Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 28

Statements rejecting the genocide characterization

Several governments, officials, and commentators have stated that the situation in Gaza does not meet the legal definition of genocide, mainly on the ground that specific intent to destroy the Palestinian population has not been established.

• United States. On 20 May 2024 President Joe Biden said: "What's happening in Gaza is not genocide. We reject that." Bose, Nandita; Holland, Steve (20 May 2024). "Biden: What's happening in Gaza is not genocide". Reuters. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on 13 May 2024 that "we do not believe what is happening in Gaza is a genocide." "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan". White House (archived). 13 May 2024. On 3 January 2024 State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller similarly said that the United States was "not seeing acts that constitute genocide." "U.S. does not see acts constituting genocide in Gaza - State Dept". Reuters. 3 Jan 2024.
• United Kingdom. In the House of Lords on 30 January 2024 the government said: "We do not believe that Israel's actions in Gaza can be described as a genocide." "Gaza - House of Lords Hansard (Oral questions)". UK Parliament. 30 Jan 2024. In a letter of 1 September 2025 to Sarah Champion MP, Foreign Secretary David Lammy wrote that "the Government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent [the 'intent to destroy' required by the Genocide Convention]." Lammy, David. "Letter to Sarah Champion MP on arms exports and the Genocide Convention". UK Parliament: International Development Committee.
• Germany. On 12 January 2024 government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said there was "no basis whatsoever" for the accusation and that Germany "firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide." "Live updates: Israel rejects genocide case as Mideast tensions rise after US-led strikes in Yemen". Associated Press. 12 Jan 2024.
• Canada. On 12 January 2024 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that "Canada does not accept the premise of South Africa's case." "Canada doesn't accept premise of S. Africa genocide motion - PM". Reuters. 12 Jan 2024. On the same day Foreign Minister Melanie Joly recalled that genocide requires the intent to destroy a people and that this "high threshold" requires compelling evidence. "Statement by Minister Joly on South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice". Global Affairs Canada. 12 Jan 2024.
• Italy. On 11 January 2024 Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said "A Gaza non è genocidio" ("It is not genocide in Gaza"). "Tajani: 'Colpita la popolazione, ma a Gaza non è genocidio'". ANSA (in Italian). 11 Jan 2024.
• Portugal. On 13 May 2024 Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel said that genocide presupposes the will to eliminate a people and that it would be very unfair to say that Israel intends to eliminate the Palestinian people. "Paulo Rangel recusa ver genocídio na Faixa de Gaza". RTP (in Portuguese). 13 May 2024.
• Hungary. On 17 January 2024 Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called accusing Israel of genocide "nonsense". "Szijjártó in Jerusalem: accusing Israel of genocide after the hellish attack it experienced is nonsense". Telex (English). 17 Jan 2024.
• Religious and media commentators. On 21 January 2024 the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Ephraim Mirvis, said: "Israel's actions in Gaza are not genocide", calling the use of the term a "disingenuous misappropriation". Topping, Alexandra (21 Jan 2024). "Israel's actions in Gaza are not genocide, says UK's chief rabbi". The Guardian. In July 2025 Bret Stephens argued that "Israel is manifestly not committing genocide." "The Situation: Not Genocide Is Not High Praise". Lawfare. 28 Jul 2025. On 16 September 2025 the American Jewish Committee published "5 Reasons Why the Events in Gaza Are Not 'Genocide'." "5 Reasons Why the Events in Gaza Are Not 'Genocide'". American Jewish Committee. 16 Sep 2025.

Rationale:

• high-level, notable, and recent statements from states directly concerned (US, UK, Germany, Canada) and several EU members (Italy, Portugal, Hungary);
• the article currently gives extensive space to claims that the Gaza campaign is a genocide, so per WP:NPOV it should also show the main official rejections with sources of at least comparable quality;
• the subsection is limited to governments and authoritative public figures and does not open the door to routine opinion pieces.

Thank you. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The average age of your sources is 493 days. If we exclude the two (2) sources from 2025, the average age is 620.5 days, or 1.6 years old.

Can you support the request from sources perhaps in the past 0-4 months? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it your view, @Very Polite Person, that the existing article should also be limited to sources accepting the genocide characterisation from the past 0-4 months? If not, isn't that the sort of violation of WP:NPOV that @Jimbo Wales is countenancing against above? Coining (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, I've never participated on this article till today. My view is that for any ongoing scenario that we have an article on, the current lede and opening line especially must reflect the accurate consensus reality definition as of today, not based on historical and potentially outdated definitions. The war is three years or so long. Some of these sources here are a year and a half old. That's like us describing a part of World War II, if Wikipedia existed in 1945, under 1943 sources, in 1945.

I think it's normal and expected to base the lede on what the consensus is today, in November 2025, rather than what the consensus was in January 2024. This means weighing the more complicated extended timeline and the hard work that this takes, even if it's politically or harmfully inconvenient for anyone, including Wikipedia itself. If you're not willing to take a punch in the face for your ideals, they're not real ideals.

That's my entire position, the bolded part. Stand up for what you say you believe in, even if the outcome is unpleasant. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it would of course be great to have newer sources, but unless there is some evidence that these sources have changed their mind, which of course might have happened, then someone having said something in 2024 doesn't disqualify it being relevant still in 2025. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, as long as everyone is deferential to and accepts the fact that consensus can change, and the article can't today reflect the consensus in the lede as of January 2024. It has to be the consensus of November 2025. Prior data of course fits into the article somewhere.

It's the same for any article, regardless of the subject matter. If you're looking at the article on a computer in November 2025, it should reflect consensus as of late 2025.

How may Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian war look if we favored January 2024-era over sources current as of November 2025? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems to just be an argument to re-include the former table that is now located at Gaza genocide recognition. We already start the World governments section with a list of governments who officially disagree with it being a case a genocide, covering near all the countries you have listed politicians from. So why should we include a list of various ministers, when we already include their governments' official positions that are in-line with the statements from the ministers? Beyond that you include political commentators known because they have opinion columns, and no relations to assessing the case, and then religious figures who, as I mentioned in another discussion, are most likely suited for inclusion in the Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

That is also a very good point. David A (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If we wanted to really, really button this down to the level of airtight, would a prudent step be to weigh whether individual states (countries) were all equal in their positioning of it as genocide? That simple question:

Are the positions of all nations equal, as far as Wikipedia is concerned?

That lets you weight the nations amongst themselves based on that concensus.

Then you ask: how do we rank states vs NGOs vs international bodies vs academics vs other social construct "levels".

Then you know, from those consensus, who IS authoritative, by our reading. Everything kind of flows downhill from that. Logically, based on the way the entire precedent of this is going, the "it is not genocide" side of the debate may not find that level of scrutiny to their advantage. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I am perhaps misinterpreting what you're saying here so I'll just ask. Who do you mean by "the 'it is not genocide' side of the debate"? If you mean me, then I must object. My argument is not that it is not genocide, my argument is that it is not the job of Wikipedia to adjudicate the issue. We need to fairly report, with attribution, the state of the debate, and strenuously refuse to take a side in WikiVoice. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I simply mean that taking an exhaustive rigorous review of this again, to even deeper depth than the exhaustive September RFC, which was informed by news through September, would likely lead to an even more affirmative community finding of "Yes, it is genocide, and we should say it."

There is seemingly a faction of people who dispute any given genocide is, or was, a genocide. All we can do is our best, and eventually consensus of the public does reach a conclusion. Whether something is, or is not, historically seen as a genocide is not determined by nation-states or any government, or head of state. History decides.

We are not deferential here to authority figures. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: The Turkish government (and several other governments in the region) does not recognize the Armenian genocide. Should we attribute that genocide's existence as well, or can that one be stated in Wikivoice? If the second one, what is the difference? If the first one, where is the line drawn in terms of accepting the word of governments over academics? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems like special pleading without substantiation. Wikipedia has never been about equally covering or treating the "sides" of a debate as equals, which is WP:FALSEBALANCE. That you refuse to explain the difference between this topic area and numerous others where Wikipedia does "adjudicate the issue" (that is: summarize the academic consensus on a particular topic) is concerning. Katzrockso (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is already covered in a much more neutral fashion in the Academic and legal discourse, Political discourse, and Cultural discourse sections. Those sections could perhaps be expanded, but I would strenuously oppose spinning off a section intended solely for one position; it would have the same problems as a WP:POVFORK. Discourse should be divided up by qualifications, as it is now, not by what position people take; dividing it up by positions risks creating WP:FALSEBALANCE and turning the sections into dumping grounds or a WP:QUOTEFARM for random op-eds. We should aim to summarize the overarching discourse with appropriate balance, and that's best done using the current structure; creating sections devoted to particular is much more likely to become imbalanced. --Aquillion (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  While I agree with you about the overall structure, I just wanted to note that the current article definitely fails to summarize the overarching discourse - it offers instead a one-sided polemic in which important views are omitted. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

