Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation

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".[1] Outside the jihadist-progressive alliance, the view that this was a “genocide” is not widespread. See, for example, the entry for “genocide” in Britannica [2] 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 [3] 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[4].

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

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

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

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

@Nicoljaus: - apologies for the late reply. On (1), it is WP:SYNTHESIS for editors to tie criticism of the idea of "colonial" (in INSS) to the idea of "genocide". We can't do that, it must be the sources who do so. Now, you did provide a source doing so in Montefiore, but unfortunately, that Atlantic piece is an opinion article in the media. I am aware that Montefiore is a historian, and this would have been much stronger if it had appeared in academic scholarship. starship.paint (RUN) 13:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

What has the extreme right in post-war Britain to do with this article? Other than as a coatrack for an extremely biased POV argument that AZ = AS. Take it someplace else, please. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Read carefully please: far left’s use of Holocaust inversion. Regarding bias, there is an interesting study: "Holocaust Minimization, Anti-Israel Themes, and Antisemitism: Bias at the Journal of Genocide Research" by Israel W. Charny:

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

The article should describe accusations of "genocide" more in these terms, as an attempted Holocaust invertion (well, that's obvious from the very term "Nakba", literally "catastrophe") and politically motivated attacks, rather than as a well-respected, objective scholar opinion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to start with this. You have provided a couple of sources with some marginal crossover with the topic of this page, and based on this, you are calling to mirror this POV? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Best place to start with this is nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: - the Bland source is not acceptable for this article. It's focus is Holocaust denial by the British extreme right in the 1960s and 1980s. Even the quote of the far left’s use of Holocaust inversion to undermine the state of Israel has a flimsy and unexplained connection with the subject of this article. This is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS or the claim that this is related is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Who is the far left? Palestinians? Turkey? Pakistan? Iran? European scholars? North American scholars? As an aside, Bland had not even finished his Ph.D. at the time. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the Charny source, I see no reason to trust it over the response by Goldberg, Kehoe, Moses, Segal, Shaw, and Wolf, and if you scroll to the end of the second link, you'll see ~60 academics condemning Charny's writing. Anyway this is a bunch of academics criticizing each other. I am seriously wondering whether your POV is colouring your views, Nicoljaus. Focus on sources that focus on the alleged Palestinian genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Charny looks like a very respected researcher, as for me. But, well, now we have a bunch of scholars "A" talking (may be) nonsense. And there are a bunch of scholars "B" - those who object to them. Ok, fine, but here we look at “ordinary” encyclopedias and see who the freak is. Please show me a “regular” encyclopedia where the “genocide” of the Palestinians would be mentioned along with other genocidal atrocities (75 years have passed since the Nakba, enough time to sum it up.). As for my POV, I am quite far from this conflict. If we look, for example, at this topic, we might think that completely different people here have a pronounced POV. Nicoljaus (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm already aware that Charny is one of the New Historians, Nicoljaus Nevertheless, amomg those ~60 condemn his criticism are Mark Levene and Alon Confino, names I recognize because I added content to this very article that these two opined that 1948 Nakba is not genocide. If Levene and Confino are the scholars who condemn Charny, it really makes me wonder where the fringe is. starship.paint (RUN) 00:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it: even among people with a possible anti-Israeli bias (or, for example, associated with the PLO), there aren't many willing to repeat the "genocide" charge - this is a rather fringe. On the other hand, I can agree - Charny's speech was very harsh, it is not surprising that he did not receive much support. But, as we see now, he was right in claiming that these “genocidal scholars” are hate-mongering - Hamas and its supporters are confident that the actions of October 7 are justified, because ISRAEL IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE! Nicoljaus (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You've got that twisted the wrong way around: Israel's leaders appear to think that ethnic cleansing/genocide is justified by the events of 7 October. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

