Talk:Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide

Currently, the Lead is focused on "that intent is affirmed by organization X, Y, Z" to Israeli officials, and Israeli journalists. This is necessary; however, I think it would be better to be a little bit more precise.

i.e., What specifically of these statements/actions are indicative of intent: e.g., statements that call for direct violence to destroy a protected group, dehumanizing that licenses destruction, operational doctrine prioritizing destruction over discrimination, patterns of conduct used to infer intent when statements are absent or disputed. Greensminded24 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me! Lewisguile (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Description of suggested change:

Diff: {{Text diff

After : "Ayala Panievsky, a researcher at Molad, compared Israel's Channel 14 to Radio Rwanda and believed they should be tried for incitement to genocide.[159]"

The reader needs the why, demonstrated through a concrete example; here is one : 12 Oct 2025 — On Channel 14’s “HaPatriotim,” host Yinon Magal cut off panelist Guy Meroz and said: "Let them [the Palestinians] go to hell. I have only one thing to say: destroy Amalek; we did our part—70,000 is fine"

source : https://www.ice.co.il/media/news/article/1086675

}} JeanClaudeToussaint (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: The request is malformatted. Please reformat the request and reopen it. Please also clearly indicate precisely where in the article this text should be added. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Reading this article, the reader would come away completely ignorant of the fact that the question of intent has been the subject of fierce debate. Some sources:

• Ayad, Christophe (27 July 2025). "Is there a genocide in Gaza? Why legal experts are split". Le Monde.fr. Retrieved 29 September 2025.
• Klein, Ezra (13 August 2025). "When Is It Genocide?". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 September 2025. - interview with Philippe Sands
• Spencer, Philip (16 May 2024). "The Holocaust, Genocide and October 7". Responses to 7 October: Law and Society. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003497417-2. ISBN 978-1-003-49741-7.
• Bolton, Matthew (5 June 2025). "The meaning of 'genocide'". Jews, Europe, the XXIst century. Retrieved 29 September 2025.
• Stone, Lewi; Rose, Gregory (1 October 2024). "When Military Targeting of Hamas Combatants was Misrepresented as Genocide: An Open-Source Data Analysis with a Focus on Israeli Airstrikes in the Gaza Urban Warfare, 2023–2024". Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism. 7 (2). Academic Studies Press: 1–22. doi:10.26613/jca/7.2.162. ISSN 2472-9906.
• Bartov, Omer (2024). "Genocide, the Holocaust, and October 7: On the Use and Misuse of Terminology". Antisemitism Studies. 8 (2). Indiana University Press: 272–277. doi:10.2979/ast.00019. ISSN 2474-1817.
• ""Genocide" Arguments and Counterarguments – The Elizabeth and Tony Comper Interdisciplinary Center". The Elizabeth and Tony Comper Interdisciplinary Center. 7 October 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2025.
• Moses, A. Dirk (2025-09-19). "Introduction: Gaza and the Problems of Genocide Studies". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–14. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2558401. ISSN 1462-3528. Retrieved 2025-09-30.
• Lederman, Shmuel (2025-09-19). "A Not So Textbook Case of Genocide". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–12. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2556550. ISSN 1462-3528. Retrieved 2025-10-21.
• MacRedmond, David (2024-12-11). "Why is Israel accusing Amnesty International of inventing its own definition of genocide?". TheJournal.ie. Retrieved 2025-10-21.
• Moses, A. Dirk (2023-12-19). "Why the International Community Made It So Difficult to Prosecute the Crime of Genocide". DAWN. Retrieved 2025-10-21.
• Ambos, Kai; Bock, Stefanie (2025-06-04), Genocide in Gaza?, Front Matter, doi:10.59704/44f50559732ff7a6
• Cohen, Amichai; Shany, Yuval (2024-12-16). "A "Cramped Interpretation of International Jurisprudence"? Some Critical Observations on the Amnesty International Genocide Report on Gaza". Just Security. Retrieved 2025-10-21.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The consensus is that there is genocidal intent and incitement. The article should have dissent included but only in proportion to how much the dissenting views occur. I would suggest a single sentence in the lead and maybe two or three sentences in the body.

