Talk:Gaza war

Genocide citations in lead

We need to audit these citations. The Alice Speri Guardian article "Defining genocide: how a rift over Gaza sparked a crisis among scholars" doesn't support the cited sentence ("Various experts and human rights organizations have stated that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, and that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza."). This article focuses on two professional communities: Holocaust and genocide studies scholars and (to a lesser extent) international law scholars. Here are some representative quotes: On Holocaust and genocide studies scholars:

But as courts and rights groups tackle the question head on, only some scholars of genocide have done so publicly, with many keeping to the sidelines.

The hesitation signals “a massive crisis in the field”, said Raz Segal, a US-based Israeli historian and one of the first scholars of the Holocaust to call Israel’s actions a “textbook case of genocide”, days after 7 October. The war, Segal told The Guardian, only exacerbated the fundamental fissure that has long divided the community.

The field of Holocaust and genocide studies originated in the aftermath of the genocide of the Jews during the second world war. It expanded in the 1990s in response to more instances of mass violence, including the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides. That expansion was controversial for some, and the disagreement continues to play out.

On international law scholars:

The distinction between Amnesty and Human Rights Watch’s findings – “genocide” versus “acts of genocide”(the latter focusing on the deprivation of water) – has been the crux of the debate among international law scholars. (The former requires evidence of “genocidal intent”.)

It’s a narrower debate than the one among other scholars, and constrained by the strict parameters set by the 1948 genocide convention. Intent is an extremely difficult standard to prove, with legal experts disagreeing about whether it must be explicit or can be established based on a “pattern of conduct”.

The question of intent was also at the heart of the field’s early days, when “functionalist” and “intentionalist” interpretations diverged on whether the mass extermination of Jews had been the result of a clear directive from above or of a lower-level bureaucracy enabling mass violence.

“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.

There are “good faith conversations among people who really believe in international law and feel very strongly about it”, she said, “but people who have a more capacious view of the term really look more contextually at what disables life and what makes life unlivable”.

The war in Gaza has also prompted an unprecedented push by dozens of states that have asked the ICJ to apply the genocide convention more liberally so as to make it “more effective” at preventing mass violence, said William Schabas, a professor of international criminal and human rights law.

If I had to summarize this article in one sentence, I would say something like "scholars in the fields of Holocaust and genocide studies and international law hold differing views on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide."

Looking at the rest of these citations: there are two quotes from individual scholars (Michael Dumper/Amneh Badran, Enzo Traverso), one article in Vox that I haven't read yet, an Amnesty International report and a UN report. The last two are most convincing to me. It wouldn't be that hard to find two quotes from comparable scholars saying that it's not genocide, the Guardian article contains quotes like that. If we're trying to summarize expert opinion what we need are media or academic journal sources that try do that, like the Guardian or Vox articles. Maybe there are better sources buried deeper in the article. Prezbo (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

What is desperately needed is for multiple genocide scholars to do an academic survey or literature review. I think we shouldn't be basing our consensus on a single news article. Either way, I suggest asking this question on the page for Gaza genocide rather than here. 20WattSphere (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There are other human rights organizations who concluded genocide, such as Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and International Federation for Human Rights. See: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate

But you are right, those were not included in the citation in the lead. I'll fix that. Bogazicili (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

20WattSphere is correct that an outside review is needed. Anything else borders on WP:OR if it is not attributed, but as I said in the next section discussion, the current phrasing seems tolerable for now, and the larger debate should be on the genocide page. Metallurgist (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Gaza genocide should be mentioned and linked in the first paragraph

Pachu Kannan, in this edit you argue that there is no need to mention it in first paragraph. It is already mentioned below. Please clarify why you don't think the first paragraph should mention the Gaza genocide and link to it, why you think it should be given less prominence in a later paragraph. إيان (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