All the same. New slander for the sake of new terrorist attacks. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, I get that you are unhappy about the loss of innocent life, but shouting here achieves nothing. starship.paint (RUN) 11:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the abstract for the article "Israel, Palestine, and the Language of Genocide" by Levine&Cheyfitz. since the coining of the term by the Polish Jewish scholar Raphael Lemkin in the 1930s - Eh, hmm... Is Levine really a historian? And I can’t say that the article looks like it was written from any objective point of view. Further, you can see how narrow the circle of people who share their views is: This understanding of genocide as encompassing only extreme levels of mass murder is why last year's invocation of the term by the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), in criticizing the Occupation in the explanatory text of its manifesto, caused a firestorm of criticism. And yet not all Jews oppose the use of the term. Jewish Voice for Peace, the Jews of Color Caucus, historian Ilan Pappé, and the Center for Constitutional Rights (headed until his death about a year ago by attorney Michael Ratner), among others, have all supported, to a greater or lesser degree, the use of the term in the Israel/Palestine case, as have some of the world's leading scholars of international humanitarian law. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: - are we already using that source in this article? I cannot find it in the article at present. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't see this source in the article (but I don't have the full text). And I just realized my mistake! - the author of this source is Mark Levine, and you mentioned Mark Levene. And both write about genocide, ugh. Nicoljaus (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute, so did Charny write that there are several tragic and despicable moral failures of actual murderous genocidal massacres of Arabs by the Israelis? Charny does not clearly elaborate in the main text, and in a footnote states human rights atrocities including killings that Israeli soldiers committed during the Israel War of Independence. I guess I still wouldn't include this those, it seems vague. Charny himself admits There are any number of ‘biases’ built into this study, including: the way in which the researcher clearly stated his opinion ... the invitation to respondents stated openly that the author of the study considers any number of JGR articles convey “very serious minimizations of the Holocaust.” starship.paint (RUN) 14:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn’t quite understand the question (maybe my language barrier is the cause). In any case, I think there is no point in clinging to the words in one article by Charney:

Charny is not alone in feelings that something is wrong with the way INoGS academics approach Israel and the Holocaust.
“Professor Charny has done a service to the profession by highlighting the creeping anti-Israel bias that has not only overtaken global academia, but has now even invaded the field of genocide scholarship,” Gregory Stanton, a former president of IAGS and the founder of Genocide Watch, told The Times of Israel.
Stanton also defended Charny’s methodology, noting that he sent out a questionnaire to an IAGS mailing list and never claimed to have used random sample or other research methods. “He used a neutral third party to tally the results. He got a respectable rate of return, enough to permit statistically significant conclusions,” Stanton argued.
The founder of the Jerusalem Center for Genocide Prevention, Elihu Richter, also supports Charny’s attack on INoGS.
“The examples Charny gives concerning the Holocaust trivialization are potent,” opined Richter, a retired professor at Hebrew University’s School of Public Health and Community Medicine. “The same applies to negative bias towards Israel with regard to events preceding, during and after the 1948 War of Independence — and their contexts.”
In fact, Richter’s criticism goes even further than Charny’s. In studying genocide, INoGS “factors out the role of Moral Agency,” he wrote in a letter to the Jerusalem Post. “Moral Equivalence is the result.” Nicoljaus (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What does Holocaust trivialization have to do with Palestinian genocide? What does Charny's views about how a particular journal approaches Israel and the Holocaust have to do with Palestinian genocide? And why would we use an article that admittedly doesn't follow research methods ("he sent out a questionnaire to an IAGS mailing list and never claimed to have used random sample or other research methods") as a source in a Wikipedia article, especially to "rebut" or provide "balance" to peer-reviewed scholarship? This Wikipedia article can be written entirely by peer-reviewed scholarship (WP:TIER1) and, for current events, top newsmedia (WP:TIER2). Charny has written plenty of peer-reviewed scholarship about genocide. This particular article, complaining about the Journal of Genocide Research, does not seem to be one of them. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This highlights serious problems with some of these "peer-reviewed scholarship", and places them in the proper context of WP:FRINGE (perhaps not exactly fringe, but very, very far from the mainstream, and very politically motivated). Nicoljaus (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That is backwards. When one scholar disagrees with many scholars, that doesn't mean the many scholars are FRINGE. More likely, the opposite. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That is obviously not our case, see above . Nicoljaus (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It obviously is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry but you keep trying to prove that these sources are biased or fringe and you are doing it based off of sourcing that simply does not back up what you are claiming. The Holocaust inversion bit, besides being highly disputed as antisemitism anyway, isn’t what this article is about. You are attempting to define this as Holocaust inversion, and then use sources about Holocaust inversion to make claims about the characterization and those sources that make them. But the fact that the sources discussing this do not in fact compare Israeli policies with Nazi policies but rather document those policies and describe why, or why not, those policies and practices qualify as genocide under international law. You are, quite nakedly, attempting to claim that any source that makes an accusation of a crime against humanity that the Nazis committed against Israel to be definitionally a comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis, and that is both not true and not relevant. Regardless, your sources have to discuss this topic, not whatever topic you in your own head believe this topic to be related to. nableezy - 18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust inversion bit - Hmm, I didn't know about this redirect. I don’t think it’s successful, it’s better to redirect to this article. The Holocaust was definitely a genocide, but the redirect article doesn't even mention any Jewish "genocide" at all. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

