Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loodog (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 2 January 2024 (→‎Relevance of Jewish expulsion from Arab lands). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

5.6 million people have been expelled from Palestine and registered with UNRWA as refugees as of 2019

That's just factually untrue. "5.6 million people are *descended* from Palestinians expelled in (1948, 1967) and are registered etc" would be an accurate statement (though that would probably have to be attached to an earlier section rather than it's own misleading headline). 3:20, 27 November 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.235.199.209 (talk)

The accusation has been rejected by …

Homerethegreat and others. While I would not wish to spend very long defending the prior summary in the lead of who rejects the 'genocide accusation', (The accusation has been rejected by a majority of Israelis and supporters of Israel) I'm not too sure that this] is much of an improvement, mainly because the summary, isn't comprehensive, isn't clear and isn't even well sourced IMO. The new text is: "The accusation has been rejected by the US, Israel and several organizations". I agree with you that the "majority of Israelis", while it may well be true, is probably not cited anywhere in the article.

Firstly, some things we should remind ourselves of is that the lead is a summary of the body and as long as claims are properly sourced in the body, and the lead is an accurate summary of the body, no specific refs are required in the lead.

Secondly, the article is about the whole history of accusation from 1948-ish to the present day - not simply about 2023, nor any specific time within that period.

Thirdly neither the source for US rejection nor Israel rejection of the accusation actually supports such a general proposition. The source for the US covers a specific White House official in 2023: White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby appears to smack down allegations that Israel is committing “genocide” against the Palestinians in Gaza, while the source for Israel rejecting the accusation speaks of a group of "Jewish and Israeli human rights lawyers across the political spectrum use words like “ridiculous” and “baseless” to describe the accusation", specifically referring to 2021 accusations.

While I don't doubt at all that all, or almost all US administrations, all Israeli administrations (and many other Western governments), would have rejected the genocide accusation at all times since 1948, the sources not only don't support the rejection (Kirby is not America and a group of 2021 Jewish/Israeli lawyers don't speak for Israel). They also aren't a very comprehensive summary of who does reject the accusation.

Lastly, "and several organizations" is vague to the point of being almost meaningless, as someone has tagged it. The source is ADL, which technically only speaks for ADL itself, but presumably our wording is intended to cover "supporters of Israel", pro-Israeli groups, or some-such.

I'm not sure how we should approach this, but the 'who' (and 'why'??) of rejection doesn't seem to me to be well phrased, comprehensive, nor well sourced at present, nor an especially good summary of the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, regarding several organizations. It was following the TOI source which pointed to several different groups. Regarding the rest I agree that the article seems misoriented and its unclear what the scope is and also where and what should be cited in lead. But I did not wish to strike down large sections. Thank you for bringing this up.
What would you suggest? Perhaps we need to focus article on 1948? Perhaps on 2023? Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing in the lead doesn't greatly bother me, balanced summaries of relatively uncontroversial material shouldn't need independent sourcing in the lead IMO, but inadequate sources are worse than none also IMO. These don't really support the text they follow AFAI can see and we would be better trying to summarise the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation has been rejected by the US... We should avoid using the term supporters if its not sourced. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US having officially rejected it is certainly not sourced - a named spokesman apparently 'slapping down' the idea of genocide in the aftermath of Oct 2023 isn't official US rejection. I'm sure US would reject if asked, as it is the principal ally of Israel, but AFAIK it hasn't been officially. So would most of Israel's nominal allies, which is most of the EU and the West, so why single out the US? 'Supporters' is a generic term covering nation states and orgs and individuals and is justified as a summary of the body. I agree that the wording is imperfect, but are we going to list all those states, organisations etc that have nominally rejected the accusation. We were previously using a bunch of Jewish and Israeli HR lawyers responding to an earlier Gaza incursion to justify Israel having officially rejected the accusation. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC) signed retrospectively by Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as many 3500 civilians at Sabra and Shatila

this violates the neutral stance as the main Wikipedia page places the death toll at around 460 to 3,500 civilians. The use of only the largest (and least official estimate) would appear to be in order to emphasise the author's point of view. Daddyoftwo (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually done for reasons of brevity, in what is a 'background summary', but I don't object to using the 'range' figures. Pincrete (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an accusation then we should not show numbers that may accidentally misinform. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent sources discussing genocidal intent and/or genocidal action in Gaza

For reference, here are some recent sources where scholars are raising concerns about genocidal intent and/or genocidal action in Gaza:

As the Google Scholar links show, the last three of those have written the world's leading current textbooks on genocide. You also have Jason Stanley, a world expert on fascist propaganda at Yale University, raising the same concern. This TIME Magazine article lists a few more names. Andreas JN466 16:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of deaths and displacement figures

The removal of deaths and displacement figures in an article about genocide accusations - which also documents 'auxiliary' accusations of ethnic cleansing seems perverse. IMO both are invaluable backgound info. The edit reason seems equally wrong headed "Remove WP:SYNTH. The sources do not say anything about genocide. The data could be seen as off-topic, it could be seen as an implied PoV, but it isn't SYNTH - which is explicitly defined as combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." or combining "different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". It is difficult to see what information is combined, or what novel conclusion reached. The section simply records UN supplied numbers, which of course don't mention 'genocide'. I think it should be restored. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not synth, not entirely sure how relevant the figures are on their own, think it mighty be better if linked in genocide related sourcing that referred to them or the results of Israeli acts, as here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The numbers provide context. Scientelensia (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the section. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Palestinian death statistics were given from Hamas, that should be added for more information

2023 Palestinian death statistics were given from Hamas, that should be added for more information 2600:1017:B0C7:7A5C:75F3:7ED6:7135:8CD9 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, discussed at other pages, and the Gaza MoH figures are considered reliable. See here or the latest report today from Reuters, Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already made clear that the figures are from the Gaza MoH - who are generally considered reliable.Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabra and Shatila

The Sabra&Shatila massacre was committed internally by Lebanese paramilitary group,and despite the disputes about Israeli responsibility on the area,it’s simply can not be part of the relevant allegations (or at least:clarify it). עמית לונן (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text is very explicit that Israel is accused of complicity, not of having committed the massacres. How could that be further clarified? Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well,it did not. עמית לונן (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did not what? Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel did not took part.
Those paramilitary groups were indeed backed in general by israel but israel did not sent them in any way to commit such a terrible massacre. עמית לונן (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say Israel took part. It says Israel is accused of complicity. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptions of Genocide

This entire article lacks neutrality and is agenda-driven.

The "conceptions of genocide" sub-header declares one man's opinion that "genocide" does not necessarily entail mass death. Interestingly, not only does the section not include any other "conception of genocide", but it omits the dictionary definition and, presumably, the definition accepted by the common man:

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group" (Oxford Languages).