International Court of Justice is reviewing a case accusing Thirty-seventh government of Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. So it is still an allegation. So it should not be mentioned and linked in the first paragraph. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

it is still an allegation—no, there is unanimous agreement among human rights groups, scholars, and experts on genocide that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. If you will not yield on this, we will go to RfC. إيان (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. We dont have to wait for a single organization to declare it to be a genocide so that we can follow it. We follow what's de facto in wikipedia (per WP:VERIFY) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Instead of "is a genocide", might we insert something like "has been classified as a genocide" into an existing sentence in the lede (without saying "experts" or any other source)? The interested reader who wants to know more, such as who has classified it as such, would then find that later in the article, where we can give multiple citations and otherwise give the missing details. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Quantling proposes, but the 'authoritativeness' of those making this pronouncement should be conveyed. It should be clear to the reader that this is not hearsay or an uninformed assessment. Here is what I put in and what Pachu Kannan reverted. It does not declare 'is a genocide' in Wikivoice, but it makes it clear that this is a learned or authoritative opinion. إيان (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

By my thinking, if it were hearsay or an uninformed assessment, it wouldn't be in the article at all, so I'm not worried that it will be interpreted as such. By going with the passive voice of "has been classified as" (or similar language) I hope to both mark it as informed and also indicate that there are informed people who think otherwise. (And the interested reader can evaluate it all for themself by checking out the details later in the article.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a fair compromise for now. إيان (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the page to reflect this consensus. إيان (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus here, see the two comments below and the #Genocide citations in lead section above. Alaexis_¿question? 07:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Alaexis has reverted the implementation of the consensus above, with which they appear to be the only one in disagreement. The RfC is on genocide in wikivoice, which the edit did not do. إيان (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis can you give us more detail about what you'd want to see instead? Maybe we can yet find some common ground. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling, sorry for the delayed response. Earlier I suggested "that has been categorized as genocide by major human rights organisations and some scholars." Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This is probably the easiest way to include it, though I do have apprehension at using "some", though do not have a specific alternative. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that u:Monk of Monk Hall has already added a different version with attribution, I think it's alright. Alaexis_¿question? 21:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

"Some scholars" is a massive understatement. If I remember correctly, 75% of the surveyed scholars of this area agreed that it is a genocide even over a year ago when the situation was far less dire and blatantly self-evident than currently, despite that those scholars live in the United States, which is far more supportive of Israel's actions than all other nations on this planet. "That has been categorised as a genocide by many major human rights organisations and a large majority of surveyed scholars in the area." would be far more matter-of-fact accurate. David A (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The language I used is "a growing number" but I would support "most", so long as that is amenable to others. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest "many". That way we know that it is multiple credible sources. With "most" we are instead signing ourselves up for deciding which sources are credible so as to decide whether we have achieved "most", which is too big a debate to resolve in the lede. I suggest we go with "many" in the lede and then, in the body of the article, we list credible sources that back this up (or cite an article that lists them). Then the reader can decide for themself whether this list of sources passes their tests for credibility and whether this list thus constitutes "most" from their personal perspective. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to support many because many can be 20% or even 10% of a large group. I suppose many and a growing number are equally challenging to quantify though. I think there's enough evidence for most. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the evidence you're referring to? In the Gaza genocide article I only see the results of the Brookings Institution survey (34% of the respondents said it was a genocide) that took place in June 2024. Also, the Guardian article published in December 2024 said that there was no consensus. It does say that there is a growing number of scholars holding this opinion, supporting the current wording. Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The responses were: "Major war crimes akin to genocide", 41%" and "Genocide", 34%", which totals as 75%. "Akin" means "looking or being almost but not exactly the same", so I think that it would be to engage in semantics to not acknowledge this as support for using the genocide term, and again, 68% of the surveyed Israeli population seems to support starving all the Palestinians to death by withholding absolutely all humanitarian aid, whereas 47% support actively killing absolutely all Palestinians through direct violence, so I currently also think that the Israeli government appears to have made it very clear to the Israeli population exactly what it is doing and intends to do.