creeping anti-Israel bias that has not only overtaken global academia, but has now even invaded the field of genocide scholarship,” - this is an excellent hint that the views are not fringe. starship.paint (RUN) 00:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to note that this is about anti-Israel bias, not about accusations of genocide. In addition, “to invade” does not mean to occupy any stable position, in general. Nicoljaus (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Noted, Nicoljaus, that this is about anti-Israel bias, not about accusations of genocide, therfore this is irrelevant to this article, we can ignore Charny, Stanton and Richter on this topic. starship.paint (RUN) 11:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write for the very last time. Since you not found any “regular” encyclopedia "where the “genocide” of the Palestinians would be mentioned along with other genocidal atrocities (75 years have passed since the Nakba, enough time to sum it up.)", it is obvious that “accusations of genocide” are quite fringe (otherwise the article would still be called “Genocide of Palestinians”, yes). But this aspect is not reflected in the text, the group that holds this position and their ideology are not defined. Charney's article says something about this. Nicoljaus (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia is just the best encyclopedia now - at the cutting edge of tertiary awesomeness. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, as I will remind you again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, over the course of my reading on this topic, I have seen different academics writing that there is a lack of academic attention paid to the Nakba, including whether it was a genocide or not. Therefore, it is not automatically a given that 75 years are enough time to sum it up. That being said, if you have a scholarly source that scours encyclopaedias and says "no regular encyclopedias list the Nakba as genocide", we can look into including it. starship.paint (RUN) 03:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I know I'm wasting my time. But first of all. “absence of evidence” argument does not apply in this case. What we are checking is that it is fairly widely known. If in some little-known encyclopedia published by Islamic fundamentalists, Turkish deniers of the Armenian genocide, or ultra-left radicals, this case is mentioned, this will only confirm the compliance of WP:FRINGE. Secondly, the Arab-Israeli conflict has attracted close attention and has been studied very well. If no one has noticed this “genocide” in 75 years, it is very likely that there is something wrong with these accusations. Nicoljaus (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think this discussion is limited to "ultra-left radicals", I'm unconvinced that you have properly read the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

“ordinary” encyclopedias Nicoljaus (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Removal of Sabra & Shatila section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Events during the Lebanese Civil War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not going to argue point-by-point because we have both made our broad positions clear, and others should endorse or otherwise the points made, Do you want to keep silent about the fact that Israel seriously investigated the event, despite resistance within the country? I consider it largely irrelevant to this page. I don't know about 'domestic' pressure, but international pressure was - almost universally - condemning Israel's and its govt's and military's complicity and attempted cover-up. But both are fairly irrelevant here. Govts don't get 'free passes' because they eventually investigate brutal events with which they - or their troops - are complicit. Especially when they are doing little more than acknowledging info that has long been in the public sphere - it's generally called damage limitation. According to the linked article and sources, Sharon resisted resigning when the report was published anyway. That kind of detail belongs on the commission article, but clarifies nothing here though. Pincrete (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about 'domestic' pressure - but you deleted the place where that was mentioned: [5]. I take it you refuse to discuss improving the text further? Well, I can't force you. But, to be honest, I don’t understand why this fragment should be deleted. Even if we don’t take into account that there is WP:NOTPAPER and we are not saving space, these are literally two lines. Now the sentence appears to be suddenly interrupted.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

By chance, I had just been reading 'your' source about the govt response to the Kahan commission report when I saw this post. I have to say I barely recognise your rendering of that source previously in the article. The then Israeli govt, under Begin, argued furiously for three days about how to respond to the report. Ultimately Sharon 'moved sideways' in the cabinet from Defence minister to minister without portfolio and after a few weeks was returned to the ministerial defence committee (but not as Defence minister). Begin is criticised for obeying the letter, but ignoring the spirit of the report and pro-govt protestors abuse and attack anti-govt protestors, killing a peace activist by throwing a grenade into a crowd. All this is the outcome of ministerial-level complicity in an act of mass murder on mainly unarmed women and children, during a ceasefire, the outline of which had been 'splashed across' the newspapers of the world almost from the day following the massacre.