We summarize the discourse within the best available sources, not the evening news or the man on the street; and the current wording accurately summarizes the discourse among the best available experts. I can understand that you disagree with that approach and believe that the opinions of the involved nation-states, news columnists, and other lower-quality sources should be given more weight in the lead; but even with that in mind, relying on the highest-quality academic sources cannot realistically be called a polemic. The lead says: There is increasing scholarly consensus on the genocide assessment,[19] with few dissenting voices. That is true. It is an accurate summary of the best-available sources, and extensively-sourced; no one, during the massive RFC we held on the subject, was able to turn up any serious recent sources of comparable quality saying otherwise, despite the extremely controversial nature of the topic area and the extensive focus the RFC received. The current wording accurately acknowledges that dissenting views exist but that they are vanishingly-tiny minority among experts. And that defines the rest of the lead - the way we summarize such situations has always been (and should always be) to treat overwhelmingly prevailing academic views as fact. We are an encyclopedia, not a news channel or a gossip column; writing a neutral encyclopedia means sometimes flatly contradicting the positions taken by major world governments or media empires, at least when they say things that go against higher-quality sourcing. To weigh press secretaries and columnists - people who are often not WP:INDEPENDENT, who lack relevant expertise, or who lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - equal to the most highly-cited and highly-respected academics speaking within their areas of expertise would actually be to take sides in the dispute. We do not take sides; and that isn't about the WP:FALSEBALANCE of never saying anything that anyone will find objectionable, or about throwing source quality to the winds and taking the average of what's on the evening news. It means we summarize the best available sources, even if the heavens fall - even if every government and news station and columnist in the world disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion, I think the last sentence of the introduction (There is increasing scholarly consensus on the genocide assessment, with few dissenting voices) might be an example of the problem: Why are legal views, political views, religious views, etc. omitted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Scholarly includes legal views, as was demonstrated through the litany of sources that regularly get re-assessed in every RFC here. Political views, ie. those from non-specialists but from functionaries of X, Y, or Z government or intergovernmental organisation should be considered as simply that, the opinion for the position of such orgnisations, and should not be weighted the same as specialists and experts who have a greater understanding of what is being discussed. As a note, in our scholarly sources that we, again, regularly go through in discussions here, we include multiple political scientists and political philosophers. Religious views I honestly don't think should carry much weight in discussion beyond "these are the views of A, B, or C group". Now, as a "fun fact" in all these groupings of views, labelling what is occurring as genocide is the majority opinion, its only the matter that as we drill down on to narrower groups of experts that the majority grows as a proportion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that most people think of "legal scholars" when they read a statement about scholars, and there are non-scholarly legal views (e.g., judges) that I assume will eventually matter significantly. The point isn't that political views should be "weighted the same" as scholarly sources, but that they maybe should be at least "worth a passing mention". After all, governments may not "have a greater understanding of" current scholarly discourse about genocide, but some of them probably do "have a greater understanding of" what's actually happening in Gaza and Israel. The governments may be making statements without understanding (or caring about) the scholarly concepts, but the scholars are making statements without access to classified military information.

We seem to be implying in the lead that only an abstract, generic "scholarly" viewpoint matters, and that all other ways of looking at this mess are so unimportant that we don't even think it worth acknowledging their existence, even if they agree with the "scholarly" view. For example: "Nearly all relevant scholars and most governments that have expressed a view agree that what is happening constitutes genocide". Or "There is a consensus among most legal experts, political scientists, and Arabic governments that Israel's actions in Gaza should be considered genocide". Statements like this suggest that more viewpoints than the ivory tower might exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

non-scholarly legal views (e.g., judges), which we include multiple of. worth a passing mention, we mention the positions of multiple governments and political organisations in this article, we have Israel's denouncement of the accusation, we also have an entire sub-article dedicated to political positions which covers even more, so we at least give a passing mention. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

...but not in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

As a medium-term project, it would be worth thinking about how to summarise in the lead everything Goldberg alludes to and wrote about here:

• Holocaust Memory in a Time of Genocide

I do agree that aspect – the societal controversy in the west, and within Holocaust memory culture – is underrepresented in the lead. Andreas JN466 09:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

How have you determined that these views are "important"? Cortador (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• +1 (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• An indiscriminate list of quotations is definitely not the way to go. WP:IMPARTIAL says that we should Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone. I don't remember if there's an essay going in more detail on this (someone please link if there is), but quotations are often just a POV loophole to get around not stating things in wikivoice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know of one covering political commentators or various ministers across the globe, but we do have some reporting in RS detailing the academic debate, such as Speri in The Guardian from December 2024. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you here that an indiscriminate list of quotations is definitely not the way to do. And from WP:IMPARTIAL : " A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."

