the last year of a government made up of politicians who speak proudly about Jewish supremacy and exclusionary nationalism. The statement concluded by calling on governments to uphold their obligations under the Genocide Convention.
    Gaza as Twilight, p. 4 This weaponization of the Holocaust, as Zoé Samudzi has discussed in this forum, erases Israeli history and turns the world upside down: a powerless people, forcibly displaced and attacked under decades of Israeli settler colonialism, military occupation, and siege become the worst perpetrators in modern imagination. This image then casts the settler colonial state in its current form, armed with nuclear weapons and backed by its western allies, as the ultimate victim.20
    p. 5 Nazism and what we now call the Holocaust were imagined on a hierarchy as more terrible than genocide, which placed Israel on another imagined hierarchy as more moral than any other state in the world. This gave rise to a common view in Israel and the west that the Israeli army is the most moral in the world, so that from Israel’s establishment in May 1948, it became unimaginable that it would perpetrate any crime under international law, let alone genocide.21 Maintaining this foundational image of Israel required the denial of the Nakba, which also stemmed from the broader impetus to deny the nature of the Israeli state as a settler colonial project.
    -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That clarifies these sources are appropriate for indicating "settler colonialism" in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of these three, only the second one says that settler colonialism is part of the motive for the genocide in Gaza. The first doesn’t mention the term and is about Israeli actions in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The third says Israel is settler colonial and that’s it committing genocide, but doesn’t attribute the latter to the former. These two citations should be removed here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lederman (Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0) links it explicitly on page 5, where he highlights the views of the settlers who formerly lived in Gaza post the first incursion in the 2000s. I've removed Segal & Daniele, added Abdo and Segal. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my comment isn't the clearest. Lederman links the desires and political pressure of the former settlers of Gaza, to engage again in settler colonialism throughout the Gaza strip to recent actions by Israel through 2023, and to the Israeli assault on Gaza post-October 7. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have the abstract of "Inescapably Genocidal" but the text available to me explicitly quotes Raz Segal, "Statement of Scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies on Mass Violence In Israel and Palestine since 7 October" which, in the quoted text, describes Israel as being explicitly settler-colonial. As such it not only supports the characterization but provides with a full citation for another reliable source that is explicit on this topic. The full bibliographical detail for the Statement of Scholars is:

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

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

Potential source

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

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

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

I now think saying a sentence or 2 about the interpretation of Genocide Convention with non-news sources, and how it relates to this case with sources like the one above can be done in Gaza_genocide#Legal_definition_of_genocide. Bogazicili (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"seem to have questioned even the Holocaust" I have heard people dismiss the Holocaust as mostly a topic relevant to the Hollywood hype machine and its propaganda films rather than an actual genocide for the last 30 years of my life. What else is new? Nearly every article which I have encountered on the Wannsee Conference has noted that the participants did not include the actual leadership of the Nazi Party, that the decisions taken used vague phrases and euphemisms for the goals of the project, and that the approval by their superiors was mostly an unstated assumption.Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing there is that there are a bunch of genocide scholars (in the US presumably) hiding in the closet but we can't really say anything about their views until they come out. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem though with saying with attribution that many scholars are holding back from expressing an opinion because they fear the consequences for themselves. Overall it seems a good introduction to the problem and suitable for citing in the article. NadVolum (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it into the Holocaust and genocide studies section with a refname "Split" since it might be used at other points in the article as well. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Attack type" in the infobox is inconsistent.

Currently, the "attack type" section of the infobox is as follows:

Genocide (accused), collective punishment, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, bombardment, targeted killings, starvation as method of war, torture, rape

The issue is that there is a parenthetical note of "(accused)" only for genocide, and not the other attack types. Why? Surely, the other attack types are also accusations, so why is there an inconsistency? Why single out genocide specifically as an accusation? I think that the parenthetical should be removed. It doesn't serve any purpose. JasonMacker (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s part of a broader issue with the attack type category used in this case, see the discussion above :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit: Historian Lee Mordechai as a source

In response to Special:Diff/1265157503 by Ján Kepler. Favonian (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the Haaretz long-read [36] about Mr Morderchai's reports on the war (paywall free article), I feel like it could be used in the article. They mention genocide specifically in the article (at the end), the only downside is it's paywalled. It'd be nice if there was a paragraph or a few sentences about Mr Mordechai's reports in the article. Thanks, Ján Kepler (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, the author has no expertise in this area nor is he a journalist.
From the Haaretz article, the sentence "....articles by six leading Israeli authorities, who have already stated that in their view Israel is perpetrating genocide: Holocaust and genocide expert Omer Bartov; Holocaust researcher Daniel Blatman (who wrote that what Israel is doing in Gaza is somewhere between ethnic cleansing and genocide); historian Amos Goldberg; Holocaust scholar Raz Segal; international law expert Itamar Mann; and historian Adam Raz." might be useful somehwere. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Date" in the infobox is inconsistent.

Currently, the "Date" section of the infobox is as follows:

7 October 2023 – present

How is it that this alleged "Gaza genocide" can be perpetrated as early as October 7, 2023, the very day Hamas massacred / raped / kidnapped Israeli civilians? Prior to any Israeli military intervention? --Guise (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "7 October 2023 – present" means that a genocide took place on 7 October, it means that a genocide took place/is taking place during that period.
If one looks at the case filed by South Africa, it says (III. THE FACTS A. Introduction, page 9), it begins "Since 7 October 2023, Israel has engaged in a large-scale military assault by land, air and sea, on the Gaza Strip (‘Gaza’), a narrow strip of land approximately of 365 square kilometres – one of the most densely populated places in the world." or from the Amnesty report "Amnesty International called on the ICC "to urgently consider the commission of the crime of genocide by Israeli officials since 7 October 2023 in the ongoing investigation into the situation in the State of Palestine".
Is there any reason to believe that it should start at some other date? Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel, even before responding to the Hamas infiltrations in their own territory almost immediately responded to the October 7 retaliation by bombing civilians in Gaza.
Over 200 civilians in Gaza were killed by Israeli bombardment on the same day
https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231007-sirens-heard-as-dozens-of-rockets-fired-from-gaza-towards-israel The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

There has been many recent changes attempting to minimise the conflict, even the clever wording of the first paragraph that some have tried to amend. Can we please discuss this here before making moves like that to the article? Thanks. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecpiandy: Afaik, there is only one UN agency, do you know of another? Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only one why is it labelled as such? Would you say "a Canadian government has described this as genocide?" No, you would say "Canada has described this as genocide." Ecpiandy (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It said UN agencies, which was just wrong so I fixed it. Selfstudier (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with how it was originally written for months? Ecpiandy (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It said UN agencies, which is wrong. Oh, I just said that, did you read it? Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's that "UN agencies" is wrong but "UN agency" is right? Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the UNGA Special Committee on Israeli Practices, mentioned specifically in Line 2, has called it out as a genocide. OHCHR has only said that it could be and the Rapporteurs are experts mandated by the UN rather than UN organs. So unless I missed one, there is only one "agency" rather than agencies. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza