Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gaza genocide: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:19, 6 January 2025 view sourceLWG (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,803 edits →Recent changes: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:42, 20 January 2025 view source LizardJr8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,461 edits →Edit request from WP:RFED 2: ReplyTag: Reply 
(46 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 210: Line 210:
|archivedate20 = |archivedate20 =
|accessdate20 = December 5, 2024 |accessdate20 = December 5, 2024
|author21 = Aaron Bandler
|title21 = Misplaced Pages’s Supreme Court On the Verge of Topic Banning 8 Editors from Israel-Palestine Area
|date21 = January 18, 2025
|org21 = ]
|url21 = https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/378546/wikipedias-supreme-court-on-the-verge-of-topic-banning-8-editors-from-israel-palestine-area/
|lang21 =
|quote21 =
|archiveurl21 = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. -->
|archivedate21 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate21 = January 19, 2025


<!-- <!--
Line 274: Line 285:
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} {{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving --> <!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving -->

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

Handing over accussations of complicity in genocide to countries and even cabinets, which carry the names of individuals (]), is a pretty serious issue. This is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see on an infobox cited with 10 sources. Can we really not put some more effort in such an ] claim such as that the United States, the United Kingdom or Germany may be supposedly complicit in genocide in 2024? I am not asking for them to be removed, I am not even tagging the infobox, but I am asking for some professionalism. Stop pointing fingers while empty-handed. This is a highly watched article, put some actual effort in pushing your case, and if you can't, remove it. ] ] ] 01:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Though I would really rather have the mentioned cabinets removed. It is practically reducing the complicity accussation from an entire country to a reduced number of individuals. Individuals who have nowhere as near of a level of attributed responsability as Netanyahu or Gallant. Now that, that should be very heavily sourced before even being proposed for inclusion. ] ] ] 01:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you read ]? ] ] 01:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes. There is nothing about the European Union there. ] ] ] 01:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay. I didn't say that there was. ] ] 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Did you even read what I wrote before replying? This is the edit that prompted my comment . ] ] ] 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I saw that edit before I left my comment. I agreed with it, so didn't revert it. I asked you whether you read ] mostly because you said:
:::::{{tq2|Can we really not put some more effort in such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim such as that the United States, the United Kingdom or Germany may be supposedly complicit in genocide in 2024?}}
:::::There are multiple sections on this subject with dozens of sources at ]. There's no acknowledgement of that in your first comment. ] ] 02:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The sources should be in the infobox in the first place. That something is mentioned in the article doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the infobox. Let us see the sources, and then we can judge their value and the weight of their claim and whether it should be included in the infobox. And if editors find the listed supposedly complicit countries next to six academic sources for each, maybe they'll think twice before adding a random country to the list again.
::::::Actually, this whole segment of the infobox is quite exceptional for Misplaced Pages practices. We have an entire article on ] which argues some level of complicity, but ]'s infobox does not have such a segment called "Potential complicity". The case on the direct perpetrator of this hasn't even ended, and we are quick to jump and list countries and people that have allegedly helped them commit genocide as a certain fact. ] ] ] 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Essentially, this all comes under the heading of "third states" responsibilty, required by the convention to actively (within reason) prevent genocide. If they do not, then they may be complicit, it's not that complicated. is not that difficult to locate. ] (]) 11:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The burden on reading and citing sources is not on me, given my apparent position. ] ] ] 12:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I tend to agree with Super Dro that the EU as a whole aren't complicit simply on the vague say-so of Amnesty, and it's a stretch to even say that the source supports the statement in the article. Actually, I've been recently thinking that Amnesty and other orgs who appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict, presumably in some small part also to raise more money for their orgs by talking up a cause celebre, should be considered advocacy org think tanks or advocacy charities with a bias that should generally be attributed as treated as ] when they are weighing in like this without any real new substance in their report. Similar to how we use SPLC or the ADL but don't treat them as similar to more neutral sources like reputable news or academic sources. Anyway, unless there are better sources I'd say remove this. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::AI recent RFC is green, need to distinguish between factual reporting, which AI is very good at and when they are engaged in advocacy. Attacks on Amnesty reliability are rarely made based on the evidence, {{tq|appear to have taken up a political cause for activism on the conflict}} being more the usual thing. ] (]) 11:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

* I was writing a comment justifying why in the end I was going to tag the potential complicity segment of the infobox as undue, but {{u|Elshad}} has removed it . I expect that to be reverted, so I will continue.
:Reading the United Kingdom subsection, there is not ''one'' single source that is directly accussing the UK of genocide complicity. The entire subsection is lawyers, NGOs and human rights groups saying the UK ''may risk'' being complicit, or individuals who are actually not making use of the word genocide.
:Regarding Germany, there is Lena Obermaier writing for a socialist magazine, not very solid. Then there is a mention of German lawyers sueing Scholz and his cabinet, and Nicaragua's sue against Germany. This is at least something more than the UK, but they are ongoing cases without a resolution. The subsection completely lacks academic sources.
:Why should we list these two countries and their governments as supposedly complicit in the infobox, when their respective subsections lack accussations with certainty? I don't see credible sources arguing in long papers why these two countries may, in fact, be complicit, nor do I see direct accussations from international organizations. The infobox uses the wording "Potential complicity", but having countries listed on the top of the article under such a segment has its obvious effect on readers. Considering the claims have a weak substantiation in the article, I do not think allowing this effect is appropriate. ] ] ] 12:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::By the way, the section on the genocidal actions is titled "Alleged genocidal actions", and that of complicity, "International complicity", treating it as uncontroversial fact. I have renamed it to "Alleged international complicity". I am open to other titles such as "Discussion on international complicity" or other alternatives, which do not treat complicity as an already certain fact. ] ] ] 12:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Smallangryplanet}}, I reverted you, and invite you to discuss here the header of the complicity section. As I said, I am open to discuss alternatives to "alleged", but considering the name of the second section of the article, I don't think it should keep the header I changed. ] ] ] 00:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide, and there is consensus that referring to it as "Gaza Genocide" does not have to include "alleged", but at any rate the complicity component is not alleged. I also removed some of the text that referred to alleged or unconfirmed complicity, making the header "International complicity" accurate. ] (]) 11:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|The section is about factual complicity in alleged genocide}} this implies that whether there is a genocide is the only controversial part, and that if we consider there to be a genocide, we must necessarily also consider the perpetrator to have accomplices, for which there is no reason. The section is filled with hypothethical language, at least for the UK and Germany, that Israel has accomplices in genocide is not uncontroversial fact. Nicaragua has started an ICJ case against Germany on the topic of facilitating genocide, your interpretation presents the ongoing case as having a verdict already. ] seems to be a defined thing in international law. Does any help provided to Israel's war effort fall within this legal space? I doubt sources say this. ] ] ] 11:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Selfstudier}}, thanks for the header rename, it's an improvement. ] ] ] 12:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think @]'s header rename resolves this portion of the dispute. Thanks for that! ] (]) 17:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}
There are sources for this. Besides Amnesty International link:
* {{tq2|"A failure by states such as Germany, the UK and the US to reassess how they are providing support to Israel provides grounds to question whether those states are violating the obligation to prevent genocide or could even at some point be considered complicit in acts of genocide or other violations of international law," Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin who has previously worked at the ICJ}}

*

* {{tq2|The transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk State complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, UN experts said today, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately.<br/>In line with recent calls from the Human Rights Council and the independent UN experts to States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, arms manufacturers supplying Israel – including BAE Systems, Boeing, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh, Rheinmetall AG, Rolls-Royce Power Systems, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp – should also end transfers, even if they are executed under existing export licenses.}}

* ]: We don't have any ] sources about this yet, but complicity is mentioned pretty early in this ] source. : {{tq2|Genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances, including purported self-defence.32 Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states.33}}

"Potential complicity" already avoids saying these states are complicit in Wikivoice ] (]) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think the only case in which a country should be presented as complicit in genocide is if there is consensus on sources, not if it's only "potential". This is a pretty low threshold in which we could theorically put many countries. No other country is treated at Israel's level regarding engagement in genocide among sources, to my knowledge at least. The sources you listed use wording "could", "may" and "risk", without direct accussations. I am not sure but I doubt this article was moved to its current title based on sources with such wording. ] ] ] 00:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think America will ever have a consensus in its newspapers that they are helping with genocide! ] (]) 13:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You can think whatever you wish. We don't need to use American media to talk about the actions of the United States anyway. I don't get your point. ] ] ] 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}
{{u|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, we do not require there to be consensus among sources to add content in Misplaced Pages (unless it is ]). Maybe you are confusing this with ], which is the decision-making process in Misplaced Pages.
The relevant policies here are ], ], and ] overall. ] is satisfied. The sources above are reliable (and these are the best type of sources available at this time I believe. I don't think there are any peer-reviewed, ] that are published on non-predatory high impact journals yet). Here's another source, :
:{{tq2|Thus, the failure to issue the second and third measures requested by South Africa is baffling, particularly in light of the continued supply of more deadly arms shipments to Israel from states with strong financial, military, and political links with Israel, chief amongst them the US, despite the UNSC ceasefire resolution 2728.Footnote166 When analysing the commission of genocide in Gaza, the reasonable conclusion is that the US is a major enabler and partner in crime to Israel.Footnote167 In the words of a leading Israeli commentator: "without arms and ammunition from the US, we would have had to resort to fighting with sticks and stones long ago."Footnote168 In light of the reservations that the US attached to its ratification of the Convention,Footnote169 requiring its consent to allow ICJ jurisdiction,Footnote170 this importance is heightened in the proceedings that Nicaragua instituted in the ICJ against another state, Germany, in relation to its complicity in Israeli genocide.Footnote171 Moreover, even after the second ICJ provisional measures, the UK announced that it will continue to licence arms' exports to Israel.Footnote172 Continued arms supply and the suspension of financial support to UNRWA clearly illustrate these states' failure to discharge their duty to prevent.Footnote173}}
Argument for ] is above. The wording is neutral ("potential complicity"). We are not saying these are definitely complicit. We are following the sources. Overall ] is satisfied.

Unless a '''valid argument''' (based on sources and/or ]) is provided, I'm going to restore this material. Given the above source I'll only add US, Germany and UK. ] (]) 16:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:We need a consensus among sources for ] claims such as that these three countries are complicit in genocide. You are proposing to restore a disputed exceptional claim that isn't even presented as certain. I will tag the content upon restoration. ] ] ] 16:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think the argument that supplying arms may make you complicit is ]. Also, if you go to the policy you cited, none of the bullet points seem to apply. This has been covered by "multiple mainstream sources". Complicity is in secondary sources. Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit?
::The only appropriate tag would be <nowiki>{{Template:Better source needed}}</nowiki>, requesting a secondary source for the countries mentioned. But this is a recent and ongoing event, so it'll take time for those type of sources to emerge. ] (]) 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, please explain the relevance tag you put. Complicity is in secondary sources, so it is relevant. See above. Provide a valid argument based on sources and/or ] please. ] (]) 19:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Complicity is nowhere. I am disputing the existence of consensus among sources that Israel has accomplices in genocide, and I am disputing the relevance of adding specific countries to the infobox when the accussations are only potential and non-direct. ] ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I do believe the claim that the US, UK and Germany are complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip is an exceptional claim. {{tq|Is the prevailing view that none of these countries are complicit?}} yes, most of the sources I've seen here use language employing "could"s, "may"s and "risk"s. ] ] ] 19:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::What do you mean {{tq|Complicity is nowhere}}?
:::::Complicity is mentioned in this ] source:. There's obviously another ICJ case against Germany.
:::::Are there any sources that say these countries are definitely not or unlikely to be complicit? ] (]) 19:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Am I missing something? This is all page 4 says: {{tq|Complicity is expressly prohibited, giving rise to obligations for third states.}} No third states that may have violated these obligations are mentioned. That an ICJ case against Germany is currently open does not increase the argument's strength a lot in particular, as obviously we don't know what will the veredict be yet. The ICJ hasn't made any pre-veredict comments either, as, if I am not wrong, has happened with South Africa's case.
::::::I doubt such sources exist. I am not disputing the existence of allegations against these countries. I am disputing whether they're relevant enough to specifically mention them in the infobox. I propose to mention the existence of allegations of complicity by third states in the Accused parameters, as a fourth bullet point. But the mention of specific countries sets a pretty low bar that can be exploited to include random countries, so long as one source establishes concern on a risk of complicity over a country that is otherwise undiscussed in this regard among reliable sources. Because one source would not suffice, in my opinion, to give credit to an exceptional claim such as genocide complicity. ] ] ] 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There is not one source. Multiple sources are there.
:::::::{{u|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, are you disputing ], or ] (based on ], or both? ] (]) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I've already expressed what do I disagree with. Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations. What criteria would you set, Bogazicili, to avoid the inclusion of fringe claims in this part of the infobox by other users who may be incited by seeing three countries already listed? ] ] ] 20:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not asking your personal opinion. I'm asking you to reference a specific Misplaced Pages policy. I need a blue wikilink in your response. If the concern is about DUE, I can direct you to ].
:::::::::Note that ]. ] (]) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You seem to be either attempting to disregard my argument based on a lack of appeal to a specific Misplaced Pages rule, or attempting to get me to cite a specific Misplaced Pages rule and then state it does not support my point. You have an editor who has expressed a concern, and even a proposed solution; if you are unable to discuss that concern or a potential middle ground, you should disengage from the discussion.
::::::::::I have not expressed any personal opinion, nor engaged in a forum discussion. ] ] ] 20:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::This is the personal opinion part: {{tq|Listing individual countries. I think it sets a bad precedent because it lowers the bar for inclusion of complicity allegations.}}
:::::::::::Unless a valid rationale is provided, I'm going to remove the tag. You added the tag, so you need to provide the valid reasoning. Your personal opinion about setting a bad precedent is not a valid reason.
:::::::::::This isn't the ] ] (]) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::'''I recommend other users to express their opinion on this dispute''', as discussion with this user is completely unfruitful.
::::::::::::Obviously, if I find myself in disagreement with a bunch, I will back down and accept the current text and my tag's removal, as, for all those wanting blue links, a ] will have formed against my position. So, do you think it is warranted to mention specifically these three countries as complicit? Based on what, these specific three? Why not previous inclusions like Australia, "European Union states" or Romania? Maybe because these three are more often mentioned in secondary sources? May we reflect this with some heavy citing, discouraging any users from potentially adding any other fringe claim again along these currently lightly-cited (previously uncited) ones? Or will I come back to this page in some months, and see that Hungary is complicit of genocide in the Gaza Strip ? Sorry for the rhetorical tone, but I think it gets my point across. ] ] ] 20:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::To the contrary I find an accusation of those three countries in particular being complicit in a genocide to not be extraordinary in the least ] ] ] - however an historical record of participation in genocide isn't what's needed here. What is needed is reliable secondary sources which, per @], have been provided. ] (]) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::To appeal to the past, and link the Holocaust, as evidence of something happening in the present, is a pretty weak argument unworthy of consideration. ] ] ] 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I also linked to the ] and the ] because my point is that complicity in genocide is not, exactly, extraordinary for any of these countries, all three of which have committed at least one, if not more than one genocide. See also: ] and ]. ] (]) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::My dispute, specifically, is that you are describing complicity per ]. Of course reliable sources should provided for complicity in this event which is increasingly being described in reliable secondary sources as a genocide. However it's not extraordinary for the USA to be involved in a genocide. They do so often enough in other theaters. ] (]) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::One way of looking at this is whether it would be possible to create, for example, an article ], looking at the refs in the article, there is at least enough for a stub and there exist I think, other sources in addition, like the one I gave above already, or
:::::::::"In light of the above, Israel might be committing the international crime of genocide, by killing civilians in Gaza; deliberately inflicting serious bodily and mental harm; and imposing conditions of life to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza. However, the US has continuously supported Israel's war efforts via diplomatic and military assistance, with knowledge of a plausible genocide being committed in the territory since at least January 2024. This may render the US internationally responsible for not merely failing to prevent genocide but also being an accomplice to the crime of genocide in Gaza."
:::::::::Accusation of course but if the sources are there to back it up, then we should show that, I am not that fond of infoboxes because they frequently produce tedious disputes, but as long as we make clear that it is still an accusation and show proper sourcing, I don't see a problem. ] (]) 15:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The Irish potato famine was not a genocide. The article you link makes it clear that the vast majority of historians reject this view, and so should not be linked here. ] (]) 17:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Another ] source which discusses complicity: ] (]) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{comment}} I find that having a template stating {{tq|(relevant? discuss)}} attached to genocide accusations is quite disturbing. Let alone the lack of morals, is complicity in genocide ''encyclopedically'' relevant? '''Yes''', both per international law –which expressely forbids it– and cases like ]. Just stick to sourced accusations tho, of course. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 17:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Given no one else except {{u|Super Dromaeosaurus}} objected to this in over a week, and given the secondary sources provided, I'm removing this template. ] (]) 14:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I only hope that, given you {{u|Bogazicili}} completely refused to have a proper discussion with me, that you at least do care enough to remove fringe claims about other countries if they appear in the future. ] ] ] 14:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I did not refuse "proper discussion". I asked you to base your arguments on sources and Wiki policies. ] (]) 14:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I stated my arguments and you linked the village pump or WP:FORUM for some reason. Much of my arguments asked for the removal of content; an argument like this cannot really be based on sources. I also asked for listed countries to be more strongly sourced to visually discourage editors from adding poorly-sourced claims. This is just proof of the disregard of the other side from your part. ] ] ] 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sources such as were provided. You refused to give a Misplaced Pages policy to back up your argument: {{tq|You seem to be either attempting to disregard my argument based on a lack of appeal to a specific Misplaced Pages rule}} . If you want, you can proceed to ]. ] (]) 14:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I've already expressed what I want: that the diligence that was missing in the past be applied in the future. I don't think I should repeat it once again. ] ] ] 15:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

== Any other possible reason requirement for genocide ==

This article does not say what the Israeli branch of Amnesty is disputing with Amnesty International. As far as I can see Amnesty International is saying they believe genocidal intent is evident but is calling on the ICJ to clear up exactly what does establishing intent mean - they say a narrow reading would mean it cannot be established if the aggressors just say they have another reason whatever else they say or happens. Is this actually the dispute or how can it be phrased? see
{{Cite news |last=MacRedmond |first=David |date=11 December 2024 |title=Why is Israel accusing Amnesty International of inventing its own definition of genocide? |url=https://www.thejournal.ie:443/amnesty-international-invented-definitiion-of-genocide-israel-gaza-6568231-Dec2024/ |access-date=12 December 2024 |work=] |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241211193111/https://www.thejournal.ie/amnesty-international-invented-definitiion-of-genocide-israel-gaza-6568231-Dec2024/ |archive-date=11 December 2024}} ] (]) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:I think Becker explains it well, the formal issue will be argued and decided in court. ] (]) 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Note that this issue is not specific to just Israel:
::{{tq2|DER SPIEGEL: You have consistently been an advocate of a narrow interpretation of the term "genocide." When you represented the country of Myanmar before the ICJ, you also presented arguments for why the country is not committing genocide against the Muslim Rohingya minority. As such, your argument that the manner in which Israel is conducting the war in the Gaza Strip could constitute genocide is surprising.<br/>Schabas: International law is constantly evolving. It’s not just about what is in international treaties, but also about the legal interpretations expressed by states in their official statements over the years. That is what courts look at. In the early 2000s, the judges at the Yugoslavia tribunal and the ICJ, for example, chose a narrow interpretation – rooted in the Convention’s drafting process. I thought to myself: Okay, this Convention will never lead to convictions. But it seems that countries are no longer following this narrow interpretation. In the case of Myanmar and others, they have shown that they are now interpreting genocide more broadly. I believe it is likely that the judges will be carried along in the wave of broader interpretation.}}
::Not sure if the above also needs to be added into the article to explain the definition issue. ] (]) 16:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it should. It explains a lot about what the article is about. ] (]) 20:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} There is now more information on this.
:
{{tq2|The question of the threshold for establishing specific intent is subject to ongoing debate, and some states have cautioned against a narrow interpretation that is impossible to meet. The narrow approach would require that genocidal intent be the “only reasonable inference” from the situation at hand. However, many states support the broader interpretation of the ICJ in Croatia v. Serbia, which emphasised the importance of reasonableness in the Court’s reasoning, and highlighted that the “only reasonable
inference” test should only be used when drawing an inference from a pattern of conduct, not where other methods of inference are also present.<br/> In The Gambia v. Myanmar, a group of states (Germany, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) argued in favor of a balanced approach, in line with the ICJ’s interpretation in Croatia v. Serbia. This aligns with South Africa’s construction of Israel’s genocidal intent before the ICJ. Yet, Germany has now indicated that it will intervene in support of Israel in the current proceedings at the ICJ. It is difficult to see how Germany could do so without arguing for a narrow interpretation of specific intent, which would mean backtracking on its previous position. If the ICJ accepts and adopts the position of the group of states construction in The Gambia v. Myanmar, it would become binding and preclude Germany from arguing for a narrow interpretation}}

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

:Well, we should be clear about it, this refers mainly to the ] and the arguments being or that will be made there. Also see ] below and the discussion around Amnesty legal argument. ] (]) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed it is about the legal case, so can be added into this section: ]. Maybe a sentence about this since it is mentioned in a secondary source. ] (]) 16:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:AndreJustAndre}} this is the interesting note on the position of these countries I mentioned in the ] section. -- ] (]) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== Short description (again) ==

Regarding : I have gone ahead and reverted it. Per the ], I gave other editors ample time to express their objections to my short description proposal. As I mentioned before, a short description of "Accusation of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza" is ambiguous (is the accusation being leveled against Palestinians?). In contrast, the short description "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" is far less ambiguous and is a description of this article's content. Again, if anyone has comments/concerns/thoughts on this issue, feel free to raise them here. ] (]) 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|JasonMacker}} How about "Accusation of genocide ''perpetrated '' against Palestinians in Gaza"? --] (]) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::...why? What's wrong with characterization? I don't understand the motivation here. Can you first explain what your problem is with the current short description? ] (]) 04:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm merely suggesting an improvement of the original description that addresses your criticism of ambiguity. But since you ask, I'm not enamoured with the new description; it sounds oddly vague and anemic. It's best to name names, both who and whom – and preferrably also when. --] (]) 05:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The current short description is 49 characters, including spaces. Your suggestion, "Accusation of genocide perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza" is 73 characters, which would make it among the 3% longest short descriptions on Misplaced Pages. Again, per ], the whole point of a short description is to provide a one-sentence summary of the article's content. Here, the article's content is to discuss how Israel's mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza ought to be characterized, with a large number of scholars & experts characterizing it as a genocide, but government officials and other figures characterizing the mass killings as not a genocide. I don't see how the current short description is "oddly vague and anemic." It's a direct description of the article's current content. On the other hand, I don't see how the "Accusation..." proposal can satisfactorily describe the subject matter of the article. There are just too many articles that can have "Accusation of" added to their short description and also still be true, which indicates that those two words are superfluous. Imagine if the ] article (whose current short description is "Human-caused changes to climate on Earth" was changed to "Accusation that humans cause climate change on Earth." I mean sure, that would be true, but the problem here is that it doesn't actually provide the reader with additional information. At the same time, this article is not specifically about genocide the way that, say, the ] article is. And it's for that reason that your proposed short description, minus "Accusation of" would be an inappropriate short description of this article's content. Instead, this article is mostly focusing on the ''characterization'' of genocide. And so I don't understand the logic behind changing it to begin with "Accusation of" again, and that's ignoring the issue of having too long of a short description. ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

== German law professor opinions ==

{{edit COI|d}}

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

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

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

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

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

{{od}} {{u|FortunateSons}}, English-language sources are preferred in English-language Misplaced Pages. See: ].

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

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

== Potential source ==

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

:That is an annoying piece, as while Gaza has forced the relative fields to confront the question of Israel-Palestine, all these issues existed for decades prior, with authors highlighting the fear the field seemed to have to place Israel-Palestine under their analytical purview. But, that's an annoyance beyond the question of the Wiki article. We cite the majority of pieces the Guardian article highlights, and discuss many of the same points. -- ] (]) 15:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::It is interesting that some people seem to have questioned even the Holocaust:
::{{tq2|“There was already a controversy in the aftermath of the Holocaust – everybody was like, ‘Where’s Hitler’s order?’ And there was no order,” Hirsch said.}}
::I now think saying a sentence or 2 about the interpretation of ] with non-news sources, and how it relates to this case with sources like the one above can be done in ]. ] (]) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::: "seem to have questioned even the Holocaust" I have heard people dismiss the Holocaust as mostly a topic relevant to the Hollywood hype machine and its ] films rather than an actual genocide for the last 30 years of my life. What else is new? Nearly every article which I have encountered on the ] has noted that the participants did not include the actual leadership of the ], that the decisions taken used vague phrases and euphemisms for the goals of the project, and that the approval by their superiors was mostly an unstated assumption.] (]) 14:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:The only thing there is that there are a bunch of genocide scholars (in the US presumably) hiding in the closet but we can't really say anything about their views until they come out. ] (]) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I see no problem though with saying with attribution that many scholars are holding back from expressing an opinion because they fear the consequences for themselves. Overall it seems a good introduction to the problem and suitable for citing in the article. ] (]) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I added it into the Holocaust and genocide studies section with a refname "Split" since it might be used at other points in the article as well. ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== "Attack type" in the infobox is inconsistent. ==

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

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

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

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

== Request from ]: Historian Lee Mordechai as a source ==

In response to ] by {{u|Ján Kepler}}. ] (]) 12:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

== "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? --] (]) 08:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

: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? ] (]) 10:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 ] (]) 10:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Recent changes == == Recent changes ==
Line 580: Line 298:
::::::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. ] (]) 10:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC) ::::::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. ] (]) 10:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::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?" -- ] ] 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) :::::::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?" -- ] ] 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::As I just said, it is named, in Line 2. ] (]) 21:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

== Edit request from ] ==

{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}
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 ] ] (]) 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 23:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Done''': Reference to Genocide Watch's updated position has been added to the relevant section. -- ] (]) 00:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

== Another important publication ==

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

: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. ] (]) 12:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 12:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This seems entirely disconnected from the topic of this discussion. Please see ]. ] (]) 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::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.
:: mentions ], ], ], ], ] and ] and on one side, ] and ] 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 . 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 ], ] and ] in the case of ;
::Bartov, and ] in the ; Goda, Herf, Gross, and ] ).
::IKlein mentions Segal, Bartov, ], ], the NYRB letter, ], ], ] on one side. I think we mention all of those except Moyn and the NYRB letter. On the other side she mentions Bauer, ], ], ], the Grabowski letter, ], Herf & Goda's letter, and ]. 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. ] (]) 15:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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. ] (]) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::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. ] (]) 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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. -- ] (]) 13:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::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. -- ] (]) 13:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::By "main article" do you mean Quillette? Agree we shouldn't cite that. However, 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. ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] yep. If someone else doesn't do it before me, I'll look at adding them to the article in the coming days. -- ] (]) 10:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I've added their opinions from Klein's journal article. The other articles don't seem to workable, as they don't really give any depth to their opinions into the accusation of genocide in Gaza, and more so detail how Hamas is linked to the Nazis, how October 7 is linked to the Holocaust, and how October 7 was genocidal (would be good to add to the October 7 genocide article). If you can see them being linked more explicitly, please expand their section with the references. -- ] (]) 20:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::At some point we will have access to "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 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?" ] (]) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== Lancet estimate update ==

