Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:Gaza Genocide
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

"Date" in the infobox is inconsistent.

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

7 October 2023 – present

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

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

Recent changes

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

@Ecpiandy: Afaik, there is only one UN agency, do you know of another? Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only one why is it labelled as such? Would you say "a Canadian government has described this as genocide?" No, you would say "Canada has described this as genocide." Ecpiandy (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It said UN agencies, which was just wrong so I fixed it. Selfstudier (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with how it was originally written for months? Ecpiandy (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It said UN agencies, which is wrong. Oh, I just said that, did you read it? Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's that "UN agencies" is wrong but "UN agency" is right? Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the UNGA Special Committee on Israeli Practices, mentioned specifically in Line 2, has called it out as a genocide. OHCHR has only said that it could be and the Rapporteurs are experts mandated by the UN rather than UN organs. So unless I missed one, there is only one "agency" rather than agencies. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be an option to simply name the agency in question instead of saying "a UN agency"? I came to this article as a reader, not an editor, so I'll defer to you guys who are more involved in this subject area, but when I saw "a UN agency" my immediate question was "which one?" -- LWG 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said, it is named, in Line 2. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from WP:RFED

Genocide Watch states that: „A genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel is underway in Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister General Yoav Gallant have demonstrated their intent to destroy a substantial portion of the civilian population of Gaza. Israel is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Gaza. It is also committing crimes against humanity against Palestinians in the West Bank.” See https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-gaza-and-the-west-bank-2024 This information should be added to first paragraph of Gaza_genocide#NGOs_and_intergovernmental_organisations Jakub Onderka (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Reference to Genocide Watch's updated position has been added to the relevant section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another important publication

For review: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2448061 BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a more in depth account than the Speri article, I would say, based on "Despite all these, as the above examples suggests, the Israel-critical camp has grown considerably louder in the last year" and given that this is again concerned mainly with the US, we have the balance in our article more or less correct. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism has been quoted back at people so much I'm sure it has made many people antisemitic. It is like an engineer in charge of some building works who was told practically any time he said some work needed redoing that he was saying it because they were black. He couldn't have cared less what colour they were. It just led to his hating the job and the people saying that and leaving. NadVolum (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems entirely disconnected from the topic of this discussion. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it covers similar ground to Speri but with much more depth and analytical rigour. I agree both largely confirm the balance of this article.
Speri mentions Uğur Ümit Üngör, Rav Segal, Abdelwahab El-Affendi, Marianne Hirsch, Omer Bartov and William Schabas and on one side, Norman Goda and Jeffrey Herf on the other. Of these, all but Hirsch, Goda and Herf figure prominently in our article, so this secondary source largely confirms our sense of who is DUE. On this basis, we should consider adding Hirsch, Goda and Herf to the article.
Speri also notes
Early in the war, this debate played out in op-eds and dueling open letters. In one, more than 150 academics framed the Hamas attacks as an echo of “the pogroms that paved the way to the Final Solution”. In another, more than 55 scholars warned of the “danger of genocide” by Israel in Gaza and invoked states’ duty to intervene.
I think we might consider citing these letters. The signatories are very notable (including Jan Grabowski, Jan T. Gross and Yehuda Bauer in the case of one letter;
Bartov, and Christopher Browning in the first NYRB letter; Goda, Herf, Gross, and Sander Gilman replying).
IKlein mentions Segal, Bartov, Dirk Moses, Samuel Moyn, the NYRB letter, Barry Trachtenberg, Omar Shahabudin McDoom, Amos Goldberg on one side. I think we mention all of those except Moyn and the NYRB letter. On the other side she mentions Bauer, Michael Berenbaum, Polly Zavadivker, Richard Libowitz, the Grabowski letter, Tuvia Friling, Herf & Goda's letter, and Yad Vashem. Of these, our coverage is weaker, I think only mentioning Berenbaum and Zavadivker. I would suggest we correct that slight imbalance.
The key thing that both Speri and Klein set out very well, which I don't think we reflect, is that the discipline of genocide studies has been fundamentally split by this question, which seems an important point to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did add something after you posted the Speri article -> "In late 2024, The Guardian reported a continuing split in the field with "with many keeping to the sidelines·" It's just one field and only in the US so I don't think it's that critical but we could expand it a little, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a good sentence; I think worth expanding a little. Good point about US, and Klein also explicitly says she focuses on scholars in US and Israel and that she's leaving Europe to others. True it's only one field, but it's the field for analysing genocide. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Herf and Goda's article on the case has not been included directly due to it being posted via a GUNREL source. With this article from the Journal of Genocide Research, we can add in information on their position cited to this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the JGR article doesn't reference Herf and Goda's main article, but instead interviews and a different collaborative piece they did. We can still cite this JGR article, but using any if the references it has for Herf and Goda are also fine duw to being from RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "main article" do you mean Quillette? Agree we shouldn't cite that. However, their NYT letter responding to Bartov and their NYRB letter are probably both noteworthy I think. There's a little bit of secondary coverage of them, as well as of Herf's controversial YIVO panel.[15][16][17][18] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At some point we will have access to Can Genocide Studies Survive a Genocide in Gaza? "What's the point of this field?" said A.Dirk Moses.."Is it in fact enabling the mass killing of Palestinians in the name of self defense and genocide prevention. If that's the case, then the field is dead - not only incoherent but complicit in mass killing" echoing a similar point made The Futility of Genocide Studies After Gaza a year ago "What then remains for a field whose core mission is genocide prevention if major "democracies" see quasi-genocidal acts as valid policy options? Even more serious, where can the field stand if scholars from within and around it are unwilling to call the behaviour out?" Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet estimate update

A full Lancet review of the casualty statistics and modelling based on the drop-off in hospital reporting now estimates that at least 70,000 people (64,000 as of June) have died as a direct result of traumatic injury in Gaza. So fundamentally an update on the growing official undercount. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got to stick with the current headline figures from the GHM. However the methodology looks sound and I've no particular problem accepting the numbers and believe it should be included as reliable. They also said they don't include those missing which would include those that are unidentified under the rubble. On the other hand some may have died from other causes besides trauma which they touch upon but say they don't have enough data to approach the problem nor the figures for overall non-trauma deaths. All the indications from other sources are that those of the same order or higher than the trauma deaths. NadVolum (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the methodology looks like it has identified and corrected for the gross underreporting of childrens deaths compared to that of adults. This is evident in where it remarks on the near uniform death rate of women of all ages from children to the elderly. I'm very impressed. NadVolum (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grim confirmation of what we know: A lack of discrimination in killings by age and sex would manifest itself numerically as a relatively flat age–sex risk—eg, as described by the UN Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Our estimates for deaths among women and girls broadly exhibit such a pattern. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one thing I'm a bit surprised about. The percentage of adult male deaths they have is a bit higher than that from the GHM. The extra childrens deaths means the percentage of possible combatants given by adult males minus females remains about the same but I really expected male deaths to be a bit overreported by the GHM. NadVolum (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&oldid=1269434088"