Finally, there is no mention anywhere in the article that the Palestinian population increased from 2,783,084 in 1997 to 5,227,193 in 2021, which would seem to serve as a nontrivial counter point to the allegation being "addressed" by this article. Chupster811 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions employed are not opinions - they are based on the legal and academic notions of genocide, as defined in about 1948. Those definitions are largely based on the notion of "intent to destroy in whole or in part" {. There is no requirement of "minimum kill number", nor that the "victim group's" population reduce in size. You are probably right about the "common man" definition, though even that definition would not preclude Israel being accused. That OED definition still focuses on intent to destroy, and doesn't say that population numbers must decrease or that there is any minimum 'kill' number. Srebrenica was legally declared to be genocide, despite the number killed being the (relatively) modest number of about 8-9000 in a specific locale. The ruling came about because the International court ruled that the intent was to destroy the wider ethnic group. Not a single person has been killed AFA we know in the Uyghur genocide, but various countries and scholars and lawyers (and WP?) have written about the intent behind Chinese policies.
To use a very crude - possibly cruel - analogy, the fact that the number of weeds in my garden has increased, has little bearing on whether I have been trying to eliminate them. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has enacted plans to ensure the slow, quiet death of Palestinians as they are deprived of the resources they need to live (food, water, shelter, etc.) It is a systematic genocide, something that has been seen many times before in history, where a population is slowly killed by the incremental actions of an oppressor. A population growth does not cancel this out. Your failure to see Israel's genocidal intent does not mean that the article is biased. Salmoonlight (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Israel wanted to commit a genocide and level the entire Gaza Strip and West Bank, it could have done so at any point in the past 75 years; however, it chooses not to. One would also presume that Israel would begin a Palestinian genocide by wiping out the 20% of its citizenry that is Arab. One would also tend to think that, people being subjected to genocide would not feel close to the state committing an alleged genocide of their people[1]. None of you have addressed my point of there being a "Conceptions of Genocide" section only containing one "conception". You are free to believe that Israel is a genocidal state, but at least recognize the need for other such "conceptions" to warrant the section's existence. Chupster811 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, Israel would receive immediate condemnation from the world over if they did what you suggested. Second, you are ignoring how it is a systematic genocide that has been happening since 1948. Third, the conception is completely normal in genocide studies. The destruction of infrastructure, culture, resources and safety all serve as the incremental actions that make up a genocide. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also, that excerpt was literally written by the man who coined the term genocide. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of you have addressed my point of there being a "Conceptions of Genocide" section only containing one "conception". You are free to believe that Israel is a genocidal state, but at least recognize the need for other such "conceptions" to warrant the section's existence. Chupster811 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually answer what I said instead of just copying your last comment. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not pose a question; there is nothing for me to "answer". I will reformulate my point in the form of a question to which you may directly respond if you so choose: Why is there a "Conceptions of Genocide" (with "conceptions" being in the plural) section only containing one "conception"? Chupster811 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the conception not sufficient enough for you? Why does there need to be multiple conceptions? Adding more interpretations would not make it any more "neutral" if that's what you want. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could I remind you both of WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:AGF, our own personal opinions on Israel's actions have little place here and the topic can be discussed civilly. Equally, there really is only one (legal) definition of genocide. Legal scholars, judges and others can/do interpret that definition variously, just as they might interpret any legal concept, but the definition remains the same. Lemkin - who coined the term - placed even less emphasis on the number killed and even more on 'intent' than the 1948/legal definition does. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you reiterate that your contention is with the title implying multiple conceptions, the title has been adjusted to refer to the conception of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chupster811, and anyone else, I owe a slight apology. Rather foolishly I didn't check our text and (wrongly) assumed that the definition we were using in this article was the 1948 UN Genocide Convention one (the legal definition). In fact we are using Lemkin's description (possibly his 1944 one). It's reasonable to assume that any legal or academic scholar is working from the 1944 UN GC definition, so we should include it, even if we leave Lemkin in place. Lemkin & the UN GC don't differ substantially, but the latter is more precisely phrased/codified - legally. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the UN GC definition. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Pincrete: -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original text is from a 1945 article by Lemkin, which is quoted in the source we use. I've added this info to the text as a footnote. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

Are these sources[2][3][4] reliable? I wonder if there is a consensus about it. Can they be used as enough of citation to refer to the "accused genocide" as a "genocide" in Wikipedia? If yes, I request this article to be renamed as "Palestinian Genocide" and change its formatting to a tone that is acknowledging that these events are indeed a genocide. Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done this has been extensively discussed and rejected, please see Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation/Archive_1#c-Starship.paint-20231031230600-Requested_move_24_October_2023. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, then let's apply whatever has been said in that discussion to Holocaust; rename the page to "Holocaust Accusation"!!!! Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-arab-minority-feels-closer-country-war-poll-finds-2023-11-10/
  2. ^ Monitor, Euro-Med Human Rights. "Nearly 25,000 Palestinians killed during 70-day Israeli genocide in Gaza". Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. Retrieved 2023-12-29.
  3. ^ https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/nearly-30000-palestinians-killed-during-82-day-israeli-genocide-gaza
  4. ^ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against

still others argue that none of these have occurred - citation needed tag.

"still others argue that none of these have occurred" is the final phrase of a para in which the preceding text says that some scholars have said not genocide, but rather "ethnic cleansing, politicide, spaciocide, cultural genocide or similar". The final phrase is summarising that some scholars reject ALL these -cide allegation against Israel. The text is a summary of the body of the article, but the likelihood of finding a source that rejects ALL these specific allegations is very slim IMO, but if we don't include we are implying tha Israel is generally thought to be guilty of at least one of these crimes. A cite, and the tag is not needed IMO for content that is expanded in the body. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza holocaust" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gaza holocaust has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 2 § Gaza holocaust until a consensus is reached. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 14:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Jewish expulsion from Arab lands

As per my edit, I encouraged discussion on talk page here prior to reversion, but here we are. If we are going to bring up the Nakba and create an entire section for discussing it, we have to present both sides, or else have a WP:NPOV violation. The argument that the Nabka was a form of genocide has been articulated and backed up with 3 sources. The argument against just says authors "do not consider it to be genocide" with no details, still calling it an ethnic cleaning. I have provided 2 sources that discuss the Nakba in the context of the Jewish expulsion from Arab lands and been reverted with the explanation: "off-topic and not contextually relevant, and only really of relevance in a related context to Nakba apologetics and denial". Louiedog (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation&oldid=1193240098"