A 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. ] (]) 17:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 21:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 22:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Grim confirmation of what we know: {{tq|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.}} ] (]) 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:The issue with the study is that capture-recapture produces biased estimates when the datasets are nonindependent, and clearly participation in the survey is correlated with whether a casualty was already recorded in a hospital. The authors try to mitigate this by adding a third dataset, obituaries, but the quality there seems questionable - it's all from social media or chats, not all public, unclear authorship, some names were transliterated twice (Arabic to English to Arabic), etc. It also implies some surprising if not implausible things, like that a tiny fraction of obituary authors also reported the victim's death on the survey.
:It might be a bit early to expect much expert analysis, but this was ]'s high-level take on it: {{tq|This is a good piece of evidence that the real number is higher, probably substantially higher, than the Ministry of Health’s official numbers, higher than I had been thinking over the last few months. Quantitatively, it’s a lot more uncertain than I think comes out in the paper.}} (This is a somewhat different concern, based on the very different numbers they got for different datasets, which they then took the mean of.) — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Why is it rounded to 70,000 when this estimate is reported as 64,260? Wouldn't be more accurate to round to 64 or 65,000? ] (]) 01:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::64,000 is the estimate at the mid-year point (the end of the data set) and 70,000 is the projection up to the present. ] (]) 05:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::From the "Research in context" section, {{tqq|We estimate a total mortality from traumatic injury of 64 260 (95% CI 55 298–78 525), implying that the MoH reports underestimated deaths by 41%. As of October, 2024, the official MoH estimate stood at 41 909, which would suggest that the true mortality figures probably exceeded 70 000.}}. -- ] (]) 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Correlation between the sources should have brought the estimate down rather than exaggerate it. Given that Spagat is a bit surprised at the size of the figure I wouldn't be too worried about any correlation. - we may actually find even this is an underestimate though I very much hope not. ] (]) 09:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, if participation in the survey is positively correlated with whether a casualty was already recorded in a hospital, that would presumably result in an underestimation. I guess there will be more sources over the coming months and years. ] (]) 10:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I meant negatively correlated, as in people are less likely to fill out the form for a death that was already recorded by a hospital. Agree we should get more clarity in the coming months. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It looks like they've tried to account for interactions but I could easily see that decreasing the number. However have a look at the Venn diagram of overlap between the social media list and the hospital list, 1370 (1173+197) shared 1820 (1469+351) social media only. There's more not shared than shared! That indicates the numbers may be quite a bit worse. I think we would be better waiting for experts to analyse the figures than trying to draw our own conclusions. ] (]) 21:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but how meaningful is the social media data? It's coming from posts such as (minimal info, not clear who reported or posted it, transliterated names which might not match other documents...), as well as some private WhatsApp groups and what not. Most issues with the data would result in artificially low overlap, and thus an overestimate, not the opposite.
::::::Wyner wasn't making any estimates, and if he had, I would never have supported putting them in wikivoice or in an infobox. Similarly here, it's fine to mention the work, but the infobox shouldn't be presenting this novel estimate. Neither scores well enough on ] for that kind of treatment. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::This is a peer reviewed study, the basic method dates back to 1896 and has been widely applied in other areas. There is no similarity to Wyner who produced to quote another professor "one of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen". ] (]) 00:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think this may be toeing the line for original research to be directly critiquing the handling of data. I also don't see how this methodology is novel, it cross-references deaths between multiple different lists including by social media reports that are generally less detailed. Scraping data of social media is something that is done by researchers across different fields and whilst this data can often be more unreliable such an approach isn't really novel. ] (]) 21:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Just at a quick glance, the 70,000 number is a rough estimate based on extrapolation. It also doesn't represent a minimum, as the extrapolation isn't done with the lower bound of the confidence interval for deaths. I've seen the study covered by major news networks(notability) and it seems like it warrants inclusion, but it is still a rough estimate and not an actual count, so inclusion in the info box seems debatable. That's not really an attack on the methodology (it seems fine) but there still is a decent range in the confidence interval and I'd prefer using GHM numbers for the infobox. ] (]) 21:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

== Edit request from ] ==

{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}
Add “by June 30, 2024” to the sentence: The Lancet has estimated 70,000 deaths due to traumatic injuries. ] (]) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 23:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Not done - "Assuming that the level of under-reporting of 41% continued from July to October, 2024, it is plausible that the true figure now exceeds 70 000.", "We estimated around 64 000 deaths due to traumatic injuries from Oct 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024," ] (]) 23:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Understood, good catch, thanks. ] (]) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:42, 20 January 2025

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza genocide article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gaza genocide. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gaza genocide at the Reference desk.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisaster management Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED] Discrimination Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconHuman rights Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
          This page has been the subject of multiple discussions.
Proposed deletionThis page was proposed for deletion by Maylingoed (talk · contribs) on 29 December 2023 with the comment:
Duplication of Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel - (CSD A10).
It was contested by Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) on 29 December 2023 with the comment:
Content is significantly different; Seems to be a WP:POVFORK
Redirects for discussionThis page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 17 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide
Sources
Name Month Profession Source Example statement (English or autotranslated and verified) Simplified position Notes
Segal 13 October 2023 Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Jewish Currents "A Textbook Case of Genocide" Yes Already in article
800 scholars 15 October 2023 Various scholars, most of whom in relevant fields. TWAILR journal website "we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.", "Language used by Israeli political and military figures appears to reproduce rhetoric and tropes associated with genocide and incitement to genocide.", "Evidence of incitement to genocide has also been present in Israeli public discourse." Maybe Already in article
Signatories include Mohamed Adhikari and Taner Akçam
Zarni 16 October 2023 Genocide scholar The Jakarta Post "As if to spit on the post-Holocaust moral clarion call of “never again”, Israel, a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, has in effect declared its intention to commit an act of genocide by cutting off all “water, electricity, and food supplies” to the 2.2 million people in Gaza." Yes Already in article
Genocide Watch 17 October 2023 Antigenocide NGO Genocide Watch "This settler ideology is supported by Likud, the party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is committed to further settlement expansion. Like the American ideology of "manifest destiny," this settler ideology is used to justify forced displacement of Palestinians who have lived in the occupied territories for thousands of years.", "Dehumanization of the enemy is common in wars and genocides. It is already evident in this war, with Hamas militants spitting on and mutilating bodies of their victims and the Israeli Defence Minister calling Hamas "human animals." Dehumanization is a stage of genocide.", "Genocide Watch considers the war in Israel and Gaza to be at Stage 3: Discrimination, Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 5: Organization, Stage 6: Polarization, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 9: Extermination." Maybe Already in article
Fassin 18 October 2023 Anthropologist and sociologist Le Monde "La directrice exécutive de Jewish Voice for Peace a lancé un vibrant « plaidoyer juif », appelant à « se dresser contre l'acte de génocide d'Israël ». Couper l'eau, l'électricité et le gaz, interrompre l'approvisionnement en nourriture et envoyer des missiles sur les marchés où les habitants tentent de se ravitailler, bombarder des ambulances et des hôpitaux déjà privés de tout ce qui leur permet de fonctionner, tuer des médecins et leur famille : la conjonction du siège total, des frappes aériennes et bientôt des troupes au sol condamne à mort un très grand nombre de civils – par les armes, la faim et la soif, le défaut de soins aux malades et aux blessés." , "Du premier génocide du XXe siècle, celui des Herero, en 1904, mené par l'armée allemande en Afrique australe, qui, selon les estimations, a provoqué 100 000 morts de déshydratation et de dénutrition, au génocide des juifs d'Europe et à celui des Tutsi, la non-reconnaissance de la qualité d'êtres humains à ceux qu'on veut éliminer et leur assimilation à des animaux a été le prélude aux pires violences." Yes
Illouz 18 October 2023 Professor of sociology Le Monde "military response … against an enemy which has violated borders and international law, … is not genocide" No No longer in article
Buljusmic-Kastura 19 October 2023 Genocide researcher Al Jazeera " is horrifying and it all leads us to where we are at right now, which is the fact that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide." Yes Not in article
UN Special Rapporteurs 19 October 2023 Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation,

Special Rapporteur on Violence against women and girls, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ""We are sounding the alarm: There is an ongoing campaign by Israel resulting in crimes against humanity in Gaza. Considering statements made by Israeli political leaders and their allies, accompanied by military action in Gaza and escalation of arrests and killing in the West Bank, there is also a risk of genocide against the Palestinian People," the experts said." Maybe
Center for Constitutional Rights 19 October 2023 legal advocacy organization The Intercept "Katherine Gallagher, senior attorney with CCR and a legal representative for victims in the pending ICC investigation in Palestine, told The Intercept. "U.S. officials can be held responsible for their failure to prevent Israel's unfolding genocide, as well as for their complicity, by encouraging it and materially supporting it."" Yes Already in article;

There is then also the CCR's full 44-page briefing declaring it genocide and naming the US as a complicit party (not in article).

Dana 29 October 2023 Professor of Conflict and Humanitarian Studies The New Arab "As the Israeli genocide in Gaza unfolds and global public awareness is becoming increasingly acute, it is becoming clearer that the myths surrounding the colonial conflict in Palestine serve not as guides to understanding, but as barriers. These myths, perpetuated by pro-Israel propagandists, Western powers, and Arab regimes have had dire consequences – ones measured in lost lives, crushed hopes, and a perpetually destabilised region.", "Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza serves as a tacit admission of Israel's fragility". Yes
Kittel 31 October 2023 History Professor Berliner Zeitung "No, Israel's military response is not genocide – regardless of whether one uses narrower or broader definitions of the term." No
Mokhiber 31 October 2023 Specialist in international human rights law, policy, and methodology The New Republic "A director of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights has resigned, issuing a lengthy letter condemning the organization, the U.S., and Western media companies for their positions on the war between Israel and Hamas, which he described as a "text-book case of genocide."", ""Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it," wrote Craig Mokhiber, the group's New York office director, who had worked with the U.N. for more than three decades."" Yes Already in article
154 Holocaust scholars 1 November 2023 Holocaust scholars open letter at a conference in Prague "Today, more than ever, we need to reaffirm, without any caveats, the right of Jews to live in Israel and to defend themselves against those who deny Israel and Jews the right to exist. We deplore the humanitarian catastrophe of the Palestinian people in Gaza and note that it derives directly from the use of civilians as human shields by the Hamas. We, the scholars of the Holocaust assembled in Prague at the Lessons & Legacies conference, as well as other Holocaust scholars and persons devoted to Holocaust memory, unequivocally condemn the politics of terror pursued by Hamas and denounce the forces of global antisemitism." No McDoom talks about the statement in this journal article
Jikeli 1 November 2023 Historian research paper "Only five posts were positive about Israel, some refuting the accusation that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. Notorious Jewish critics of Israel, such as Norman Finkelstein (Figure 11), Gabor Maté, and Jane Hirschmann were repeatedly used to accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and genocide, often with embedded videos.", "It is worth noting that according to the United Nations definition of genocide, the Hamas massacre is genocide, while the Gaza war is not." No
Mack 1 November 2023 Human rights lawyer Haaretz "The contention that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in retribution for Hamas' October 7 massacres is a false claim not founded in international law." No Not in article
Waxman 2 November 2023 professor of political science Jewish Currents "To be sure, some of the deeply disturbing rhetoric coming from senior figures in the Israeli government raises the risk of genocidal actions. However, to claim that genocide is already occurring requires stretching the concept too far, emptying it of any meaning." Maybe Already in article via Vox article
Berenbaum & Zavadivker 4 November 2023 Historians and Holocaust scholars:

1; 2

Jerusalem Post "Israel has no greater ambition than to coexist with the Palestinians as peaceful neighbors; "threaten future attempts to identify, prevent, and prosecute that crime. It is equally damaging to the legitimacy of Holocaust and Genocide Studies as a field when such false claims are presented in the guise of scholarly expertise."" No
Shaw 6 November 2023 International relations prof, Sociologist specialising in genocide New Lines Magazine ""Genocide" is generally under-deployed because states wish to avoid the responsibilities to "prevent and punish" that the convention imposes on signatories, but there is a special aversion to investigating its implications for Israel's conduct. Western states continue to protect it out of a misplaced belief that Jews, having been prime historical victims of genocide, cannot also be its perpetrators. Israel's current policies are rapidly destroying that conceit, however, and bringing closer the day when its leaders — as well as those of Hamas — will be brought to account for their crimes." Yes Already in article
Spencer 7 November 2023 urban warfare researcher CNN "Israel is upholding the laws of war" No
48 scholars 9 November 2023 Professor of Law and Globalisation,

Professor of Criminology, Professor of Criminology, Senior lecturer in Sociology, Professor of Social Anthropology, 43 other scholars

International State Crime Initiative "the Israeli state is employing its extensive and advanced military capacity to inflict violence on Palestinian peoples on such a scale that it is accurate to frame it as the annihilation phase of genocide.", "Israel's announcement of a state of 'total siege' of Gaza, cutting off water, food, electricity and medical supplies, amounted to a clear statement of intent to commit genocide against the Palestinian people by 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part' (Genocide Convention 1948, Article 2)." Yes Already in article
Blatman 11 November 2023 Holocaust historian Haaretz "The mere fact that Israel and the Palestinians have been waging a bloody war between them for four generations, and they are both committing war crimes and hair-raising acts of violence, still does not mean that a genocide began in Gaza in October 2023" Maybe
Adel & Gallagher 12 November 2023 International lawyer and PhD researcher; Staff attorney at the CCR Al Jazeera "What is happening in Gaza fits the definition of genocide.", "To understand what is transpiring in Gaza, we must turn to the key legal frameworks that define genocide: Article 6 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. Gaza's devastating reality mirrors these components of genocide. Despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaged in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza." Yes
Karsenti et al 12 November 2023 Political scientist, historian and sociologists:

1; 2; 3; 4

AOC "By denying their historical connection with Palestine and by attributing a genocidal intention to those who built a state to protect themselves from any genocidal recurrence, Didier Fassin reactivates a classic anti-Semitic gesture that always proceeds by inversion: accusing the Jews of being guilty of what one is preparing to do or fantasizes about doing to them.", "And yet, one must choose sides on the question of whether or not one recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist. If one recognizes it, then the massacre of civilians, intentionally targeted on its sovereign territory, gives it the right not only to defend itself, but to take the necessary measures to ensure that this can never happen again, and therefore to eliminate Hamas, whose program this is." No Not in article
Jürgen Habermas, Klaus Günther, Rainer Forst & Nicole Deitelhoff 13 November 2023 Philosopher and Social Theorist; Professor of Law; Philosopher; Political Scientist Site of "Normative Orders" Research Center at Goethe University Frankfurt "The Hamas massacre with the declared intention of eliminating Jewish life in general has prompted Israel to strike back. How this retaliation, which is justified in principle, is carried out is the subject of controversial debate; principles of proportionality, the prevention of civilian casualties and the waging of a war with the prospect of future peace must be the guiding principles. Despite all the concern for the fate of the Palestinian population, however, the standards of judgement slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israel's actions." No
Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor 13 November 2023 Human rights NGO Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor "Euro-Med Monitor renewed its calls on all countries across the world to take decisive action to end the Israeli genocide against the people of the Gaza Strip, citing their legal obligations to stop this horrifying crime against humanity." Yes
Verdeja 13 November 2023 Professor of peace studies and global politics (with a focus on genocide) Time "Verdeja says Israel's actions in Gaza are moving toward a "genocidal campaign." While he notes that it is clear Israeli forces intend to destroy Hamas, "the response when you have a security crisis…can be one of ceasefire, negotiation, or it can be genocide."" Maybe Already in article
Sanford 13 November 2023 Anthropologist specialising in Human Rights and Genocide Time "City University of New York professor Victoria Sanford compares what's happening in Gaza to the killing or disappearance of more than 200,000 Mayans in Guatemala from 1960-1996, known as the Guatemalan genocide" Yes Already in article
Simon 13 November 2023 Global Affairs professor, Director of the genocide studies Time "Israel has only explicitly said they want to exterminate Hamas, and has not directly stated intent to "destroy a religious, ethnic or racial group." Simon says it's possible a court could conclude that either Hamas or some elements of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) could be found guilty of committing an act of genocide, but "it's certainly not textbook in that connecting the intent to destroy ethnic group as such is difficult."" Maybe Already in article
Kiernan 13 November 2023 Historian, Professor of International and Area Studies Time "Israel's retaliatory bombing of Gaza, however indiscriminate, and its current ground attacks, despite the numerous civilian casualties they are causing among Gaza's Palestinian population, do not meet the very high threshold that is required to meet the legal definition of genocide." No Already in article
Corn 16 November 2023 Professor of law and expert on military law The Jewish Chronicle "Many accuse Israel of genocide. These accusations undermine the meaning of what they allege. It might be appealing to toss such accusations about but, as Justice Stewart warned, the significance of the concept of war crimes and credibility of the law is eroded by such overbroad and often invalid accusations.