I looked at a few of the sources in your list:

• -- The first source in your list is an opinion piece. I don't think that's appropriate for this article.
• -- This article Why the International Community Made It So Difficult to Prosecute the Crime of Genocide - DAWN doesn't contest the criterion of genocidal intent, at all. It's irrelevant.
• -- ""Genocide" Arguments and Counterarguments – The Elizabeth and Tony Comper Interdisciplinary Center". This article explicitly sets out rebuttals to 'Israel genocide' accusations. it's an advocacy/argument document for Israel, not independent secondary analysis about genocidal intent in the case of Gaza. I don't think that's appropriate either. It's questionable that this organization is impartial. They issued a ranked list of 'America’s Most Hostile Campuses' to Israel. They also have a mission that explicitly ties “contemporary antisemitism” to opposition to Israel, stating that academia employs “lethal jargon used against Israel”

I haven't looked at the other sones Greensminded24 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• You're right that the Le Monde article is filed under opinion but if you look at it it isn't. It's by a staff writer whose other contributions are filed under "in depth", and it gives a very thorough, neutral and balanced account of different legal scholars' opinions. It's a gold standard secondary source.
• You're right about Dirk Moses in DAWN. I think I put the wrong article by him into the citer tool!
• The Tony Comper Center piece by antisemitism scholar Balazs Berkovits is certainly not impartial but it is independent secondary analysis, and being written by a liberal Zionist makes it no less neutral than texts describing genocidal intent written by anti-Zionists. Their hostile campuses report is not a ranked list of hostile campuses "to Israel" but rather to American Jews, which seems a legitimate exercise for an antisemitism research centre. I don't think this is the best scholarship by any means, but exemplifies that there is a significant body of dissent to the majority view of intent.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Greensminded24: can you please provide the full reference for Shatz 2024 that you added here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This seems likely to be Omer Shatz. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Just posting here that there is a discussion about the duplication of material from the Statements by Israeli officials section of this page to the List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal. It's not a formal discussion but it's relevant to editors here. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Palestinian invasion of Israel (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, map, Oct 7, 2023).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

After this discussion resulted in the deletion of List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal, this is an archive of that page that should have at least some of its information migrated over. I don't have the bandwidth to do this right now but if others do then by all means please feel free to get this information added.

Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexandraaaacs1989/Sandbox2 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow, didn't expect the whole deleted article to be copied and pasted to here. To put it mildly, I think this is a bad idea:

• On the content: A lot of the material on this list is already in the article, through the lens of interpretation and analysis in secondary sources - although in many cases the quotes appear too. There was already a consensus that the material in the list was duplicative of the material on this page and warrants deletion - doing it within the same article is not less duplicative.
• On the list as a list: I think a list is a worse and less encyclopedic way of presenting the information, and that subverts certain policies like WP:Due weight. I.e. if a quote received lots of RS coverage in the context of whether it was showing intent or incitement to genocide, it should receive more coverage in our article than a quote that received very little. This is not a directory of quotes cited by certain sources - chosen according to no clear criteria. So having a subsection that simply reproduces the primary material they cite is not what this or any page is for.

There's also an issue of WP:BLPPRIMARY (and maybe WP:BLPCRIME) with using a court filing like the South African one to support materials about BLPs. That all said, I would appreciate it if, per WP:ONUS, you'd revert your re-introduction of this material. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I reverted my re-introduction per WP:ONUS.

I'm pretty burnt out right now, so I will circle back to this later. Where I'm at right now is basically not wanting to violate the spirit of the previous RfC because the material is duplicative. I don't want to cause any issues. But at the same time, I'd like to eventually find a way to get A) all the non-duplicative information migrated over or B) find a way to reformat some of the information in the statements section as a list inside the page, either adding or removing from it accordingly, so it's easier for individuals to sort through. It seems like you would oppose both of these ideas, the second more than the first?