None of this reflects very well on that govt or Israeli society, but in the context of this article, none of it is very relevant. It is incidental to the nature of the accusations made against Israel(is) and the findings of the two commissions. Thus it isn't that I refuse to discuss improving the text further, it's partly that the 'improvements' you seek aren't supported by the sources, don't represent a 'balanced' account AFAI can see but also IMO aren't relevant here. I left the sentence: "The commission's findings were reluctantly accepted by the Israeli government", because it bears on the govt 'admitting' the commision's findings, albeit reluctantly. Pincrete (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. I can’t do anything here and leave the article. But if someone asks "why a POV tag", this topic will be another example. Nicoljaus (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: - I read the diff that you last objected to, and frankly, I too don't really see the relevance to this article on genocide, and therefore hardly indicative of a POV problem. That said though, in the spirit of compromise I have summarised the context. [6] starship.paint (RUN) 14:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've slightly modified, for reasons of flow only and will not be upset if the older version is preferred. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That's alright. starship.paint (RUN) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

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[7] 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."[8][9] There's simply nothing of any substance here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The open letter says "with stated genocidal intent", that seems clear enough to me. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

^this. The open letter is definitely substantial.

“war crimes [carried out] with stated genocidal intent” (the phrase in the letter he co-signed) speaks to both actus reus and mens rea. The acts are the war crimes (e.g., killing members of a national/ethnic group) and the “stated genocidal intent” is, on a plain reading, synonymous with “intent to destroy, in whole or part” a national or ethnic group, i.e., the specific intent required under Art. 2. If we view the horrors of Srebrenica as meeting the definition of genocide (which they did) it follows that there’s no “magic number” of victims necessary to make something a genocidal act.

As for white phosphorus, if it’s used to kill members of a protected group as such, with intent to destroy that group in whole or part, then it could certainly meet the legal definition of genocide, irrespective of whether it kills 50 people or 100 people or 1,000. WillowCity^(talk) 13:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello there,

Here is an interesting The Economist, that I encountered, worth reading. [10]

1) Quote: "In December 1948, in the aftermath of the second world war, the un adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention defines a genocide as acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Contrary to the common understanding of the term, the un says not only killing counts. “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction” does too, as does inflicting “serious bodily or mental harm”, “measures intended to prevent births”, and “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Categorising atrocities as genocide has legal implications. The International Criminal Court is able to indict someone for the crime, for example."

2) Quote: By the un definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation. Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed. Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law.

Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill civilians in doing so. And while some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy."

3) Quote: "Neither do the Israelis display any obvious intent to prevent Palestinian births. But those who accuse it of genocide point to the large number of civilians killed, at least 10,000 so far, and claim its blockade of the strip meets the “conditions-of-life” criterion. The Israelis have clearly inflicted “serious bodily or mental harm” on the Palestinians. They have also displaced people from the north of the strip. If those people are not allowed to return, this could be considered a partial destruction of their territory or, as Jan Egeland, a former un head of humanitarian and relief efforts, has warned, a forcible population transfer."

Homerethegreat (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it amply explains why genocide cannot be used here. There are also examples of horrific deeds by governments that are not defined as genocide but surmount to war crimes etc. It's well worth noting this since it seems that lately the term genocide is lightly used when in reality you may describing war crimes or some other deed. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You suggest Israel doesn't prevent births the day it cuts the power to incubators? Wow. The definition of genocide is clear that it applies "in whole or in part" and Israel's intent in Gaza has been made obnoxiously clear. Maybe stop taking pointers from individual articles with all of their inherent bias and try to appreciate the body of sourcing as a whole, per WP:NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel has told civilians to leave and medics to send patients elsewhere. It says it has attempted to evacuate babies from the neonatal ward and left 300 litres of fuel to power emergency generators at the hospital entrance, but that the offers were blocked by Hamas. Qidra denied rejecting the offers of fuel but said the 300 litres would power the hospital for only half an hour. Shifa needed 8,000-10,000 litres of fuel a day, which must be delivered by the Red Cross or an international aid agency, he said -- This looks like a hostage situation. 300 liters would be enough for a day for five 5 kW generators, more than enough for incubators.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that could literally be a statement direct from the IDF spokesperson. This is no longer a source-based conversation, but something else. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

WillowCity says white phosphorous can be used to commit genocide -of course this is true, but merely using the weapon illegally is evidence of a war crime, not necessarily genocide. I know that an effort has been made on this article to distinguish between war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide based on their differing technical-legal criteria. You cite "if it’s used to kill members of a protected group as such, with intent to destroy that group in whole or part" but seem to take the intention as a given rather than something that must be proven either by government policy or that of the IDF (you'd want something in the way of written correspondence or recorded remarks by commanders and/or government officials outlining a clear, non-military objective to totally or partially destroy "the group" (ie Palestinians, not Hamas). I don't think this evidence exists and I've yet to find an accusation in any reliable source that outlines a clear who, what, when, where and how. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything as a given, I'm citing Bartov who, on two separate occasions, acknowledged the existence of genocidal intent, and acts committed in furtherance of that intent. Some comments ("recorded remarks by commanders and/or government officials outlining a clear, non-military objective to ... partially destroy" Palestinians as a group) that Bartov cites as indicative of specific intent:

Netanyahu: "'Remember what Amalek did to you' (Deuteronomy 25:17). We remember and we fight." (for the significance of this, see Sefer Shmuel/Samuel 15:3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling…")

Yoav Gallant: "We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly." Gallant may have been referring to Hamas with this remark, but a deft prosecutor could likely draw out evidence to the contrary.

