Template talk:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page 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 page (except in limited circumstances)

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

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

Posen

@Cdjp1 With due respect I think that Posen clearly says that this is not a genocide. In fact he accepts the Israeli claim that the civilian death toll is a result of Hamas using civilians as human shields or camouflage, i.e. collateral damage and not intentional attempt to kill as many Palestinians as possible. See these paragraphs:

One answer is simple. When war is fought among civilians, civilians are killed. Among the most poignant examples is from World War II: the number of French citizens killed by Allied bombing in the months prior to the June 1944 Normandy invasion. The allies bombed lines of communication heavily to prevent the Germans from reinforcing their coastal defenses along the English Channel. Historians suggest that some 20,000 French civilians who had the misfortune of living near ports, bridges, roads, or railroad infrastructure were killed in these attacks and during the subsequent two months of ground and air operations.

Some would say that this is ancient history; we would never do that again. But more recent history suggests that, though modern weapons are considerably more accurate and procedures in Western militaries to avoid collateral damage are more formalized, fighting among civilians, especially in urban areas, always means hell on earth for the civilians who may be trapped there.

Hamas, for its part, appears unconcerned about putting Palestinian civilians in harm’s way. Indeed, this is a feature, not a bug, of their political and military strategy. Some use the term “human shield” for this strategy, but that is incomplete. This element of Hamas’s strategy could also be described as “human camouflage,” and more ruthlessly as “human ammunition.”

On a daily basis, the activities of civil society obscure Hamas’s activities. More importantly, Hamas understands that civilian casualties are an Achilles’ heel for Western military operations. Liberal democracies put a high value on the individual, and hence on every human life. Lawyers have developed an elaborate legal structure to regulate the conduct of warfare because of this respect for the individual, which is enshrined in international treaties.

Western militaries, including the IDF, try to live by these laws, though the law of armed conflict does not proscribe them from waging war. They try to follow these rules in part because they reflect the values of the societies that they serve and in part because of an expectation of reciprocity, but also because pragmatically, they know that lots of civilian casualties can become a political liability at home and abroad. Hamas spends the lives of Palestinian civilians as ammunition in an information war. They are not the first to do so, and they probably will not be the last.

Vegan416 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416 OK,I can't re-add it in right now, but I've got a collection of additions to the table it will be included in when I update it this evening. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Vegan416 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habermas

@Cdjp1 With due respect Habermas clearly says that attributing geocidal intent to Israel is a complete slip of judgement.

And so it had been understood by other sources:

https://theconversation.com/jurgen-habermas-is-a-major-public-intellectual-what-are-his-key-ideas-218796

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/israel-hamas-war-opens-up-german-debate-over-meaning-of-never-again

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-european-philosophy-ethically-bankrupt-exposed Vegan416 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416 I don't understand the need to ping me on Habermas et al.'s opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I got confused. However, even with regard to professor Gat, I think it is obvious that he rejects the genocide accusation. Surely you wouldn't call engaged in genocide a "moral army"... Also please consider the following sentences from his opinion piece:

There is no way to eliminate this array without causing massive destruction. Anyone who argues that it is forbidden to cause such destruction must propose feasible alternatives that would enable the elimination of Hamas in Gaza in the sense defined above [i.e. the destruction of Hamas as a semi-state military organization with a massive military infrastructure that controls Gaza – not its elimination as an ideology and as a guerrilla movement]; otherwise, they are arguing that the situation in effect gives Hamas immunity. Many in the West evade the question, and presumably there are also those who implicitly support such immunity.

In practice, by the standards of the most respected democracies, it can be said that Israel has met its humanitarian obligations under international law in regard to warning the civilian population to evacuate combat zones, opening humanitarian corridors and observing humanitarian cease-fires to permit evacuations, using advanced technology to communicate these messages.

Assuming that more than 30,000 people have been killed in the Gaza Strip (Hamas' figures), of which 12,000-13,000 were Hamas members, according to IDF estimates, this is a ratio of 1.5 civilians killed for every Hamas member killed. This is still below the estimated civilian casualty ratio of the American wars of the past few decades, which certainly were not conducted at the same level of threat under which Israel operates.