One need only consider the genocide accusation. Palestinians make up 20 percent of the Israeli population with the same civil rights and legal privileges as any other Israeli citizen. How this aligns with the accusation that Israel is engaged in a systemic effort to destroy this ethnic group is perplexing. Nor do casualties in Gaza support even suspicion of genocide."

No The view that Palestinians enjoy the "same civil rights and legal privileges" is highly contested by other legal experts. See 2010 report, 2022 report, 2023 report
Butler 17 November 2023 Philosopher Frankfurter Rundschau Q: "Welche Reaktion erhoffen Sie sich als Unterzeichnerin des offenen Briefes "Philosophie für Palästina"?."

A: "Ich hoffe, dass der Völkermord an der Zivilbevölkerung in Gaza ein Ende hat. Es gibt Menschen, die sich von einem Völkermord abwenden, wenn er geschieht, und später bereuen, dass sie sich geweigert haben, das zu benennen, was sie sehen und wissen. Ich schließe mich denen an, die diese bösartige und vorsätzliche Gewalt als "Völkermord" bezeichnen, denn sie entspricht der Definition der Völkermordkonvention."

Yes
Goda & Herf 17 November 2023 Historians and Holocaust scholars:

1; 2

New York Times "Israel's targets are military: Hamas's soldiers, tunnels, headquarters and weapons stocks. By placing military targets in and under civilian structures, it is Hamas that violates laws of war.

The 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention mentions demonstrable intent to destroy a national, racial or religious group. Mr. Bartov is mute about Israel's hundreds of phone calls to Gazans warning them to leave buildings in which Hamas fighters were located. Israel has urged civilians to evacuate to the south to escape battle. A government intent on genocide would do the opposite."

No
Eghbariah 21 November 2023 Human rights lawyer and academic The Nation "Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial. When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians.", "If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics.", "Numerous statements made by top Israeli politicians affirm their intentions. There is a forming consensus among leading scholars in the field of genocide studies that "these statements could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent," as Omer Bartov, an authority in the field, writes." Yes
Crane 21 November 2023 International law scholar NPR "It's not an easy case because you have to have that smoking gun. So, you know, I respectfully disagree with his approach on this. If you look at both parties in this tragedy that is unfolding, the prime minister of Israel has to specifically state that, I intend to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people. And I would suggest, respectfully, that that has not been said. Now, they have a long-term problem politically, practically and legally related to their treatment of the Palestinians. But I would beg to differ. I don't think one would categorize that as genocide." No Not in article
Kotek 22 November 2023 genocide scholar L'Express "The Israeli offensive on Gaza is nothing like the Herero genocide" No
Michlic 26 November 2023 genocide scholar Belfast Newletter "The left that expresses these ideas have no intellectual knowledge of international laws making clear distinctions between different ways of killings", "Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza that entails urban house-to-house fighting that regrettably creates many civilian casualties, as in other wars of this type". No
Hope Murray 26 November 2023 President of the International Network of Genocide Scholars News Letter "When asked if the Gaza events are "genocide," quoted approvingly from a piece by one of the network's members – Professor Martin Shaw " Yes Not in article
Buser 28 November 2023 Historian The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles "This is not genocide." No
Friling, Jockusch, Steier-Livny, Patt & Porat 28 November 2023 Historians and Holocaust scholars:

1; 2; 3; 4; 5

Haaretz "Charging Israel With Genocide in Gaza Is Inflammatory and Dangerous. Historians must be guided by the facts, not political agendas. But when Omer Bartov in The New York Times charged Israel with 'verging' into genocide and ethnic cleansing, he grounded his argument in assertions, not evidence." No Already in article
Moreno Ocampo 1 December 2023 Former chief prosecutor of the ICC Al Jazeera "The siege of Gaza itself, that is extermination or persecution as a crime against humanity, and it's a form of genocide... Inflicting conditions to destroy the group, that itself is a genocide. So creating a siege itself is a genocide, and that is very clear, that Israel want the siege is very clear. And the intentions to destroy the people, many officers from the Israel government are expressing genocidal intentions. That's why it's easy to say — under reasonable basis to believe — Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza." Yes Already in article
Patel 2 December 2023 Legal researcher, reader in International law (holds LLM) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ""The intent that we have observed is extensive and it comes from all quarters of the Israeli state," said Anisha Patel, a legal researcher with the group Law for Palestine — which provides legal analysis on international law as it relates to Palestinians." Yes Already in article
Jones 2 December 2023 Political scientist, specialising in genocide Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ""I believe that the events of Oct. 7 qualify as a genocidal massacre of Israelis. I also think that the Israeli response, and indeed long standing Israeli policy towards the Gazan population, evinces elements of genocidal thinking and increasingly practice," he said." Maybe
Ayyash 2 December 2023 Sociologist specialising in violence and colonialism Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "He says what's happening in Gaza is "a deliberate genocidal operation" and that Canada is complicit by having not called for a ceasefire." Yes
Segal et al. 9 December 2023 60 scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies Contending Modernities "We, scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence, feel compelled to warn of the danger of genocide in Israel's attack on Gaza.", "Moreover, dozens of statements of Israeli leaders, ministers in the war cabinet, and senior army officers since 7 October—that is, people with command authority—suggest an "intent to destroy" Palestinians "as such," in the language of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." Maybe Already in article
Ben Hounet 13 December 2023 Social anthropologist Lundi.am "Beaucoup de chercheurs en France et en Europe se refusent à parler de génocide et évoquent, au mieux, le terme de nettoyage ethnique. Faut-il leur rappeler que de nombreux génocides ont été perpétrés dans la continuation du nettoyage ethnique et lorsque celui-ci a été rendu impossible ? Combien de cases faudra-il cocher avant que les puissances occidentales se décident à réagir fermement et que les intellectuels se saisissent vraiment de ce sujet ?" Yes Not in article
Finkelstein 19 December 2023 Political scientist GV Wire "countered that Israel has been engaging in a genocidal war in Gaza since the conflict's inception" Yes Already in article
Dirk Moses 19 December 2023 genocide scholar Democracy for the Arab World Now "Today, international law on genocide is working as it was designed to: allowing states to ruthlessly exterminate security threats while making it difficult to apply that law. By the reasoning of international lawyers supporting Israel's war in Gaza today, there are no limits to the number of Palestinian civilians who can be killed incidentally in the pursuit of Israeli military objectives.", "The grotesque nature of the law of genocide, however, is that victim numbers are irrelevant. All that counts is intent. If the intention is military rather than genocidal, many will argue not only that legitimate self-defense rather than genocide is taking place, but also that it is legal and even moral." Yes See also his November article in the Boston Review
Ambos 22 December 2023 professor of criminal law and head of the Department of Foreign and International Criminal Law Hard to group into a clear category "Bartov chooses his words carefully. He warns of possibly impending genocide without claiming it is happening already. Some statements of certain Israeli policymakers are indeed worrisome. Yet, while they may be relevant for proving the necessary specific intent, they cannot automatically be attributed to the persons who are taking the military decisions." No
Spencer 22 December 2023 genocide scholar K. online journal "As far as I am concerned, the charge of genocide against Israel is particularly shocking. It betrays a wilful refusal to recognise that Hamas has openly stated its genocidal aims, and has perpetrated acts which fall quite clearly within the definition of genocidal acts according to the Convention" No
Lemkin Institute 29 December 2023 Antigenocide NGO Lemkin Institute "The genocide being perpetrated by the State of Israel is embedded in a complex historical, political, and strategic context that seems to have fostered and, ultimately, devolved into a pervasive genocidal dynamic on both sides of the conflict – Israel, on the one hand, and the Islamist militant organization known as Hamas, on the other – as well as among segments of their respective populations, especially, as will be explained below, in the case of Israel.", "The Lemkin Institute believes that Israel's retaliation against Palestinians amounts not only to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but also to genocide, as also asserted by, among others, the former Director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber." Yes Already in article
Bishara 1 January 2024 Political philosopher, director of the ACRPS Al-Muntaqa, journal of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies "The essay contends that Israel and its allies' claim of self-defence to justify their genocidal actions in Gaza and to marginalize moral judgements is a blatant lie.", "In this case, shared identity is a motive for rejecting Israel's monopolization of the conversation, its claim to speak in the name of the Jews while committing genocide, and its distortion of that identity with its criminal practices against the Palestinian people." Yes Includes specific responses to Habermas' arguments.
Swazo 1 January 2024 Professor of philosophy North South Journal of Peace and Global Studies "Undoubtedly, the State of Israel is an Occupying Power and subject to the law of the Geneva Conventions in the manner of its treatment of the Palestinian people. In relation to international positive law (the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, etc.) and the morality central to the jus gentium, the State of Israel is by no means to be excepted in the way it decides to conduct itself vis-à-vis the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, including Gaza. The Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories are entitled as a matter of jus gentium to the full protection the international community of nations can muster on those grounds. Thus, Louis Rene Beres (1989, 29) is entirely correct to remind that, the Genocide Convention, along with other "human rights 'regime'" treaties and declarations, "represents the end of the idea of absolute sovereignty concerning non-intervention when human rights are in grievous jeopardy." And, this certainly applies in the case of Israel's war being waged against the Palestinian people in Gaza (with spillover effects in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as the IDF supports settler Israelis in their hostile acts of dispossession and displacement of the Palestinians in those quarters)." Yes
Cohen and Shany 2 January 2024 International Law Professors:

1 2

Just Security "The raising of even more serious charges – such as the commission of genocide, the "crime of crimes" – requires an even higher commitment to factual analysis, which should include all relevant facts, including those "inconvenient" to whoever is making such claims. Many of the allegations made in this regard, including those found in the recent South African application to the ICJ appear to fall short of this standard. Still, we do consider the South African application as potentially useful in drawing more attention to the positive obligations of the State of Israel to suppress incitement to genocide and to address potentially genocidal statements made in public by Israeli influencers and politicians." No
Shaw 3 January 2024 International relations prof, Sociologist specialising in genocide Journal of Genocide Research "Likewise warning of the potential for genocide as a maximal end-state obscured the genocidal process that was already occurring, Moreover, if the United Nations Genocide Convention was an inevitable reference point, the choice to hew close to a legal tick-box exercise not only allowed defenders of Israel's violence to argued that the criteria had not been met. It also sidelined the Convention's manifold defects, recognized in the field since its inception, and those of the subsequent jurisprudence, recently exposed in the case of Ukraine.", "It was therefore essential to recognize that in genocidal war, policies radicalize. Israel's initial genocidal thrust contained the potential for a greater genocide, which might turn the right's most ambitious ideas into reality." Yes Already in article
International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine 3 January 2024 100 international organisations Common Dreams "urging governments across the globe to formally support South Africa's International Court of Justice case against Israel, accusing the government of genocidal violence in Gaza.", Yes Already in article
Multiple specialists in international medicine 6 January 2024 The Lancet "Before October's escalation of violence, the effect of the Israeli siege of Gaza had already been described as a "slow-motion genocide".", "We situate this violence in relation to the definition of genocide as described in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, focusing on physical elements including killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, creating life-threatening conditions, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children.", "As public health and humanitarian professionals, we the authors state emphatically that the grave risk of genocide against the Palestinian people warrants immediate—and now overdue—action." Yes Already in article
Rosensaft 9 January 2024 Professor of law, expert on genocide law Times of Israel "The word genocide is used willy-nilly by people all over the world, but genocide, as it has evolved since 1948 when the genocide convention was first adopted by the UN General Assembly, is a legal concept. And whatever else Israel is doing, and has done, it is not intending to destroy the Palestinian people; either on the West Bank or in Gaza", "Even Netanyahu, with whom I fundamentally disagree on most issues, is not planning to evict the Palestinians from Gaza. So the term genocide does not work.", "October 7 was a deliberate action by a genocidal organization that targeted Israeli — meaning Jewish — civilians: women, men, children, and the elderly." No
1,347 francophone academics 9 January 2024 (most relevant not all) L'Humanité "Nous nous opposons aux graves violations par Israël des droits humains et de la liberté académique des Palestiniens, à la guerre génocidaire en cours à Gaza ainsi qu'aux arrestations et détentions arbitraires en particulier celles subies par les étudiants et le personnel palestinien dans les universités de Cisjordanie." Yes
Paul 10 January 2024 Professor of law San Francisco Chronicle "I see no evidence that Israel is trying to destroy all or a substantial part of the Palestinians." No
Schabas 10 January 2024 Professor of international law, and expert in genocide ITV "Professor William Schabas, an elected President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, was one of the world's first experts to sound the alarm, citing "serious risk of genocide" as early as late October 2023. "The evidence today is even more compelling," he told ITV News. "To me it is increasingly clear that Israel is not aiming to defeat Hamas, but rather to uproot or erase the population of Gaza."" Maybe Already in article
Boyle 10 January 2024 Professor of international law ITV "Professor Francis Boyle, who won the first case ever under the genocide convention at the ICJ for the republic of Bosnia Herzegovina against Yugoslavia, said he is confident South Africa will win an order against Israel to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Palestinians. He told ITV News: "When I submitted my case, I had to work on it on my own. South Africa has an impressive team of experts who have managed to put together the most comprehensive and impeccable application."" Yes
Flasch 10 January 2024 Legal Consultant in Public International Law, with a focus on armed conflict EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law "Despite having been firmly established in international law for three quarters of a century, the definition and requisite elements of the international crime of genocide appear to have been misunderstood or, in some cases, deliberately misapplied, seemingly by both scholars and laypersons.", "Labelling Israel's military operation against Hamas as an act of genocide may threaten to undo 75 years of work to prevent and punish the commission of genocide, by diluting and diminishing the effect of the Genocide Convention." No
Wiese 11 January 2024 "research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Chair of European Law, Public International Law and Public Law" Stern "but is usually very difficult to prove"; "The destruction of the group must be the sole aim of the perpetrator"; "under international law, there is a right to self-defence" {{ }}
Herik 11 January 2024 professor of international public law Leiden University website "That is a claim that is very difficult to prove, because you have to prove that Israel is acting with the specific purpose of exterminating the Palestinians." {{ }}
Roth 11 January 2024 Lawyer and human rights activist PBS News Hour "I think there's not much question that the level of killing, the level of deprivation is sufficient to meet that predicate part of the crime of genocide."
"This is all genocidal intent. also kind of worked backwards from the acts on the ground to say that, because Israel is bombing so indiscriminately, because it's using these massive 2,000-pound bombs in heavily populated areas, that this also shows an indifference to Palestinian civilian life, which itself is indicative of genocidal intent." 		Yes
Walter 11 January 2024 Professor of international law Reputable online legal publication "Although the high number of civilian deaths and the enormous material damage are horrific, they do not necessarily prove an intent to commit genocide. For example, the repeated calls for the civilian population to leave certain parts of the area or the observance of the obligation to warn and set a deadline before withdrawing protection from a civilian hospital because it is being used outside its humanitarian purpose to commit acts harmful to the enemy speak against such an intent." No
Platt 12 January 2024 social sciences professor with a focus on genocide research Deutschlandfunk Kultur (Audio episode) "Genocide really doesn't fit here/does not fit at all" (from title) No
Boot 15 January 2024 Military historian The Washington Post "But while it's easy to second-guess the actions of Israeli forces, there is no evidence that they have engaged in a deliberate campaign to 'destroy, in whole or in part,' the Palestinian people — which is what 'genocide' means in international law. Awful as the civilian deaths in Gaza have been, they still constitute less than 1 percent of the territory's population. If Israel, with all the firepower at its disposal, had been trying to commit mass murder, the death toll would have been higher by orders of magnitude.", "That's why the charge of genocide has been rejected not only by the United States but also by Canada, Britain and Germany, among others." No Not in the article
Mirsky 17 January 2024 Middle east and human rights expert UnHerd "South Africa was able to present evidence of genocidal-sounding intent from any number of political actors in the Netanyahu government. None of them, though, have direct decision-making authority over the conduct of the war, leading to open hostility between some of them (Itamar Ben-Gvir above all) with the IDF high command. That direct authority is reserved not just to the military professionals, but to the war cabinet, convened by Netanyahu to insulate him from his own coalition partners, and in which the political opposition to Netanyahu is well-represented; given Israeli public fury at Netanyahu, he would no longer be in power if they weren't in the room. Moreover, if genocide were Israel's aim, issuing warnings before bombings, creating humanitarian corridors (however limited), and allowing in food and other necessities would be a pretty poor way of going about it." No The evidence provided by South Africa in their submission, as detailed in this Guardian article, includes comments made by Yoav Gallant (Minister of Defence and member of the Israeli war cabinet), and made by Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel) as evidence of genocidal intent.
El-Affendi 18 January 2024 Professor of Politics and Dean of Social Sciences Journal of Genocide Research "If the (televised) Syrian genocide was the first internationally tolerated series of atrocities, then the recent genocidal violence in Gaza is the first with active input from the "international community."", "One maxim it should state is: if a series of actions approach genocide sufficiently to occasion a debate on whether they are genocide or not, then they are evil enough to be denounced without ifs or buts" Yes Already in article
Samudzi 18 January 2024 Sociologist Journal of Genocide Research "Thus, inhered within this strategy, within Israel's retaliatory campaign on Gaza, is a transtemporal logic of genocide that attempts to neutralize the Gazan Palestinian in the present so as altogether displace and/or eliminate its presence and foreclose the possibility of its future.", "Because of the legal impunity that Israel has enjoyed, the question of genocide in Palestine transcends the applicability of the Genocide Convention (though, arguably, present violence in Gaza includes nearly every act outlined in Article II) and can be better sociologically understood through the eight techniques of genocide outlined by Lemkin himself." Yes Already in article
Muravchik 18 January 2024 Political scientist The Wall Street Journal "Hamas, not Israel, is guilty of genocide." No
Levene 21 January 2024 Professor of Jewish history and genocide Journal of Genocide Research "All that said, if the utterance of genocide too obviously sticks in the craw for those like Illouz, who might read an inherent dissonance in the implication of a post-Holocaust state committing the act – arguably the ultimate Jewish taboo – there might be other routes by which we could overcome a semantic disagreement.", "The reality of the situation, whatever nomenclature genocide scholars may consider most appropriate – genocide, genocidal warfare, permanent security, urbicide, social death –the Israeli state this time has dissolved any remaining vestige (if ever there was one) of moral unassailability and given other (liberal or illiberal) states who might have their own unfinished reckonings with communal adversaries the respectability of open season to do their worst." Yes Already in article
1,600 academics 23 January 2024 Various, some relevant La Jornada "Luego de rechazar cualquier discurso de odio o discriminación, llamaron a los universitarios de todo el país a apoyar diversas acciones, entre ellas sumarse al exhorto que lanzaron mas de mil 600 académicos de todo el continente a los gobiernos progresistas de América Latina para que actúen de forma conjunta contra el “genocidio” y presionen por un alto al fuego inmediato." Yes
Dershowitz 24 January 2024 Professor of law Ynet "Israel did not commit genocide, the number of civilians who were killed is proportional to the number of combatants, it is lower than any war in modern history. Israel is trying its best to preserve civilian life, whereas Hamas is doing its best to take civilian lives." No
Semerdjian 24 January 2024 History professor, Chair of Armenian genocide studies Journal of Genocide Research "Furthermore, as the civilian/combatant distinction has collapsed, and given the scale of civilian destruction, it appears the distinction between the targeted bombing promised by "humane war" and indiscriminate bombing has largely vanished. Since everything from taking shelter in hospitals or fleeing for safety is declared a form of human shielding, the entire civilian population has been transformed into a legal target. This too is the logic of genocide.", "Terms like "civil war," "conflict," and even "counterinsurgency" frequently serve as legal cover for genocide, and in its wake, form the repertoire of genocide denial.", "For many, the killing of Palestinians in Gaza is justifiable self-defense. In the wake of 7 October, America and European allies offered support for Israel's unrestrained "right to defense" for "permanent security" in the tradition of America's own War on Terror. The problem is, genocides are also premised on the right to security and self-defense against an existential threat." Yes Already in article
Fassin 25 January 2024 Anthropologist and sociologist AOC "Didier Fassin joue un rôle de lanceur d’alerte lorsqu'il écrit le 1er novembre 2023 : « Alors que la plupart des gouvernements occidentaux continuent de dire "le droit d'Israël à se défendre" sans y mettre de réserves autres que rhétoriques et sans même imaginer un droit semblable pour les Palestiniens, il y a en effet une responsabilité historique à prévenir ce qui pourrait devenir le premier génocide du XXIe siècle. »" Yes
Kontorovich 25 January 2024 Lawyer, specialising in international law Israel Hayom "The good news was the International Court of Justice did not effectively order us to wait to be tortured and murdered, by demanding a halt to the Gaza War. That is certainly good – but only in the twisted world where the ICJ is putting Israel, not Hamas, on trial for the absolutely absurd charge of genocide." No Already in article
Üngör 26 January 2024 Professor of genocide studies Journal of Genocide Research "The dynamic of violence since 7 October then is not a qualitative transmutation, but a corollary of the path-dependent history of the conflict: asymmetrical power relations, and annihilatory attitudes towards civilians.", "It is also evident to most observers that the Israeli reaction is unmistakably counter-genocidal in terms of the quantity, quality, and dynamic of mass violence. Even if we disregard the quantitative dimension of the ongoing death toll, an analysis of the qualitative elements of the violence indicates a complex process of destruction." Yes Already in article
Lederman 29 January 2024 Holocaust scholar Journal of Genocide Research "On 7 October, Gaza became a laboratory for genocidal violence. I use this term to distinguish it from genocide per se, to refer to violence that has certain genocidal characteristics but not others.", "Considering the importance of settler colonialism as a frame of analysis in genocide studies, we may do well to consider Gaza as a laboratory not just for the dynamic of settler colonialism and its contemporary relevance as underlying hegemonic legal, political, and moral frameworks, but also for the politics of applying this frame and its moral implications." Maybe Already in article
Illouz 2 February 2024 Professor of sociology The Forward "The people who surround him —Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich — are more overtly fascist. They believe in violence. Their camp murdered Yitzhak Rabin. They hold and defend Jewish supremacist views. Their declarations after Oct. 7 amounted to calls to genocide (even though I do not think Israel is committing genocide)." No No longer in article
Charny 2 February 2024 genocide scholar Genocide Watch "Israel is fighting back legitimately in Self-Defense in Response and in Self-Defense against Future Genocidal Attacks that Employ Citizens as Human Shields. The Geneva Conventions specifically outlaw use of human shields and justify fighting back in response. Self-Defense does not include genocidal intent." No
El-Affendi 3 February 2024 Professor of politics, Dean of Social Sciences Al Jazeera "Increasing partisanship in Genocide Studies threatens the field itself", "An endless stream of interventions in the media accompanied and followed these initiatives, exhibiting mounting polarisation and politicization", "This public split among scholars prompted the Journal of Genocide Research, the leading and oldest periodical in the field, to organise a forum on the topic 'Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies'. It invited a small number of leading figures in the field", "Overall, in the forum, there was uneven worry about the health of the field, but near consensus that what Israel is doing in Gaza is certainly "genocidal" if not outright genocide", "I also stand by my point that the increasing polarisation and partisanship in the field, together with the 'major democracies' simultaneously assuming the role of participants and deniers, is a very serious blow to the whole endeavour of genocide prevention." Yes
Bruttman 3 February 2024 Holocaust historian K. La Revue "Indeed, for 40 years now, Israel has been regularly accused of committing genocide by its ideological opponents. But apart from thunderous declarations, no evidence of genocide has ever been produced. Today, of course, it’s being brought up again, mostly by people who have no particular expertise in the field." No Already in article
Mockaitis 4 February 2024 Historian The Hill "The IDF campaign has left much of Gaza in ruins, displacing people and creating a massive refugee and humanitarian crisis. However, the use of excessive force stems from an aversion to casualties, not genocidal intent. If the massive assault on Gaza is not genocide, it may constitute a war crime, although that will be hard to prove. No
Trachtenberg 7 February 2024 Historian, specialising in Jewish History The New Yorker "Trachtenberg testified to a consensus opinion among historians of genocide that what is happening in Gaza can indeed be called a genocide, largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials. "We are watching the genocide unfold as we speak," he said. "We are in this incredibly unique position where we can intervene to stop it, using the mechanisms of international law that are available to us."" Yes Already in article
Burke-White 8 February 2024 Professor of international law University of Pennsylvania website "It should be noted that genocide is an incredibly difficult crime to prove. Genocide refers to any of a series of acts – such as the killing or the transfer of children—undertaken with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." Historically, courts have struggled to prove the relevant intent, which is not just murder but a concerted policy to destroy a people as a whole. For South Africa to win this case, it will need to find and provide evidence that the Israeli government's intent was not merely to prevent attacks such as those of October 7 or to degrade the capability of Hamas, but rather to annihilate the Palestinian people as a whole." {{ }}
Fassin 8 February 2024 Anthropologist and sociologist Journal of Genocide Research "It is a similar exercise that I want to propose here about the arguments used by those who have championed the right of Israel to defend itself at whatever cost for Palestinian civilians and have attacked those who have alerted the world to the risk of a genocide being perpetrated in Gaza", "As the destruction of public infrastructures, including hospitals and schools, and the tally of civilian casualties, mostly children and women, increased in Gaza on a scale never seen before in Palestine, the qualification of the war crimes committed by Israel as possibly a genocide by scholars, lawyers, experts from international organizations and even governments has generated hostile reactions in Israel and among supporters of the Israeli politics of retaliation, mostly in Western countries.", "The critics of this qualification, many of them academics, maintained that a state created for a people victim of the quintessential genocide could not be suspected of committing a similar crime", "Alerting to the prospect of a genocide being perpetrated in Gaza is stigmatized as an unconscious desire to have a genocide perpetrated against the Jews." Yes Already in article
Green 16 February 2024 Professor of Law and Globalisation State Crime Journal "Just two months after this special issue was finalized Israel launched its catastrophic, genocidal assault on Gaza.", "As this timely and crucially important volume demonstrates Israel's genocide of the Palestinians is bound both to the logic of settler colonialism and to the necessity of its abolition.", "What we are witnessing now, not only in Gaza but across historic Palestine is the denouement in Israel's genocide of the indigenous Palestinians…a second Nakba and as Knesset member Arial Kallner demanded one that dwarfs the Nakba of 1948." Yes Not in the article
Genocide Watch 20 February 2024 Antigenocide NGO Genocide Watch "These are the signs of the genocidal process in Israel's war in Gaza: Israel's leaders persist in conflating all Palestinian people with Hamas. ; Israel's leaders incite genocide against Palestinians by dehumanizing Palestinians as "human animals" and by summoning Biblical justification for genocide ; Israel collectively punishes all Gazans for the actions of Hamas. Israel's leaders deny that there are any innocent civilians in Gaza. This falsehood denies any duty to obey the laws of war, which require avoidance of attacks on civilians. ; This collective punishment is used to justify the bombing and killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian women, children, and noncombatants, including at least 85 journalists ; Israel has forcibly displaced 1.7 million Gazans from their homes into tent cities ; Israel bombs and assaults hospitals where wounded civilians seek medical care and shelter ; Israel bombs Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza ; Israel bombs and attacks areas in Gaza to which it has directed civilians for their "safety" ; Israel bombs “escape routes” it has designated for Palestinians fleeing Israeli attacks ; Israel's blockade and siege of Gaza is producing widespread famine ." Yes Not in article
Falk 25 February 2024 Professor of international law, and Chair of EuroMed-Monitor Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor "This pattern is quite extraordinary because the states supporting Israel, above all the United States, have claimed the high moral and legal ground for themselves and have long lectured the states of the Global South about the importance of the rule of law, human rights, and respect for international law. This is instead of urging compliance with international law and morality by both sides in the face of the most transparent genocide in all of human history. In the numerous pre-Gaza genocides, the existential horrors that occurred were largely known after the fact and through statistics and abstractions, occasionally vivified by the tales told by survivors. The events, although historically reconstructed, were not as immediately real as these events in Gaza with the daily reports from journalists on the scene for more than three months." Yes
Human Rights Watch 26 February 2024 International human rights NGO Human Rights Watch website "The Israeli government is starving Gaza's 2.3 million Palestinians, putting them in even more peril than before the World Court's binding order", "The Israeli government has simply ignored the court's ruling, and in some ways even intensified its repression, including further blocking lifesaving aid" Yes Already in article
Amnesty International 26 February 2024 International human rights NGO Amnesty International website "One month after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered "immediate and effective measures" to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services, Israel has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply, Amnesty International said today." Yes Already in article
Fakhri 27 February 2024 Professor of law, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food The Guardian "Michael Fakhri says denial of food is war crime and constitutes 'a situation of genocide'", "In my view as a UN human rights expert, this is now a situation of genocide." Yes Already in article
Giroux 1 March 2024 Scholar and culture critic Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review "While the International Court of Justice judgment should be welcomed, it is hard to imagine why there isn't an immediate call for a cease-fire and a full-fledged acknowledgment of Israel's committed war crimes and acts of genocide.", "Higher education may be one of the few sites left where prominent issues such as the genocidal war on Gaza can be analysed, engaged, and subject to the rigours of history, a comprehensive analysis, and relevant evidence." Yes
1,346 academics 1 March 2024 (some relevant not all) Academics 4 Peace "Israel's assault on Gaza appears to include both acts and intent stated in the definition of genocide.",
"President Biden, do not let the United States go down in history as the enabler of genocide" 		Yes Not in the article
Segal & Daniele 5 March 2024 Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies; Professor of law, specialising in armed conflict, humanitarian, and international law Journal of Genocide Research "Finkel reasonably concluded that it was "hard to imagine a more actionable template to destroy a national group," and that the "combination of official statements denying Ukraine and Ukrainians the right to exist, and mounting evidence of deliberate, large-scale targeting of Ukrainian civilians" left "little room for doubt" that “the threshold from war crimes to genocide" was crossed.", "Applying the same standard indicated by Finkel to the Israeli mainstream political and media discourse about Palestinians, the threshold from war crimes to genocide has been crossed before 7 October. In May 2023, a clear template to destroy a national group was proposed by Jeffrey Camras in an article in the Times of Israel. Camras proposed that "in order to right a wrong, in order to make peace and move forward, Palestine must be obliterated."", "Nonetheless, no Holocaust scholar viewed this situation in the way Finkel saw Russia's attack on Ukraine. Most Holocaust scholars, in fact, never even mentioned the large body of evidence of Israeli international crimes in the fifty-six years of Israeli occupation.", "The very different ways in which Holocaust scholars, on the one hand, and those working in Genocide Studies, on the other, have responded to the unfolding mass violence in Israel and Palestine after 7 October point to an unprecedented crisis in Holocaust and Genocide Studies. We argue that the crisis stems from the significant evidence for genocide in Israel's attack on Gaza, which has exposed the exceptional status accorded to Israel as a foundational element in the field, that is, the idea that Israel, the state of Holocaust survivors, can never perpetrate genocide." Yes Already in article
Feldmann 6 March 2024 Professor of international law Time, via World Socialist Website "Israel's efforts to defend itself against Hamas, even if found to involve killing disproportionate number of civilians, do not turn Israel into a genocidal actor comparable to the Nazis or the Hutu regime in Rwanda. The genocide charge depends on intent. And Israel, as a state, is not fighting the Gaza War with the intent to destroy the Palestinian people.", "These relevant facts matter for putting the genocide charge into the context of potential antisemitism. Neither South Africa nor other states have brought a genocide case against China for its conduct in Tibet or Xinjiang, or against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. There is something specifically noteworthy about leveling the charge at the Jewish state—something intertwined with the new narrative of the Jews as archetypal oppressors rather than archetypal victims. Call it the genocide sleight of hand: if the Jews are depicted as genocidal—if Israel becomes the very archetype of a genocidal state—then Jews are much less likely to be conceived as a historically oppressed people engaged in self-defense." No
Scholars of Middle East Studies 11 March 2024 Middle East Studies Association Al Jazeera "accelerating scale of genocidal violence being inflicted on the Palestinian population of Gaza" Yes Already in article
Quigley 14 March 2024 Law professor EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law "South Africa will be able to present considerable evidence of knowing destruction, from the mouths of UN officials and representatives of non-governmental aid organizations.", "The "conditions of life" were imposed not merely on discrete sectors of the group, but on its entirety. Israel had control over both egress and ingress from the relevant territory. No intent alternative to that of destruction was apparent." Maybe Already in article
Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams 21 March 2024 Professor and scientific staff blog of peace research institute "Whether the ICJ will classify Israeli violence as genocide cannot be answered at this point in time." Maybe
Albanese 25 March 2024 Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967; researcher and international lawyer United Nations "By analysing the patterns of violence and Israeli policies in its onslaught on Gaza, the present report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating that Israel has committed genocide has been met. One of the key findings of the report is that the Israeli executive and military leadership and Israeli soldiers have intentionally distorted jus in bello principles, subverting their protective functions, in an attempt to legitimize genocidal violence against the Palestinian people" Yes Already in article
Sahara 1 April 2024 Professor of political science The Journal of Research Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer "The scale of violence of the recent Israeli war has already exceeded the initial stages of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and is becoming an immense ethnic cleansing comparable with the Armenian case. In light of the bellicose discriminatory discourses of the Israeli leaders, systematic destruction of civilian targets, forced starvation, and rapidly deteriorating hygiene conditions in Gaza, there are ample grounds to believe that the war on Gaza will develop into a full-fledged genocide if unchecked." Maybe Not in the article
1,101 lawyers 3 April 2024 Various legal scholars and practitioners Open letter to Rishi Sunak "These facts demonstrate a pattern of behaviour giving rise not only to specific violations of IHL and of crimes against humanity but also, when taken together with the evidence of genocidal intent in statements by senior Israeli officials cited by the ICJ in its Provisional Order, a serious risk of genocide. That risk relates in particular to the Genocide Convention Article II (a) "killing members of the group"; (b) "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group"; and (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part". In light of the infant and maternal mortality rates and the destruction of Gaza's healthcare system described above, these facts may also give rise to violations of Article II(d), i.e. "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"." Yes Already in article
Signatories include Jonathan Sumption, Brenda Hale, Nicholas Wilson and Robert Carnwarth
Lévy 4 April 2024 Philosopher France Info "Il n'y a pas de génocide à Gaza, il n'y a pas de massacre délibéré des populations civiles" No Not in the article
Bauer 6 April 2024 Genocide scholar Kan 11 "Of course this is not a genocide. It is absolutely clear. But it doesn't mean that I justify what Israel does in Gaza. I think the killing that we cause there is what is called in academic language mass atrocities crimes. But obviously all comparisons to genocide are baseless." No Not in the article
Talmon 7 April 2024 Professor of international law Süddeutsche Zeitung "This is clearly a war crime. But not genocide." No Already in article
Braverman 9 April 2024 Former Attorney General of the United Kingdom LBC "I very strongly rebut suggestions that Israel is in breach of international law, that there's a genocide, that there's a forced starvation." No Not in the article
Ashour 10 April 2024 Professor of Economics, International relations project coordinator, Organiser Docentes con Palestina Público "Este viernes, Docentes con Palestina ha convocado concentraciones a mediodía en todos los centros de enseñanza de Galicia en solidaridad con el pueblo palestino, para alertar una vez más del genocidio y para que el alumnado educado en el siglo XXI sea consciente de que está viviendo en directo uno de los peores horrores que han ocurrido en la historia de la raza humana." , "Explicar que ahora mismo está ocurriendo un genocidio y exigir su final es difícil, pero es una tarea absolutamente pedagógica", sostiene." Yes Not in the article
Walzer 17 April 2024 Professor/well known philosopher and political scientist Die Zeit "No. There is no genocidal intent on the Israeli side. Some members of the Israeli government want to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and relocate them. But fortunately, they are not the decisive force in government." No Not in the article
Whyte 17 April 2024 Professor of philosophy, and political theorist (see also) Journal of Genocide Research "Israel's conduct in Gaza, and the US's active legal support for it, forces us to grapple with the seemingly unthinkable: a perfectly legal genocide, that is a genocide legitimized via a permissive interpretation of IHL.", "By turning to Gaza, I show that Israel has mobilized a deeply permissive account of IHL to justify its use of starvation as a tool of genocide.", "Notably absent from Power's statement was the stance for which she became famous: moral condemnation of a US administration that responds to genocide by rendering "the bloodshed two sided and inevitable, not genocidal."" Yes Not in the article
Robinson 17 April 2024 Professor of Sociology Journal of World-Systems Research "Genocidal pressures were building up against the Palestinians well before the siege of Gaza that began in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. In Israel it is now perfectly normal to call for genocide against the Palestinians; whereas to the contrary, it is looked upon as treason to defend Palestinian life." Yes Not in the article
Patel and Ben Imran 21 April 2024 1: Legal researcher, reader in International law (holds LLM);
2: Reader in International law (holds LLM) 		Al Jazeera "Last month, our organisation, Law for Palestine, made the first in a series of submissions to the ICC, characterising the crime of genocide committed by Israeli leaders against the Palestinian people. The 200-page document, drafted by 30 lawyers and legal researchers from across the world and reviewed by more than 15 experts, makes a compelling case for the genocidal intent as well as for the prosecutorial policy that the court has followed in other cases.", "We also refer to the database we have put together of more than 500 instances of Israeli incitement to genocide as additional proof. While the statements form a substantial part of the intent component of the crime of genocide, the submission goes beyond and highlights the various actions and official policies that additionally prove intent." Yes Not in the article
Suny 25 April 2024 Historian The Nation "The world is watching a genocide taking place in real time." Yes Not in the article
Donoghue 26 April 2024 President of the ICJ during the hearing on the SA case BBC News "The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide – and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media – it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided." Maybe Already in article
Goldmann 26 April 2024 Professor of international law Junge Welt "The law professor does not expect a clear conviction of Israel in the South Africa-Israel case, nor a clear dismissal of the lawsuit." "According to Article II of the Convention, a breach occurs when an actor implements the intention to destroy a group of people in whole or in part by killing, injuring or restricting the living conditions of said group. In the case of Israel, there is no "smoking gun" that clearly proves such an intention, explained Goldmann. Statements by Israeli politicians in the media are "non-authoritative sources"" No Not in the article
Shalhoub-Kevorkian 26 April 2024 Professor of law, specialising in trauma, state crimes, genocide, gender violence and surveillance The Guardian "Her lawyers and international academics have condemned Hebrew University for fuelling months of political attacks on one of their faculty in the run-up to her detention. The rector called on her to resign in late 2023 after she signed a letter calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and describing Israel's campaign as genocide, and she was briefly suspended over the podcast cited in her interrogation." Yes Not in the article
Jamshidi 6 May 2024 Professor of law Journal of Genocide Research "That application was preceded by weeks of public debate and insistence by Palestinians and others – including genocide scholars – that Israel was either already committing genocide against the residents of Gaza or risked committing genocide The law of genocide often tells us to disregard what our eyes leave little doubt is happening. This creates a profound disconnect between the legal definition of genocide and popular and historical experiences and understandings of the term. By situating the catastrophe in Gaza both within Israel's long history of eliminationist violence towards Palestinians and fine-tuned legal arguments, South Africa has brought the law into line with the historical reality and lived-experiences of the victims of genocide, forcing a dialectical conversation between two, often, opposing planes – the law on genocide and the reality of genocide." Yes Not in the article
Sultany 9 May 2024 Reader in Public law Journal of Genocide Research "Legal discourse needs to match the reality of horror to maintain its relevance. Although legal scholars and commentators were slow to recognize the severity and urgency of the situation, this article sought to show that there is an emerging consensus that Israel's actions in Gaza are not another instance of armed conflict but instead amount to genocide. This genocide is committed against an integral component of the Palestinian people, a protected group under the Genocide Convention. The preceding discussion shows that obstacles facing a legal determination of genocide (namely, assessing the credibility of military logic and the existence of genocidal intent) are not insurmountable. The emerging consensus described here may not be overwhelming and will have to face opposition and potential judicial disagreement. Yet an overwhelming body of evidence supports it and a consistency in the application of standards requires it." Yes Already in article
Several professors 10 May 2024 Several professors, including:

Professor of information theory; Professor of political science; Professor of sociology, with a specialism in politics; Professor of sociology

El País "La introducción al texto presentado por los catedráticos enumera cinco peticiones dirigidas al rector de la UCM: una condena "clara y explícita" de la destrucción deliberada de las universidades palestinas y el ataque a profesores, estudiantes y personal universitario; la petición de alto al fuego "inmediato y permanente"; la cancelación de toda colaboración con universidades israelís "que se relacionen con el genocidio de Gaza"; financiar programas para acoger a estudiantes y maestros palestinos; y la cancelación de toda colaboración con empresas o instituciones "que otorguen un apoyo directo o al genocidio en Gaza"." Yes Not in the article
Pappé 15 May 2024 Historian, specialising in Israel-Palestine Al Jazeera "What we see now are massacres which are part of the genocidal impulse, namely to kill people in order to downsize the number of people living in Gaza" Yes Already in article
Hartwig and Müller 16 May 2024 Scholars of international law:

1; 2

digital news partnering with big newspapers "I ultimately do not see sufficient grounds for genocide if one takes the legal term seriously."; "Even if individual actions by the Israeli armed forces can be described as war crimes, they do not at the same time constitute genocide." No Not in the article
Sassoli and Diggelmann 20 May 2024 International Law Professors:

1; 2

SRF "«Certain statements by Israeli politicians were genocidal». There was talk of extermination. «But the actions of the Israeli army are, in my opinion, directed against Hamas and not against the entire population»"; "He does not believe that the International Court of Justice will find a generationalintent to commit genocide in the South Africa v. Israel case." No Not in the article
Maison 20 May 2024 Professor of international law Orient XXI "S'agissant de Gaza, la qualification de génocide peut également être sérieusement envisagée au regard, notamment, de la systématicité des attaques, de leur sens, et de leur inscription dans une offensive plus large contre la population civile." , "C'est à ce moment qu’un élément inédit a été avancé en faveur d'Israël : une interview de l'ancienne présidente de la Cour internationale de justice, Joan Donoghue, affirmant que la juridiction n’aurait pas reconnu une affaire plausible de génocide (a « plausible case of genocide »). Rappelons ici que, dans son ordonnance du 26 janvier 2024, la cour affirme que le droit des Palestiniens d'être protégés contre les actes de génocide est plausible (§§ 36, 54), et qu'il existe une urgence, c'est à dire un « risque réel et imminent » de préjudice irréparable causé aux droits revendiqués (§ 61, 74). Il s'agit bien d'un risque de génocide, même si la cour n'emploie pas la formule « affaire plausible de génocide ». Les médias se sont précipités sur les propos ambigus de Joan Donoghue pour minimiser le sens de l'ordonnance et réfuter l'emploi du terme génocide." Maybe Not in the article
Illouz 21 May 2024 Professor of sociology Haaretz "A fierce military response facing unprecedented challenges in the history of warfare – because of a highly densely populated urban area, an underground city built below a civilian population – has become in the eyes of many a bona fide case of genocide", "Jews, Zionists and moderate people from all political parties and religions have watched the campus protests unfold in amazement, unable to believe the unselfconscious double standards, the baselessness of the historical parallels", "these protests give me no choice but to ask myself if, after all, something like the phantasmagoric irrationality of antisemitism is at work here." No Not in the article
Sirleaf 24 May 2024 Professor of international law and transitional justice International Journal of Transitional Justice "this is the first 'live-streamed' genocide in history." Yes Already in article
Khan 1 June 2024 Professor of international law ZDF "The defining element is above all the intent to destroy, which, however, can currently hardly be proven by the Israeli leadership" No Not in the article
Ballantyne and Beddoe 1 June 2024 Professor of social welfare; Professor of social work Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work "Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the most-read article published in 2023 was a special editorial on Justice for Palestine included in issue four (Ballantyne et al., 2023). This was a statement by editorial collective members on the situation in Palestine. In the context of the genocide, we were all witnessing on our television screens and the silence of the IFSW on this matter, we felt compelled to comment. Since that editorial was published in December 2023, the horrifying death toll has not stopped climbing, and despite the statements made by the International Criminal Court to halt the ground invasion of Rafah, Israel continues its assault on Gaza and the West Bank unabated. The editorial collective continues to express our utmost solidarity with the Palestinian people and our deep concern for the future prospects of an international rules-based order that respects all peoples' human rights, including the right to self-determination." Yes Not in the article
Ak 3 June 2024 Professor of political science Journal of Humanity, Peace and Justice "this research will also contribute to the related field of the social sciences as being the first clear example of genocide acts perpetuated by Israel so far in one of the whole Palestine territory like the Gaza Strip.", "At first, it will not be wrong to claim that the Palestinian cause regarding recent Israeli Gaza assaults is a trickling genocide, slow but relentless." Yes Not in the article
Di-Capua 5 June 2024 Professor of history, focusing on intellectual history and the modern Arab world Journal of Genocide Research "Conditions for the emergence of a Jewish genocidal mindset in Israel evolved gradually since the 1970s.", "Positioned at the core of rural Palestinian life, these settlements serve as intellectual incubators and experimental laboratories of genocidal politics, chief of which is ethnic cleansing.", "By and large, though the IDF avoids drafting the most radical and violent members of Hardal, given the growing size of this demographic within the army, including among the officers’ corps and the growing number of soldiers who sympathize or directly belong to these genocidal circles especially on the field level, their influence is growing.", "A decade later, and in the context of the current war in Gaza, the rhetoric of a genocidal Jewish Holy War is being pushed into the mainstream like never before and is featured in many of its ground operations, especially among the ranks of the more popular infantry and armoured divisions." Yes Already in article
Akram 5 June 2024 LAW clinical professor of law and director of LAW's International Human Rights Clinic Boston University Today & University Network for Human Rights Q:"For all of the condemnation of Israel's actions, there is also strong opposition to Israel's actions being labeled a genocide. Where does that pushback come from?".

A:"The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza."

Yes Already in article
Neier 6 June 2024 Human rights activist The New York Review "Hamas has embedded itself in the civilian population of Gaza, and its extensive network of tunnels provides its combatants the ability to move around quickly. Even if Israel's bombers were intent on minimizing harm to civilians, they would have had difficulty doing so in their effort to destroy Hamas. And yet, even believing this, I am now persuaded that Israel is engaged in genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. What has changed my mind is its sustained policy of obstructing the movement of humanitarian assistance into the territory." Yes Comments about how these actions are "indicative of genocide" are already in article attributed to Neier via this CNN interview
Jacquet 6 June 2024 Professor of diplomacy and geopolitics Anadolu Agency ""Given the extent of the war crimes and the military operations carried out by the Israeli army on the ground, this situation can be considered genocide according to a growing number of international lawyers," Jacquet said." Yes Not in the article
Choonara 12 June 2024 Professor of political economy International Socialism "US president Joe Biden, along with British foreign secretary David Cameron, were also isolated in their backing for Israel's genocidal offensive in Rafah." Yes Not in the article
Totten 15 June 2024 Professor of history, specialist in genocide Arkansas Democrat-Gazette "I firmly believed, and continue to do so, that the Israelis had every right to retaliate against Hamas and to free those Israelis being held hostage by Hamas.", "Under the cover of the Israel-Hamas war, Israeli "settlers" on the West Bank are attacking Palestinian villages, forcibly removing the occupants from their homes and land, beating them (and in certain cases killing them), and stealing said land. And those Israeli thugs are doing so while under the protection and support of the Israeli army and police.", "It is crystal clear that both Hamas and the Israelis have already perpetrated, at the least, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Various others have also accused both Hamas and the Israelis of genocide. An international court will adjudicate this." Maybe
Suslovic et al. 17 June 2024 Reader in social welfare; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Organizer; Professor of social work Abolitionist Perspectives in Social Work "Since October 7, 2023, the world has witnessed Israel's unrelenting mass assault against the people of Gaza, killing more than 37,000 Palestinians. The response to this genocide in most sectors of professional society has largely been one of denial and suppression of solidarity with Palestine, unveiling extremes of the longstanding Palestine exception in progressive politics. This article contextualizes the social work profession's response to Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinian people after October 7, 2023, including responses from schools of social work, social work agencies and organizations, and academic journals." Yes Not in the article
Mordechai 19 June 2024 Historian The National ""The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is currently committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza," Mr Mordechai said in the introduction to a report he published." Yes The report, he previously wrote an article in Jacobin in April 2024 about the ongoing war crimes of the IDF, available here.
758 Scholars of the Middle East 20 June 2024 Brookings Institution "A majority of Middle East scholars see Israeli motives in Gaza to be about forcing Palestinians out "
"How would you define Israel's current military actions in Gaza? Response: Major war crimes akin to genocide (41%), Genocide (34%), Major war crimes but not akin to genocide (16%), Unjustified actions but not major war crimes (4%), Justified actions under the right to self-defense (4%)". 		Maybe Already in article
Ali 21 June 2024 Head of international law department at Bindmans LLP Middle East Monitor "He emphasised that, despite Israel's own repetition of genocidal intent, "Western leaders are guilty of viewing Palestine and Israel through the prejudiced prism of a merciless Palestinian terrorists against the gentle Jewish victims who are desperately maintaining the only democracy in the Middle East."" Yes Also includes new comments from Albanese and Sultany
Rocafort, Hassan, Casani 26 June 2024 Professor of political science;

Professor of computer science; Professor of political science

elDiario.es "Después de ocho meses de genocidio en Gaza y más de 37.000 muertos palestinos, son cada vez más las voces que llaman al boicot académico a las universidades israelíes." , "Existen ya diversos casos particulares de represión directa desde las universidades contra profesorado crítico con el genocidio." , "Al contrario, las universidades israelíes han sido una fuerza activa en la legitimación y mantenimiento de un sistema de segregación que ha sido considerado equivalente al apartheid sudafricano. Ahora mismo son colaboradores necesarios en el genocidio en curso." Yes
Schabas 28 June 2024 Professor of international law CBC News "There have been several genocide cases now at the International Court of Justice. I think the case that South Africa is setting out is easily the strongest case of genocide. The differences between, for example, the situation in the Balkans where the borders were largely open and porous and where people could flee, we don't have that in Gaza. The statements made by politicians in Israel, the notorious statements about how the Gazans are inhumane or 'human animals' was one of the terms, statements like, we're going to deny you electricity, water, medical care. The destruction of the institutions, all of these things add up and make for a very strong case... I can't entirely predict what the judges are going to do. And you certainly could exaggerate the importance of these provisional measures orders and suggest that they represent some kind of a determination of the issue, that is yet to come." Yes Already in article
McAlister 29 June 2024 Professor of history Canadian Foreign Policy Journal "The genocide in Gaza is an opportunity for Canada to change that. A majority of Canadians may want to see a ceasefire in Gaza, but are they or their political representatives prepared to condemn the genocide?" Yes Not in the article
Swoboda 4 July 2024 Professor of international and criminal law Ruhr University Bochum website "In my view, the criteria for genocide are not fulfilled, because the intention to commit genocide is not the only plausible motive for the use of violence. Israel justifies its attacks in the Gaza Strip with the right to self-defense and with the aim of freeing the hostages. This is permitted under international law, albeit perhaps within narrower limits than Israel is currently exercising." No Already in article
Goldberg 11 July 2024 Professor of Jewish history Jacobin "I admit that, at first, I was reluctant to call it genocide, and sought any indication to convince myself that it is not. No one wants to see themselves as part of a genocidal society. But there was explicit intent, a systematic pattern, and a genocidal outcome — so, I came to the conclusion that this is exactly what genocide looks like. And once you come to this conclusion, you cannot remain silent." Yes Already in article
UN Special Rapporteurs 11 July 2024 SR right to food,

SR physical and mental health, SR human rights in the Palestinian Territory, SR drinking water and sanitation, SR human rights OF displaced persons, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent

United Nations "We declare that Israel's intentional and targeted starvation campaign against the Palestinian people is a form of genocidal violence and has resulted in famine across all of Gaza. We call upon the international community to prioritise the delivery of humanitarian aid by land by any means necessary, end Israel's siege, and establish a ceasefire." Yes
Semerdjian 17 July 2024 History professor, Chair of Armenian genocide studies Journal of Genocide Research "By comparing contemporary examples of starvation warfare in Artsakh and Gaza, I seek to reintroduce the concept of genocide by attrition formulated by Raphael Lemkin in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (1944). Helen Fein's 1997 essay "Genocide by Attrition, 1939–1993: The Warsaw Ghetto, Cambodia, and Sudan," gave formal nomenclature to this genocidal tool.", "The carceral conditions produced by the 2006 enclosure of the Gaza Strip could be called Gazification. Land and territory are not only bifurcated with a discrete line separating two parts, but are fractured several times over through the creation of physical and digital checkpoints, "safe zones," and border inspections designed to make life suffocatingly unlivable. In order to survive, superfluous beings who resist these necropolitical forces live fugitive lives. Gazification should, therefore, be understood as an instrument of genocide by attrition that predates Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7." Yes Already in article
Al-Hassani 1 August 2024 Postdoctoral researcher in Politics, Philosophy, and Religion SEPAD: Sectarianism, Proxies and De-sectarianisation "I have listened to academics in these different disciplines explore sovereignty, and after much reflection on the current genocide in Gaza, I am now convinced that sovereignty, in itself, is a concept weaponized to order and maintain European and Western hegemony over the global majority." Yes Not in the article
Lapidot 7 August 2024 Professor of Hebraic Studies Journal of Genocide Research "Like anti-antisemitism, anti-colonialism too, instead of unsettling the purity of Western conscience, becomes a powerful tool for generating a perfect logos of absolute humanity that condemns its enemies as evil and unleashes holy wars. This is a danger that should be considered in countering the Israeli genocide narrative with a Palestinian genocide, or by depicting the Hamas attacks on 7 October as a ghetto uprising instead of as a pogrom." {{ }} Not in the article
Bartov 13 August 2024 Holocaust and Genocide Studies professor The Guardian "By the time I travelled to Israel, I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions." Yes Already in article
Previously stated in November "no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza we may be watching an ethnic cleansing operation that could quickly devolve into genocide"
Menon 13 August 2024 Professor of law Nordic Journal of International Law "This brings me to the comparisons between two recent cases: the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Notwithstanding the vastly different histories leading up to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, they both share an important similarity: the allegations of genocide against Russia and Israel.", "If Israel was using self-defence as its mode of reasoning, Russia was protecting the populations in Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and Ukraine from violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Russian actions rendered immaterial whether Ukraine was in fact committing acts of genocide or not, as do Israeli arguments of self-defence. Russian and Israeli 'responsibility to protect' those in its (former) colonies was a strategy of empire that is not unknown." Yes Not in the article
Hammouri 20 August 2024 Lecturer in international law The Guardian ""The case for the US's complicity in genocide is very strong," said Dr Shahd Hammouri, lecturer in international law at the University of Kent and the author of Shipments of Death. "It's providing material support, without which the genocide and other illegalities are not possible. The question of complicity for the other countries will rely on assessment of how substantial their material support has been." Yes Already in article
Bauhn 21 August 2024 Professor of philosophy Israel Affairs "Israel and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been accused of 'massacring' Palestinian civilians, even attempting a 'genocide' on the Palestinian population in Gaza, as stated in a Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor posting on 16 May 2024, and reposted that same day by Relief Web, a news service provided by the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Such accusations lack factual foundation about how the war against Hamas has been conducted.", "But there is no evidence whatsoever of any deliberate Israeli policy or plan to kill civilian Palestinians in Gaza that would remotely warrant terms like 'massacre' or 'genocide'." No Not in the article
Razack 26 August 2024 Professor of gender studies Journal of Palestine Studies "The feminist truism that women are always raped in war is relied upon to confirm that mass rapes took place on October 7—a weaponization of feminism designed to shut down questions about evidence and the deliberate circulation of false narratives about rape, and, importantly, to legitimize Israeli state violence and genocide in Gaza." Yes Not in the article
Ó Tuathail 30 August 2024 Professor of government and international affairs Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space "Israel's genocidal campaign against residents of Gaza" Yes Not in the article
Murray 30 August 2024 Chief editor of the Journal of World-Systems Research Journal of World-Systems Research "Ten months into the genocide in Gaza" Yes Not in the article
Albanese 1 October 2024 Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967; researcher and international lawyer United Nations "While the scale and nature of the ongoing Israeli assault against the Palestinians vary by area, the totality of the Israeli acts of destruction directed against the totality of the Palestinian people, with the aim of conquering the totality of the land of Palestine, is clearly identifiable. Patterns of violence against the group as a whole warrant the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in order to cease, prevent and punish genocide in the whole of the occupied Palestinian territory" Yes Already in article
Traverso 1 October 2024 Historian, contemporary and modern Europe Google Books "The only normative definition we have, codified at the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, accurately describes the current situation in Palestine ... describes exactly what is happening in Gaza today" Yes Already in article
Lamensch 4 October 2024 Coordinator of Program and Outreach at Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS) Le Devoir "Lorsqu’il lui est demandé si un génocide est en cours, selon les définitions du droit international, Marie Lamensch, coordonnatrice de projets à l’Institut montréalais d’études sur le génocide et les droits de la personne de l’Université Concordia, à Montréal, répond qu’il faudra encore des années pour déterminer si c’est le cas ou non. Même les plus grands experts juristes le disent, ajoute-t-elle : ils veulent attendre tous les éléments de preuve avant de se prononcer de façon définitive. Car la preuve d’un génocide est complexe, et pour obtenir une condamnation, il faut notamment démontrer devant la Cour l’« intention » précise de le commettre."