Anyway, I think that Monk's rationale above regarding using a "most expert scholars" or "a growing number of expert scholars" (or similar) wording seems to make good sense. David A (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Alaexis, here's one from last month (though journalistic), an investigation of scholarly opinions conducted by the Dutch newspaper of record NRC. It is discussed in English in this piece from Middle East Eye.

I also support "most experts" to indicate that this is the scholarly consensus or the current "a growing number of experts" to indicate that this is the prevailing opinion. إيان (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If it helps, here is a link to a copy of the full original article. David A (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, we desperately need an expert literature review to settle this debate. However, @Cdjp1's Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate is an extremely helpful resource. As far as I can tell, it's the most thorough effort to record and quantify expert opinion on the Gaza genocide debate anywhere in the world. As it stands now it records the opinion of 215 entities, 134 of whom (62.33%) answer yes to the genocide question. Another 26 say maybe, meaning 74.42% don't reject the question outright. Only 55 (25.58%) deny that a genocide is taking place. Please check my math but these numbers should be correct. Of course, some of the entities in the template are something like 800 scholars, 19 medical professionals, or all of Amnesty International, so a true quantification of expert opinion would be more challenging still, but the numbers here are so stark that I believe they strongly support the use of the word "most". Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

While I did start it, it has been a community effort, and it would be remiss of me to not highlight some of the other top hands on it: User:Bogazicili, User:TRCRF22, User:Vegan416, and of course Monk of Monk Hall.

As an additional note, the usefulness of the list is dependent on being able to capture as many relevant specialists, experts, academics, etc. within it. And while we have been able to grab a chunk of the English language literature and sources, and some German, French, and Spanish sources, I have no doubt we are missing plenty (especially in the non-English world). So I will request that anyone with the ability to, to help us in expanding the list as appropriate. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely true that there are different opinions amongst scholars (see the post by @Prezbo above with the links to the Guardiand and Vox articles). So we can say attribute this in the article "has been classified by major human rights organisations and some scholars." Alaexis_¿question? 21:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's very important to mention the allegation from the outset. If it is indeed a genocide, as many experts are saying, then the label "war" may be inaccurate. Thus, I think it's important to clarify the terminology in the first paragraph. Perhaps a terminology section would be an option. 20WattSphere (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't true. A genocide is often, but not always, just one portion of a larger military/political conflict. This article is about the war as a whole. It will continue to be about the war as a whole even if there's a genocide determined to be taking place as part of the war. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the (alleged) genocide is not "just one portion of a larger military/political conflict". It seems to me that the vast majority of casualties are associated with the (alleged) genocide, rather than other fighting that is going on in a broader war. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that there was a recent RfC with the resulting consensus against stating the Gaza Genocide in wiki voice as fact: Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence Eigenbra (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that I agree with that the Gaza genocide page should be mentioned and linked to in the first paragraph of this page. David A (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

إيان claims that there is consensus on this issue but it seems as though it remains unresolved. Per the discussion that Bogazicili said regarding the Genocide citations in lead and WP:OR, I rephrased the phrasing in the lead to make it more in accordance with the sources provided. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You're in violation of 1RR so please self revert. Then I would suggest rereading this conversation in full and seeing if you still feel that way. إيان (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary to pursue. In other words though it was technically against the rule, I think your edits have been premature. You, on the other hand, appear to have reverted that edit twice (1 and 2), which puts you in violation of 1RR.

I don't think sanctions are necessary against anyone right now. But please don't make accusations of 1RR violations when it's an initial edit (not a revert), and one revert. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

1RR is 24 hours and you provided diffs from June 9 and 11, so you can strike out your baseless accusation.