  There's actually an excellent example of failing to do that in the article: "Both the Biden and Trump administrations have denied genocide in Gaza; Biden's support of Israel earned him the nickname "Genocide Joe"." So rather than expand upon and explain the reasons given by the US government in a neutral way, we instead dismiss it with a cute but fringe allegation that this is now his nickname. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish - worth a moment of reflection. The template shown to people who do not have extended confirmed rights tells them that they are only allowed to post an edit protected request, and further that they are not permitted to discuss the issue anywhere in Wikipedia. But then when the edit is rejected, they are told to please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. How are they meant to work to establish consensus and engage in rational exploration of compromise positions if they aren't even allowed to discuss it. There seems to be a procedural issue here. Am I mistaken? Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Michael Boutboul is extendedconfirmed so that response works in this case. The options are at Template:EEp. It's true that people occasionally use the wrong code when responding to non-EC editors, but I think in most cases more appropriate options are used e.g. |xy or |rs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Normally non-EC editors are given an explanation in the edit request response and something like {{welcome-arbpia}} on their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales, non-EC editors should not being making edit requests, in this topic area, if those requests are likely to meet any opposition. They should not concern themselves with anything beyond straight forward copy-edit requests. TarnishedPath^talk 04:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Statements from heads of state and parliamentarians of countries that are complicit in this genocide, that stand to benefit from it, can hardly be said to be WP:RS. Notably the USA, the UK and Germany. As has been pointed out by others further up, these are clear cases of WP:MANDY. KetchupSalt (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This argument is not persuasive at all, as it assumes the conclusion. Let me spell it out more clearly. Saying "X is not reliable because X denies the crime" assumes the crime, which is the very thing in question.

This argument is circular and commits the genetic fallacy. It first assumes ‘complicity,’ then excludes any source that denies it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate reading of their argument. They aren't saying "X is not reliable because X denies the crime", rather they are saying "X is not reliable because X has a vested interest in the outcome" i.e. WP:COI.

You are asking to give WP:UNDUE weight to the positions of governments, who both hold no expertise in the matter & inherently have a COI due to the topic's political nature. You continue to cite WP:NPOV despite several editors having already explained to you your misunderstanding of the current policy.