Soldiers have a looser finger on the trigger, and they are not free of feelings of revenge, but the main factor explaining the killing and destruction is the enormity of the challenge and the acute danger to the troops' lives on the battlefield in Gaza. Vegan416 (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416 this strays into inference from the source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying

This shouldn't be in Draft space. If the intent is for it never to become an article, then the content is better-suited in User space. The Draft namespace is for pages that will eventually become articles. Please read WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace. C F A 💬 22:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is supposed to be a common resources, not owned by one user. Vegan416 (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR comments

@Cdjp1 I saw you started to add critical comments about the experts opinions based on your opinion and OR. Are you sure you want to go this way? This is not the idea behind this list. If each of us will start adding critical comments based on our opinion and OR we'll end up with endless debates... Vegan416 (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416 these are not my opinions but the opinions of experts and legal bodies. The citations will be added in the next update this evening. Understanding the context to claims is important, please add any explanatory comments you think need to be in the notes column. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What you suggest will turn this page page into a discussion forum. This is not what it was meant to be. It is meant to be a barebone list of sources to be used as reference page for discussions in places such as the talk page of the Gaza genocide article. Any critical discussion of the sources should be left to that talk page. Vegan416 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416 for Mirsky, at least, it is highly important as he claims that of people South Africa presented as evidence, None of them, though, have direct decision-making power, when South Africa presented the statements of Netanyahu and Gallant in their evidence. I am open to hearing how Netanyahu and Gallant have no decision-making power over IDF direction. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer that so that you won't think I'm trying to evade the question, but my point is precisely that this kind of discussion that we are having now should not be held here in this sources page in this no man's land, but rather at the talk page of any article to which anyone will decide to bring Mirsky's opinion. Anyway the answer to your question is simple. Mirsky doesn't think that Netanyahu and Gallant made any genocidal statements (and I agree with him). Vegan416 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to delete this page, and each one of us can work on his own copy of it in his user space

@Cdjp1 As you insist on adding contested comments, in contrast to the original purpose of this page, and we cannot reach consensus on them then I think it's time to delete this page, and each one of us can work on his own copy of it in his user space as he sees fit. I can and will answer your points for the last time, but I really don't want to waste any more time in discussions in this page which no one but you and me visits (except one addition by @FortunateSons that followed a discussion I had with him). The status of this page is barely "legal" anyway. It cannot really stay in the Template space, because it's not a template and not going to be used as a template. So let's copy it to our user spaces and mark it for deletion.

As for your points: 1. You missed Boot's argument. The argument is not that killing 1% of the population cannot be a genocide. It is rather that genocidal intent is determined also by how many people were killed compared to how many could have been killed if the intention was indeed to kill as many people as possible. In the case of the Bosnia war the Serbs didn't really have the possibility to kill significantly more Bosniaks since the power balance between the fighting armies was much more even than in the case of the IDF and Hamas.

2. As for Mirsky, he didn't say that SA didn't bring alleged "evidence" against Netanyahu and Galant. He simply thinks that while some members of the coalition did say thins that sound genocidal, the sayings of Netanyahu and Galant were not.

3. The debate about the exact civil rights status of Israeli-Arab citizens is not relevant. If they have 100% equal right or only 95% doesn't matter for the question of genocide. The fact is that they are not being remotely "genocided" even according to the most crazy and farfetched definitions of genocide. Quite the opposite. For example they equally enjoy governmental health service that many USA citizens could only dream of. They also enjoy a very extensive cultural autonomy. They have equal voting rights. There is some amount of affirmative action in the civil service for the benefit Arab citizens. Vegan416 (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416 You misunderstand templates, and I do not support it being marked for deletion. You continue argue the articles imply something that is different to what they state. You do not "answer [my] points", but choose to argue against genocide literature. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe we should ask an administrator if this kind of content really belongs in general template space or in user space. Also, I don't argue against any genocide literature. You are the one who argues here against the opinions of experts, whose arguments you don't even understand correctly. Anyway, since we are the only two people who work on this page and we don't have a consensus about adding critical comments, then according to the rules you cannot add these comments. Vegan416 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making no statement on the main point, I think it would be beneficial to avoid non-objective comments, particularly those "debunking" statements, unless what is done is citing RS referring to the specific statement and applies to all (which, in my opinion only, would not be worth the effort). The goal of the list was creating an as-close-to-objective-as-possible resource, so it would be wise to delete content-specific arguments. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have no special rights in judging which namespace is appropriate. (1) It is quite likely that this page will be useful to include in various talk pages and other Wikipedia: namespace pages. (2) It also makes more sense that people edit a single version - sorting out conflicts on this talk page as needed - rather than forking individual versions. It seems to me that (1) + (2) are a good justification for keeping this as a template, though to satisfy the MOS: "don't collapse or hide material" guideline for article space, it should probably not be used in articles, or at least not without prior consensus on an article's talk page. In the long term, having it as a link at the top of Talk:Gaza genocide, possibly with a brief sentence to make it clear that work has already been done in collecting together many scholarly sources, would probably be useful, it seems to me (the main motivation would be that if people want to find sources, they will know that they need to find "better quality" or complementary sources rather than re-finding the same ones).