Your argument that the list has poor selection criteria is not one I agree with but I don't really have the capacity to engage right now. I'll briefly say it's not "no clear criteria", it's every single quote from the two most reliable and notable collections of allegedly genocidal statements by Israeli officials in the world right now. That is very clear.

Can you at least give me a set of criteria for which quotes should be migrated in your view? E.G. all quotes with sources cited that are not the main two documents or primary sources (like X posts)? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right that I think B is a bad idea. On A, I just don't think that what this section lacks is examples of the primary material being commented on. I think WP:OVERQUOTING (part of an essay) makes good points. The aim of the section is to describe incitement to genocide by Israeli officials, encyclopedically. I.e. we should start with sources that establish/contest whether and how much this has happened, and then move on to sources that describe particular aspects of the phenomenon under discussion. Examples might be helpful inasmuch as they're illustrative. What we shouldn't do is just stick (all or some subset of) the primary material in, because we aren't a directory of primary material.

Inasmuch as content should be migrated, it should be integrated into the prose structure of the section because it adds something meaningful - not just as another example. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

i fail to understand how motive is separate from intent. I understand that Israel may have multiple motives, but this article is on genocidal intent. Isn't it WP:UNDUE to have this subsection? Greensminded24 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't motive simply the reason for the intent? I intend to send you flowers, my motive is that you have been kind. I think a motive section is not at all undue, actually, the section could be longer. Lova Falk (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. It just seems confusing because this intent article is about the genocidal intent to destroy the Palestinian people rather than the peripheral motives that, in turn, contribute to that intent: i.e., the distinction between the Mens rea and the Dolus specialis, Greensminded24 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree the motive section is due, and the citations are directly related to questions of intent and genocide. NadVolum (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Remove the annoying em dashes (—):

The lead of this article is so obviously written by ChatGPT or some other AI, nobody uses em dashes in every other sentence except for AI. Consider rewriting or at least removing the dashes from the article especially on such a morbid and serious topic such as this. ~2026-18464-61 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: I see no indication that the lead is AI-generated. LLMs do tend to use em dashes frequently, but that doesn't make them bad writing. Day Creature (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I also think em dashes are very ugly, and I exchanged two of them for commas. The other ones were functional. Lova Falk (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

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

This paragraph should be deleted. The source is claiming that targeting enemy military during a war can be a sign of intentionality of genocide, even if it’s legal according to international law. I really hope I don’t have to explain why that is patently absurd.

Diff:

Jkinz3 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Slomo666 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Professor Maryam Jamshidi contends that Israel's long-standing actions toward Palestinians — including the Gaza blockade, civilian infrastructure destruction, high civilian casualties, mass displacement under "safe zones", IDF operations against targets, extensive evidence of atrocities, and UN reports indicating genocide—make it more likely that the ICJ will rule in South Africa's favor.[147] She also argues that genocidal intent can be demonstrated when evidence shows that eliminating a protected group's civilian, intellectual, cultural, religious, military, and law enforcement leadership is intended to leave the rest of the group more vulnerable to unlawful abuses like forced migration.

This paragraph should be deleted. The source is claiming that targeting enemy military during a war can be a sign of intentionality of genocide, even if it’s legal according to international law. I really hope I don’t have to explain why that is patently absurd Jkinz3 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:EDITXY for how to write edit requests that are likely to be processed. They should be simple and uncontroversial. Whether content is included or excluded isn't based on whether editors agree or disagree with the views of subject matter experts writing in the Journal of Genocide Research. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section in an attempt to more accurately reflect their paper. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

An article, List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal, was deemed duplicative in a prior discussion and it was turned into a redirect to this article.

This RfC attempts to re-create the page. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)