You've also falsely accused @KetchupSalt of assuming the conclusion in their argument, while you yourself seem to've already come to your own conclusions before commenting here. Those conclusions seemingly having been based on nothing at the moment as you still haven't cited a single source to support your assertions, let alone sources strong enough to overturn current consensus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not even understand why we have to spell it out in front of you, the founder. The state leaders who are politically tied to the accused state of carrying out the alleged crimes are not the reliable agents to comment on the validity of the allegations. Their words do carry some weight especially in the (geo)political context, but the other more critical point is that most of them are not qualified experts in the field of genocide or ethnic cleansing. That makes their positions inherently carry much less weight than the actual experts of those fields. Politics matter here, but it is secondary in this article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Per Wales' comments in his topic previously on this talk page, academics are not the only parties in the debate, nor arguably the most important parties, so ministers giving personal opinions, or reflecting the stance of their government should apparently be weighted as the same as experts in the field of genocide studies who have published in peer-reviewed academic journals. I have asked for clarification if this is in fact what Wales was suggesting, but he has yet to respond. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The "qualified experts" are not entirely reliable agents either. It's self-evidently obvious to anyone who has seen this in depth that these is a huge amount of bias against Israel in academia and among NGOs. Some of these arguments stating that this war is a genocide basically state outright that the legal definition is too narrow, which in my mind automatically discredits them. We cannot assume that these are totally neutral and impartial studies. We of course can't dismiss them but neither should they have the final say. We should defer any decision on this at least until the ICJ makes its ruling. RM (Be my friend) 11:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Provide citations for your claims, as if it is the same lie that is repeatedly peddled in the case of Gaza and a particular report, you are simply repeating the lie ignoring the actual statements made in the report. Otherwise, if you are gesturing at what would be a more defensible position, it is a ridiculous argument as it lifts the statement from it's historical and academic context that has existed since prior to 1948. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying the USA etc are unreliable because they deny the crime, I'm saying they are unreliable because they are directly involved and stand to benefit from denying any wrongdoing. We already have plenty of academic literature on this issue, and as far as I understand WP prefers academic sources, and it always prefers secondary sources over primary ones. If you have a substantial body of academic works that take the opposite view, namely that a genocide is not being carried out, then please present them. If you will not do that, then please explain why we should prefer primary sources, with clear conflicts of interest, in this specific instance and not any other. Keep in mind that pages like List of genocides do not even require academic consensus for an event to be listed, something that I have personally raised a stink about (as @Cdjp1 can attest). The current compromise there was to format the list in a "prose form". I still don't like that because it still makes it seem like WP is saying "these things are genocides (despite lack of academic consensus)". For Gaza the academic case is far far stronger than many entries on that list. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As I was pinged, yes KetchupSalt has expressed themself extensively on List of Genocides, before and since, the community came to a decision for criteria for list inclusion that didn't involve OR (as was previously the case). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, the issue, in policy terms, is that nation-states involved in the conflict are not WP:INDEPENDENT. (They are also generally not WP:RSes in the first place; they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.) They are, at best, primary sources for their own attributed opinions; it would be inappropriate to take such non-independent sources and weigh them equally to highly-cited peer-reviewed scholars speaking in their area of expertise. If I understand right, implication of Wales' argument is that we can never describe anything about a large and powerful nation or organization as fact in the article voice if they deny it, no matter how high-quality and clear the sourcing is among scholars, because he believes the simple fact that a nation denies something renders it contested opinion rather than fact. That's not how you write an encyclopedia. One thing I'll note is that the backlash to Wales' arguments on this page actually seems, in my rough assessment, to be more one-sided and full-throated than the RFC was, and involves objections from many editors who were previously uninvolved. Editors might reasonably disagree over what it takes for the scholarship to qualify as fact in the article voice, or over the finer details of what the best available sources are; and an argument based on that might have gone further (though it was still rejected in the RFC.) But the argument that the simple existence of nations that dispute the scholarship is enough to render it controversial is utterly unworkable and would effectively make it impossible for us to write neutral encyclopedic articles across a wide range of topics. --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't understand why we would include any statements from politicians of any stripe in constructing the phrasing in this particular article. Politicians are only RS for what they say -- not even actually believe. Perhaps in a related article. Yes, if there is some question about any specific included source that may have some relevant background, attribution is needed. Having reread the previous RfC, it is difficult to believe that a new RfC would have a different close. Indeed, as the years go by, the evidence as provided by RS continues to pile on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Disagreeing with the consensus that there is a genocide means the source is not reliable, meaning it can't be included in the consensus; therefore, there is a consensus among RS that there is a genocide (because sources that disagree were intentionally excluded as "not reliable"), meaning sources that disagree are not reliable, etc. This is just a circular argument, as it basically says "There is a consensus among reliable sources; therefore, there is a consensus among reliable sources." That kind of argument makes no sense. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Courteous pinging: Very Polite Person, Coining, Jimbo Wales, Cdjp1, David A, QuicoleJR, Katzrockso, Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, Cortador, Buidhe, Thebiguglyalien, ScottishFinnishRadish, Sean.hoyland, TarnishedPath, KetchupSalt, Butterscotch Beluga, Sameboat, Reenem, Objective3000, PhotogenicScientist, SuperPianoMan9167

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback on my earlier draft. I have incorporated several of your remarks. This revised proposal uses only sources from the last 6 months, prioritizes jurists and academics, and includes a recent peer-reviewed law journal article. By the way, I am an EC, but I'd prefer to seek consensus here rather than start an edit war on the article.