In any case, right now, this template is useful for others wishing to recommend endorsing or overturning in the Move Review for Gaza genocide, and indirectly for the person who closes the move review. Boud (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eames

I'm not sure who added her, but I don't think that Eames meets the requirements for expert opinion, considering we are specifically going "beyond RS" here. Would whoever added the citation be willing to elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Vegan416 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1, is she one of yours? Either way, would you object to her removal? FortunateSons (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons she was found in a recent scrape of published journal articles, while I was apprehensive of adding her, considering how low the bar seemed to have been set for "expert" and prominence of publication, I erred on inclusion. Remove her if you want. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you for taking the time, and sorry for picking on the sources :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, the sources should be interrogated, questioned, and where necessary pruned. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree! FortunateSons (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide vs genocidal incitement

Reviewing the table, I notice that statements concerning incitement to genocide are automatically taken as an affirmation that genocide is being committed. However, incitement to genocide is actually distinct from genocide and can be prosecuted even if no genocide has occurred. The entries for Sfard and Intondi, and the second entry for Mack should be removed as they only state their opinions that incitement to genocide has been committed, which is not the same as saying there is a genocide. TRCRF22 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a separate subsection? It is relevant info. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an improvement over the status quo, but it would need to make clear the distinction between the two topics.

I'd also include the entry citing "100 civil rights organisations and 6 scholars" in this discussion. The statement accuses Israel of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and incitement to commit genocide, not the crime of genocide itself. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1 since you are the user who added Mack and Intondi to the list, do you have anything to add? TRCRF22 (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions are on the case of the Gaza genocide and from relevant specialists, so should be included in the centralised resource. Splitting out those that specify incitement, and don't talk of the perpetration of genocide, seems like a fair distinction. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

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

Apparently WP:ARBECR forbids me from editing this, so here's an edit request. Please add the following entry to the table:

Name	Month	Profession	Source	(English or autotranslated and verified) example statement	Simplified position	Notes
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	Not in the article

146.198.192.97 (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I was able to find info about Maung Zarni at https://forsea.co/forsea-board-members/, (a blog at https://www.maungzarni.net/en), it's my sense that he is not really qualified as an expert on genocide, at least not in the usual way. Are you aware of any published papers? Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier He is listed as one of the authors of "The Slow-Burning Genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya" in the Washington Journal of International Law, as well as writing this paper in the Brown Journal of World Affairs, both of which relate to the topic of genocide. 146.198.192.97 (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, would still not be keen to add this, will wait and see if other EC editors have a view. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier he's worked with Genocide Watch, so fair to add him in imo. While the template article name is "experts", the article is broader including relevant scholars and specialists. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think he's acceptable enough as an expert on genocide, we've included people with more dubious qualifications IMO.

Done TRCRF22 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2024

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

Update the entry for Sherene Razack. Her entry has been in the table for over a month and nobody has yet bothered to fill in her opinion. Somebody needs to add a quote from her cited article that would support her entry in the table, or else remove it altogether. 82.47.186.69 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added quote from the abstract. Liu1126 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tally the numbers?

Would it be helpful to list the totals at the end? By my count, there are 86 YES, 46 NO, 20 MAYBE, 6 {{}}. This doesn't include the 4 in the separate table. Given that the list has 158 entries, wouldn't a tally be useful here to summarize it? JasonMacker (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECCHR website

Maybe it's just my reading, but I feel like the report is closer to an "it's plausibel/reasonable" than it is to an "It's certain". While those are not even close to an exact science, I believe that "maybe" would be the better classification compared to "yes". Are there any objections to that? FortunateSons (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]