"When asked whether genocide is occurring, as defined by international law, Marie Lamensch, project coordinator at the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University in Montreal, says it will take years to determine whether or not that is the case. Even the greatest legal experts say so, she adds: they want to wait for all the evidence before making a definitive decision. Because proving genocide is complex, and to obtain a conviction, it is necessary to demonstrate before the Court the precise "intention" to commit it."

Maybe Not in the article
Becker 25 October 2024 Assistant Professor of International Human Rights Law Vox (website) "Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College, Dublin, said, overall, the above incidents and others mean 'South Africa has an ever-expanding repository of evidence that it can put before the as further evidence of genocidal intent,' which includes evidence suggesting Israel 'has not meaningfully sought to comply' with the ICJ’s orders so far." Yes Already in article
Jones 25 October 2024 Professor in Political science, specialization in "comparative genocide studies and gender and international relations"; author of genocide textbook Vox (website) "Any early hesitation I had about applying the 'genocide' label to the Israeli attack on Gaza has dissipated over the past year of human slaughter and the obliteration of homes, infrastructure, and communities" Yes Already in article
Segal 25 October 2024 Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Vox (website) "'I fully stand behind my description of Israel’s attack on Gaza as a 'textbook case of genocide' because we’re still actually seeing, nearly a year into this genocidal assault, explicit and unashamed statements of intent to destroy,' he said. 'The way that intent is expressed here is absolutely unprecedented.'" Yes Already in article
Verdeja 25 October 2024 Professor of peace studies and global politics (with a focus on genocide) Vox (website) "it could be 'called a genocide, even in a narrow legal sense, for several months now' given the accumulation of Israeli attacks clearly and consistently targeting the civilian population in Gaza." Yes Already in article
Waxman 25 October 2024 Professor of Political Science and Israel Studies Vox (website) "Waxman has since qualified his stance, but still believes 'Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip — though too often brutal, inhumane, and indiscriminate — do not meet the international legal criteria of the crime of genocide.' ... Of the scholars we cited in our previous story, he was the only one who responded to my request for new comment who still did not think Israel’s actions qualify as genocide." No Already in article
Bartov 6 November 2024 Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies The Guardian "The ICJ will likely not rule for years about whether the situation in Gaza meets the narrow legal definition of a genocide. But Bartov believes that the operation in Jabalia is so blatantly genocidal that 'it is possible that the ICJ will find this operation to be genocide even if it hedges on the war in Gaza as a whole.' Which is what happened in the case of Bosnia, where the massacre in Srebrenica was found to be genocide." Yes Already in article
Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices 14 November 2024 UN Special Committee OHCHR website "The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide." Yes Already in article
Schabas 29 November 2024 Professor of International Law, expertise in international criminal law and international human rights law Der Spiegel "I am neither a guru nor a judge. The courts will make a ruling, political bodies will decide in time. But I would say: There is a very strong case for arguing that Israel’s response constitutes the crime of genocide." Likely Not in the article
Amnesty International 4 December 2024 International human rights NGO Amnesty International website "This report focuses on the Israeli authorities' policies and actions in Gaza as part of the military offensive they launched in the wake of the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023 while situating them within the broader context of Israel’s unlawful occupation, and system of apartheid against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. It assesses allegations of violations and crimes under international law by Israel in Gaza within the framework of genocide under international law, concluding that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Israel’s conduct in Gaza following 7 October 2023 amounts to genocide." Yes Not in article
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights 10 December 2024 Human rights NGO ECCHR website "In recent months, ECCHR has been conducting independent research and analysis on the topic of genocide, and analyzing this against the available information and evidence relating to Israel’s actions in Gaza (see Question 6). This process has led us to the conclusion that there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza." Likely Already in article
Human Rights Watch 19 December 2024 International human rights NGO Human Rights Watch website "Human Rights Watch concludes that Israeli authorities have over the past year intentionally inflicted on the Palestinian population in Gaza 'conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' This policy, inflicted as part of a mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza means Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination, which is ongoing. This policy also amounts to an 'act of genocide' under the Genocide Convention of 1948.

The crime of genocide requires acts of genocide to be committed with genocidal intent. The ICJ has said that to infer such intent from a pattern of conduct by the state, it needs to be 'the only reasonable inference to be drawn' from the acts in question.130 The pattern of conduct set out in this report together with statements suggesting some Israeli officials wished to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza may indicate such intent."

Likely ("acts of genocide" Yes) Already in article
Médecins Sans Frontières 29 December 2024 International humanitarian NGO MSF website "Our firsthand observations of the medical and humanitarian catastrophe inflicted on Gaza are consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organisations concluding that genocide is taking place in Gaza." Likely Not in article
Goldberg and Blatman 16 January 2025 Historian and Holocaust/Genocide Scholar, Historian and Holocaust Scholar Haaretz "ההגדרה הראויה לזוועות שמחוללת ישראל בעזה היא סוגיה שנתונה כבר יותר משנה בדיון בין חוקרים, משפטנים, פעילים פוליטיים, עיתונאים ואחרים — דיון שרוב הישראלים לא נחשפים אליו." Yes In article

Other scholars have offered opinions relating to the topic of incitement to genocide, but have not specifically drawn conclusions on the question of genocide itself.

Sources
Name Month Profession Source Example statement (English or autotranslated and verified) Simplified position Notes
100 civil rights organisations and 6 scholars 20 October 2023 Scholars:

Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Historian, specialising in Jewish History, Anatomical Pathology Technologist (part of Forensic Team at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), Professor of Human Rights and Environmental Justice, Historian and Sociologist, Anthropologist specialising in Human Rights and Genocide

Al Mezan Center for Human Rights "clear intent to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and incitement to commit genocide, using dehumanizing language to describe Palestinians." —
Sfard 3 January 2024 Human rights lawyer The Guardian "Sfard said he was stunned by the speed with which incitement to genocide and other extreme speech had been normalised in Israel.", "The gap between that and the freedom and impunity for those who advocate all kinds of things – ethnic cleansing, killing civilians, bombarding civilian areas, and even genocide – doesn't square up, and that's something for the authorities to explain." — Already in article
Mack 6 January 2024 Human rights lawyer Middle East Eye "In view of the attorney general's failure to enforce the law or any accountability in the Huwwara case, it is no surprise that Israeli officials and politicians took advantage of the climate, following the Hamas attack, in order to incite deadly harm against the entire civilian population in Gaza.", "Given that senior members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and those in the parliament have explicitly supported violence, terrorism and genocide against the Palestinians, any criminal proceedings initiated against them would be seen across the political spectrum in Israel as an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government." —
Intondi 1 August 2024 Professor of history Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament "The Law for Palestine project, a UK based human rights organization has so far documented over 500 statements made by Israeli officials which could potentially amount to incitement of genocide, which is prohibited under international law.", "Are these individuals advocating for nuclear war or inciting? Is calling for the use of nuclear weapons, the same as calling for genocide?" — Not in the article
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Section sizes
Section size for Gaza genocide (54 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 37,630 37,630
Background 32,007 37,595
Legal definition of genocide 2,234 2,234
Other definitions of genocide 1,887 1,887
Minimum number of victims 1,467 1,467
Alleged genocidal acts 150 80,522
Direct killings 22,376 22,376
Indirect deaths 9,732 9,732
Starvation 19,186 19,186
Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure 2,081 3,740
Destruction of cultural and religious sites 1,659 1,659
Incommunicado detention, torture and sexual violence 3,329 3,329
Attacks on healthcare 13,124 13,124
Other 8,885 8,885
Genocidal intent 11,124 44,471
Israeli cabinet ministers 11,503 11,503
Israeli president and members of Israeli parliament 4,923 4,923
Invocations of Amalek 7,316 7,316
Other Israeli officials 6,596 6,596
Other evidence of genocidal intent 3,009 3,009
Academic and legal discourse 5,031 41,238
Holocaust and genocide studies 17,559 17,559
Middle Eastern studies 5,142 5,142
International law scholars 8,050 8,050
Others 5,456 5,456
Legal proceedings 24 60,295
International Court of Justice application 42,437 46,225
Israeli response 3,788 3,788
International Criminal Court 2,982 2,982
U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit 5,117 5,117
Occupation proceedings 1,311 1,311
German lawsuit 1,550 1,550
Nicaragua v. Germany 1,479 1,479
Australian legal proceedings 1,607 1,607
Responsibility of third states 5,495 43,404
United States 5,667 25,068
Rhetoric from U.S. politicians 19,401 19,401
United Kingdom 7,095 7,095
Germany 5,746 5,746
Statements by political organisations and governments 60 90,694
World leaders and governments 52,747 52,747
Civil servants and elected representatives 6,573 6,573
NGOs and intergovernmental organisations 19,406 31,314
United Nations 11,908 11,908
Cultural discourse 11,921 34,040
Media discourse 13,896 13,896
Israeli public opinion 3,156 3,156
Claims of antisemitism 5,067 5,067
See also 356 356
Footnotes 30 30
References 30 32,216
Works cited 32,186 32,186
Further reading 7,537 7,537
External links 955 955
Total 510,983 510,983
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why does this article title present an opinion as an established fact, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC has issued a final judgment? A1: The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. Whether the issue is contested is not the primary consideration when determining an article title on Misplaced Pages.

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)

@Ecpiandy: Afaik, there is only one UN agency, do you know of another? Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
It said UN agencies, which was just wrong so I fixed it. Selfstudier (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
What was wrong with how it was originally written for months? Ecpiandy (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
It said UN agencies, which is wrong. Oh, I just said that, did you read it? Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it's that "UN agencies" is wrong but "UN agency" is right? Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
As I just said, it is named, in Line 2. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 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)
Done: Reference to Genocide Watch's updated position has been added to the relevant section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Another important publication

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

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)
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)
This seems entirely disconnected from the topic of this discussion. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley yep. If someone else doesn't do it before me, I'll look at adding them to the article in the coming days. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I've added their opinions from Klein's journal article. The other articles don't seem to workable, as they don't really give any depth to their opinions into the accusation of genocide in Gaza, and more so detail how Hamas is linked to the Nazis, how October 7 is linked to the Holocaust, and how October 7 was genocidal (would be good to add to the October 7 genocide article). If you can see them being linked more explicitly, please expand their section with the references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
The issue with the study is that capture-recapture produces biased estimates when the datasets are nonindependent, and clearly participation in the survey is correlated with whether a casualty was already recorded in a hospital. The authors try to mitigate this by adding a third dataset, obituaries, but the quality there seems questionable - it's all from social media or chats, not all public, unclear authorship, some names were transliterated twice (Arabic to English to Arabic), etc. It also implies some surprising if not implausible things, like that a tiny fraction of obituary authors also reported the victim's death on the survey.
It might be a bit early to expect much expert analysis, but this was Michael Spagat's high-level take on it: This is a good piece of evidence that the real number is higher, probably substantially higher, than the Ministry of Health’s official numbers, higher than I had been thinking over the last few months. Quantitatively, it’s a lot more uncertain than I think comes out in the paper. (This is a somewhat different concern, based on the very different numbers they got for different datasets, which they then took the mean of.) — xDanielx /C\ 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Why is it rounded to 70,000 when this estimate is reported as 64,260? Wouldn't be more accurate to round to 64 or 65,000? JPHC2003 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
64,000 is the estimate at the mid-year point (the end of the data set) and 70,000 is the projection up to the present. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
From the "Research in context" section, We estimate a total mortality from traumatic injury of 64 260 (95% CI 55 298–78 525), implying that the MoH reports underestimated deaths by 41%. As of October, 2024, the official MoH estimate stood at 41 909, which would suggest that the true mortality figures probably exceeded 70 000.. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Correlation between the sources should have brought the estimate down rather than exaggerate it. Given that Spagat is a bit surprised at the size of the figure I wouldn't be too worried about any correlation. - we may actually find even this is an underestimate though I very much hope not. NadVolum (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, if participation in the survey is positively correlated with whether a casualty was already recorded in a hospital, that would presumably result in an underestimation. I guess there will be more sources over the coming months and years. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I meant negatively correlated, as in people are less likely to fill out the form for a death that was already recorded by a hospital. Agree we should get more clarity in the coming months. — xDanielx /C\ 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
It looks like they've tried to account for interactions but I could easily see that decreasing the number. However have a look at the Venn diagram of overlap between the social media list and the hospital list, 1370 (1173+197) shared 1820 (1469+351) social media only. There's more not shared than shared! That indicates the numbers may be quite a bit worse. I think we would be better waiting for experts to analyse the figures than trying to draw our own conclusions. NadVolum (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but how meaningful is the social media data? It's coming from posts such as this (minimal info, not clear who reported or posted it, transliterated names which might not match other documents...), as well as some private WhatsApp groups and what not. Most issues with the data would result in artificially low overlap, and thus an overestimate, not the opposite.
Wyner wasn't making any estimates, and if he had, I would never have supported putting them in wikivoice or in an infobox. Similarly here, it's fine to mention the work, but the infobox shouldn't be presenting this novel estimate. Neither scores well enough on WP:SCHOLARSHIP for that kind of treatment. — xDanielx /C\ 21:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a peer reviewed study, the basic method dates back to 1896 and has been widely applied in other areas. There is no similarity to Wyner who produced to quote another professor "one of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen". NadVolum (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this may be toeing the line for original research to be directly critiquing the handling of data. I also don't see how this methodology is novel, it cross-references deaths between multiple different lists including by social media reports that are generally less detailed. Scraping data of social media is something that is done by researchers across different fields and whilst this data can often be more unreliable such an approach isn't really novel. Originalcola (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Just at a quick glance, the 70,000 number is a rough estimate based on extrapolation. It also doesn't represent a minimum, as the extrapolation isn't done with the lower bound of the confidence interval for deaths. I've seen the study covered by major news networks(notability) and it seems like it warrants inclusion, but it is still a rough estimate and not an actual count, so inclusion in the info box seems debatable. That's not really an attack on the methodology (it seems fine) but there still is a decent range in the confidence interval and I'd prefer using GHM numbers for the infobox. Originalcola (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add “by June 30, 2024” to the sentence: The Lancet has estimated 70,000 deaths due to traumatic injuries. Seahumidity (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Not done - "Assuming that the level of under-reporting of 41% continued from July to October, 2024, it is plausible that the true figure now exceeds 70 000.", "We estimated around 64 000 deaths due to traumatic injuries from Oct 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024," Originalcola (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Understood, good catch, thanks. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Gaza genocide: Difference between revisions Add topic