• Criticism of the genocide characterization

A number of legal scholars, historians, and officials have cautioned against or rejected describing Israel's conduct in Gaza as genocide, chiefly because the specific intent element is difficult to establish to the relevant standard. In a newspaper debate, international criminal law scholar Kai Ambos states that genocidal intent must be the "only reasonable conclusion" from the evidence, while international law professor Stefan Talmon answers the question "Genocide in Gaza?" with "a clear no".^[1] Historian Vincent Duclert argues that focusing the public debate on the genocide label is counterproductive.^[2]

Peer-reviewed legal scholarship has also questioned expansive readings of the Genocide Convention in related ICJ proceedings. Public law scholar Monika Polzin argues that the Court's Gaza provisional orders are "highly problematic from a legal perspective" and appear to go "beyond the scope of the Genocide Convention and the judicial authority of the ICJ".^[3]

Several jurists emphasize that the public record does not yet demonstrate genocidal intent to the requisite standard. In a curated survey of expert opinions, invited assistant professor Miguel Manero de Lemos concludes there is "not enough publicly available evidence to reach that conclusion", while associate professor Patrycja Grzebyk cautions that "forced transfers should be classified as crimes against humanity rather than genocide".^[4][5] At policy level, the United Kingdom stated on 9 September 2025 that it "has not concluded" Israel is acting with the specific intent required by the Genocide Convention.^[6]

Commentators at established research institutions have also opposed the genocide characterization in recent op-eds. Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute argued that the IAGS genocide resolution was "less a serious inquiry than a parade of previously debunked claims and disgraced 'experts'." ^[7] Analysts at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies likewise reject the genocide label, describing such accusations as an "inversion" and asserting there is "no Israeli-engineered famine in Gaza, much less a genocide." ^[8][9]

Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul where do you suggest inserting this?

Per guidance on "criticism" sections, I would argue it is better to add these into the relevant pre-existing sections, such as legal scholars, other academics, and political discourse. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would have preferred a separate section, but let's see how the discussion goes. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue with experts who argue about the procedural issues of proving genocidal intent, but I am concerned about including any think tank comments which are dismissive or non-evidentiary. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This would be clearly undue weight to the criticism. Based on the proportion of reliable sources, the criticism from scholars should be no more than 10 percent of the total included scholarly positions. (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

some of these sources are a joke. Fdd is basically an extension of the US government position, imv, and any government sources are not rs except for their own views. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there may be some OR going on as forced displacement is only one aspect of what's happening in Gaza.

In short the proposed text looks like it's not a helpful addition to the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on Al Jazeera, which is state-funded and controled by Qatar. Meanwhile, an FDD statement would be declined because it was said to be linked to the U.S. government. This feels inconsistent. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the contrast in approaches to source inclusion, there is a broader point that the numerous references to Al Jazeera in the article seem to run afoul of WP:ALJAZEERA, which says Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest.. This is both a WP:RS concern and a WP:NPOV concern. Coining (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly UNDUE. Aquillion summarised it very well. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the Cambridge paper. It doesn't really argue that Israel isn't committing genocide, but rather technicalities like the ICJ not considering the question of genocidal intent in its preliminary orders. This isn't so surprising since the ICJ hasn't gotten to the "meat" of the case yet, as I understand. It also tries to argue that the ICJ doesn't have the authority that it has, or that it claims to have. This also doesn't pertain to the question at hand, which is whether Israel is committing genocide, not whether the ICJ is right to do what it has done so far. TL;DR: this paper lacks relevance here. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is both wildly undue and a totally inappropriate way to structure this per the above. We already have sections for Academic and legal discourse, political discourse, and cultural discourse; if you feel these views aren't given enough depth in one of those sections, there's some room for expansion, but creating a section dedicated purely to criticism risks giving it undue weight by implying that it must be weighted equally to other sections. And this bloated example shows why that's a problem - look at the existing sections I mentioned and the things in them; weigh the sources you cited, in terms of significance and expertise, with the weight given to other things already in those sections. The comparison shows that the amount of undue weight you're giving these sources is clearly absurd. The current political discourse section is a single small paragraph, yet you devote more than that text to individual opinions purely because they're critical and therefore fit in your proposed new section. You devote several times the weight to a single news article than anything else in the academic section; and you devote an entire paragraph to think tanks with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy at all. I'm particularly shocked that you attempted to describe the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies as an "established research institution" (and then devoted an entire paragraph to them) - these are lobbying groups and clearly not WP:RSes, and should not be cited directly in the article in any context or any form whatsoever. As I implied above, this would be like citing an ad company hired by Pepsi to make statements about Pepsi's great taste - think tanks of that nature say whatever the people paying them want them to say; they don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)