I didn’t say anything about sanctions. I just invited them to self revert in good faith. إيان (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:EDITWAR, though (1/3)RR are "bright lines", reverting the same edit repeatedly is still considered edit warring. So I stand by my statement. You should've waited for a consensus here and someone else (not involved, like you are) to make the edit again. To be clear, I don't think sanctions are necessary for anyone, but it doesn't help anyone for you to engage in a "technically permissible" edit war, even if it doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR/24h. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the is or isnt debate should be more directed to the Gaza genocide page, and this page should based on that. I hope eventually we can move that to allegations, but thats a bigger debate that Im sure is happening over there, and will probably take years to settle. Until then, I think the current phrasing is tolerable in the current context. nb: I havent read the preceding discussion section yet. Metallurgist (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It's clear that there's at least a rough consensus to discuss (if not link to) the Gaza genocide article in the first paragraph. I've made this edit attempting to use the wording that was there, while adding a link to Gaza genocide. I am happy for anyone else to improve on the wording, but I figured I'd put it out there so people can see how my proposed wording "flows" with the rest of the lead. I'm happy for anyone else to make changes, but can we all at least agree that this is okay? It doesn't make the claim of genocide in wikivoice (complying with the RfC on Talk:Gaza genocide) while also making clear that many scholars have opined that one is occurring. Regards, --bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I like your overall revised phrasing. The only minor tweak I would do is have it say "some" rather than "many," this indicates that there is some dispute among scholars and others regarding its status as a genocide. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

"Many" or "A large majority" would be far more factually correct. [200] [201] [202] David A (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The current wording is inaccurate, as it is not just academics, but also lawyers (see 1,101 lawyers), and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and International Federation for Human Rights. The current wording omits these. I'll fix that Bogazicili (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I am including sources for more lawyers who dispute the claim of genocide given that this seems to be an ongoing debate in the scholarly and legal communities, also did a slight rephrase to that effect. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You reworded it from "A growing number of human rights organizations and experts—such as lawyers and academics studying genocide and international law—say that a genocide is occurring in Gaza, though this is debated." to "While some human rights organizations, lawyers, and scholars specializing in genocide and international law have alleged that a genocide is occurring in Gaza, others dispute this characterization, and the issue remains the subject of ongoing legal and scholarly debate.", which is not a "slight rephrase", and "some" is still not accurate or supported by any talk page consensus here despite your edit summary claims. "Many", "a strong majority of", or "a growing number" would be factually accurate. David A (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I have now restored the previous wording. David A (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Flag for Popular Forces in infobox

The flag accompanying the Popular Forces in the infobox is currently the flag of the Islamic State. However, this usage is based on allegations put forward by Avigdor Lieberman, an Israeli opposition leader. The IS connection is denied by the group itself and the Popular Forces does not use the IS flag; it uses the Palestinian flag instead. A more appropriate symbol is needed. 2018rebel 19:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to say that this group does not have any is links other than the allegations from the Israeli opposition and that one pan arab newspaper, so the use of the is flag in the info box and labeling them as isis linked gangs is really not appropriate, these are clans just like the dogsmush clan and several clans in taken sides in the war even isis had made propaganda about the war against Israel RossoSPC (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above arguments. David A (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, I think the flag that should be used is Emblem of Popular Forces.svg because its the logo the group uses for itself. Denninithan (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Removal of "Gaza genocide" from the "See also" section

I believe "Gaza genocide" should not be included in the "See also" section per WP:NOTSEEALSO, as it's already discussed and linked in the article numerous times. I'm not strongly for or against any decision, and I'm not trying to make a political statement, as this is just a suggestion... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, but will give people a chance to explain why it should be there while being linked multiple times in the article itself given NOTSEEALSO As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Pretty clear cut imo that something linked in the first sentence of the lead doesn't need to be in see also. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll let you know if I see any more redundancies! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

add Abdul al-Qadir al-Husseini Brigades to the side of Hamas

Abdul al-Qadir al-Husseini Brigades#cite note-Iran update-9

Abdul al-Qadir al-Husseini Brigades#cite note-Under-3 JaxsonR (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

On PJOR members in the infobox

As far as I'm aware, all members of the Palestinian Joint Operations Room have taken part in this war, yet out of the 9 groups with their own pages (not including Hamas), only 4 have been included on the infobox under Hamas allies.

I was originally going to WP:BOLDly add the rest of them myself, but considering how this article seems to constantly be on a razor's edge, I thought it'd be better to ask why this is the case. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)