Head of COGAT, Maj. Gen Ghassan Alian: "Hamas has turned into ISIS, and the residents of Gaza, instead of being appalled, are celebrating. Human animals must be treated as such… there will be no electricity and no water. There will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell."

In any criminal prosecution it will be extremely rare to find a criminal explicitly stating their specific intent/desire/motive; this is part of what makes white-collar prosecutions so difficult (and, as you've observed, prosecution for genocide). But overwhelming circumstantial evidence can certainly establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyway, this is all WP:FORUM; I'm just saying that Bartov's comments are very interesting and reflect an increasing recognition of what's happening. WillowCity^(talk) 22:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Numerous experts have now noted that the genocidal intent, normally the hardest thing to evidence, has been made plainly obvious by Israel's leaders in their various psychotic statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

State crime letter

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

Lead material unsupported in the body

The last paragraph of the lead:

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

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

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

"all pure imports into the lead" They are OR violations,, if not outright vandalism. Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that all content has to be within guidelines, but think it a pity that the response isn't recorded in the lead. Certainly with journalistic response, it tends to get a lot of coverage.Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality: discussion welcome

“

”

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

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

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

No. There has little response to recent invitations to clearly state how and where the article is unbalanced. Pincrete (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've finally completed adding content from sources that were proposed when discussing the POV tag, most of the sources were raised by Levivich. As such, I believe that if no one can propose any more sources, it's time to remove the POV tag. It is utterly unhelpful to claim POV but provide no missing reliable sources. Below are the 11 sources added (and others not added) to address NPOV: starship.paint (RUN) 15:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  1. Rashed, Short & Docker -  Added
  2. Lentin -  Added
  3. Lustick -  Added
  4. Fierke - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
  5. Auron -  Added, I was able to read the entire preface and introduction, but little of the rest, but added what I could.
  6. Bashir & Goldberg -  Added
  7. Wermenbol - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
  8. INSS - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
  9. Britannica - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide.
  10. Hasian  Added
  11. Al-Hardan  Added
  12. Wolfe  Added
  13. Slater  Added
  14. Masalha  Added
  15. Pappe  Added
  16. Montefiore - I did not add it, it is an opinion article in the media and I think better sources can be found
  17. Bland - I did not add it, as it is not connected enough to the idea of Palestinian genocide, the focus was Holocaust denial by the British far-right
  18. Charny on Holocaust Minimization - I did not add it, the focus was criticising other scholars, for example of omission, and while it mentions "genocidal massacres of Arabs by the Israelis", it is not elaborated much and there is some vagueness. starship.paint (RUN) 15:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2023

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

Comment allegations should be lowercase. Killuminator (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure Homerethegreat (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Edited as relatively uncontroversial. starship.paint (RUN) 15:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is this RM parked at the top of the talk page? Inappropriate RM that ignores RM discussion last month Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence, on the second sentence see WP:CCC. Parham wiki (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In a fortnight? And MOS:ALLEGED? Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - how would the new article be structured? (1) History, (2) Discourse around Palestinian genocide, (3) Discourse around Israeli genocide ? starship.paint (RUN) 13:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• NO - At this point "No" - the current title of the article is already inherently flawed and outdated, because all our Reliable Sources that we normally use for referencing in articles about the Armenian, Bosnian, Rwandan genocides have been calling the situation with the Palestinians "Genocide against the Palestinians" (or some such variant) for some time now, so there is absolutely no reason to continue to avoid changing the title of this article according to the given sources, not someones personal preference, and finally remove "accusations" from it, and not exchange one flawed for another containing "allegations" instead of "accusations". So, at this point and in regard to this Request I am expressing my staunch opposition, until such time arrives and/or conditions are met to move it to proper title - "Palestinian Genocide" or "Genocide on Palestinian people".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No. I agree with Santasa99. This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide – an opinion that has become increasingly mainstream in recent weeks – by cloaking it in "both sides" language. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)