Academic here - it’s 100% genocide. More so, it’s the worst kind of genocide, it’s sanctioned genocide built upon conflating a people with their government.
built upon conflating a people with their government.
Which makes those people in other parts of the world (myself included) inherently less safe.
In fact, if I could point to one single factor that has made Jews less safe in this world post-WWII, it would be Israel.
Yup, most people of the Jewish faith are not the state of Israel. Much as most people of the Islamic faith are not terrorists. People mostly just want to lead comfortable lives.
It’s a great case of A->B being misunderstood as A<->B to justify incredible shittiness.
I do sometimes wonder if I should write a paper full of examples suggesting that this really simple misunderstanding of logic is what drives the enshittification of humanity _
Last I checked, the number of Jews in New York state alone and the number of Jews in Israel was pretty close to equal.
I think that’s the conflation - Jews in Israel and Jews in New York state fall into the set Jews. However the right wing supporters of Netenyahu’s government are but a subset of the former.
A better comparison would be that the number of Jews in New York state was once close to the number of peaceful Palestinians and peaceful Israelis; meanwhile, the number of hardline genocidal Israelis was roughly equal to the number of Hamas terrorists. Those sets seem a better match, as they share more core categorical features.
Israel is the best fucking recruitment tool antisemitism has.
Fuck Zionism, Fuck Empires
This is a feature not a bug, similar to the “birthright” trips Jewish teens abroad get for free. “Birthright” is a propaganda trip that tries to get teenagers to make Israeli contacts and get them to want to “make Aaliyah” and move to Israel and make more babies for the IDF.
I am genuinely curious, what kind of academic are you?
I am asking because I didn’t understand why your credentials would benefit your comment and why did you feel the need to mention it before stating your opinion on a anonymous community.
You might be joking when you are saying that you are academic, but I am asking in case you where serious.
Probably playing off of this part of the article:
"[…] I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision.
Pretty much - most of us (scholars being a synonym for academics, a set I do belong to [lectureship in mathematics and statistics]) agree that bombing the homes of people into rubble and striking the camps they flee to is an intentional attempt to erase a cultural group.
Your field of study is not directly relevant here (unless you work to figure out the death toll, maybe). However scholars that do study genocide do now seem to agree that the killing of Palestinians by Israel is a genocide.
Indeed.
@[email protected] - moreso tactfully pointing out we must be aware of credential inflation and to avoid reliance on appeals to authority?
The naïve optimist in me wants the @[email protected] of the world to keep on revealing their backgrounds as it adds to discussions for me. Disappointing that I should be more skeptical.
Well there is the genocide where many other nations turn a blind eye to (“oops sorry we did not see what was happening there”) and then there is the genocide where multiple other nations actively support it while trying to look like they are slapping wrists (“bad Israel! bad Israel!” passes weapons under the table)
China plays the race card every time they’re criticized.
Bait.
deleted by creator
Double bait.
British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”
“Stu, you can’t say metric fuckton”
It is what it is.
“I’m not publishing that.”
Fine! A metric truckton.
I didn’t actually realize that he didn’t say “metric fuckton” until I saw your comment and went back to reread it.
Because everyone knows if you say it’s not genocide, it’s not genocide. 🇨🇳🇮🇱🇷🇺🇺🇸
If it doesn’t come from the Armenian region of Türkiye it’s not a genocide, it’s sparkling ethnic cleansing.
Damn it, you came up with a better ‘sparkling’ joke than I was thinking of.
I bow to the master.
I’ve been relistening to the Hardcore History episodes about World War 1, and Dan Carlin makes an interesting observation: Türkiye gets so pissy when you call what the Young Turks did the “Armenian genocide” but genocides are so common throughout history that it would be notable if a country didn’t commit one. Israel is also mad about calling what they’re doing in Gaza as a genocide, insisting that the 40,000 Gazans who have been killed were obviously Hamas, even 70% of which were women and children.
“Genocide” and “Nazi” are now odd words in English- they’re concepts that certain deplorable people have no qualms with idealizing and adhering to, as long as you don’t call them that.
I would also love to hear yours. That line of sparkling comparison is definitely something I’m going to add to my vocabulary
Unfortunately, two hours later, I’ve totally forgotten it. Sorry.
Clap. Clap. Clap.
Hi. Did you read the article, by any chance?
I think he might have been commenting about how the opposition is/was fighting to keep the Genocide wording out of the article.
Correct.
Israel doesn’t think it’s genocide.
It’s fkn hilarious, it’s the god damn first line even.
I don’t get it. Did the irony/sarcasm of the top-level comment fly over your head?
Apparently. To me it seems whithom did not read it, as the first line of the article is really clear.
Yeah, I thought the sarcasm was pretty clear with all the flags that represent the countries whose governments would have that opinion un-ironically
Israel doesn’t think it’s genocide.
No no no, they don’t say it’s genocide. I’m pretty sure they are fully aware it’s genocide, as that’s the purpose.
Hehe well, knowing your doing something and saying you’re doing something is definitely a skill authoritarian governments have mastered.
Title gore. What is this headline trying to communicate?
“Wikipedia concludes that Israel is committing genocide, thus ending an editorial debate”
Thank you, I read it over and over and thought I was going crazy.
Tbf I do think it qualifies as title gore and at the very least it is missing a comma before “ending”
Trying to imagine being the human who wrote that headline, sat back, and said “Yeah that’ll do!”
No no no, it’s a “Wikipedia-ending debate”
ICJ so slow Wikipedia writes down the conclusion in advance.
Unfortunately they can’t quote Wikipedia directly in their work, but they can use the sources in the article.
In the past I have donated to wikipedia this made sure I will keep donating.
I have too. Thank you for the reminder.
The people who disagree probably can’t reconcile that who they consider the good guys can do very evil things. That’s in addition to those who actually consider Palestinians subhuman or worse.
You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain.
This is Israel’s second genocide after the one in 1947.
Just donated to Wikipedia.
The IDF just announced that they’ve discovered a Hamas command and control center under Jimmy Wales’ khouse. It’ll be dealt with accordingly.
The English speaking Wikipedia community is not the ICJ.
did you read the article?
British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”
Marshall concluded his ruling with the straightforward statement: “We follow the scholars.”
On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”
And the German Wikipedia community sees it differently (differently = waiting for an official decision) and does not allow an article called “Gaza Genozid” until now…
The matter remains contested
That could also be the argument for calling the article “Genocide accusations” and waiting for the ICJ…
On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”
Compared to the previous 2 quotes, this is actually a fact: There are accusations.
PS: Just to make it clear: I am not the ICJ either. And I think, it’s fine to share it as an opinion (“I think, there is a genocide happening”), but referencing it as a fact (“The genocide is getting worse”) before it is actually classified as one by the people who are responsible to do so, is just not useful at all. I know, that especially people from the USA see this differently.
The German wikipedia can make its own editorial decisions. They also don’t have a Rohingya genocide article, only an article about the Rohingya genocide case at the ICJ. The English Wikipedia has two articles. It would seem the crux of the matter is that the Germans treat the word genocide as a purely legal term and therefore wait for the ICJ decision, whereas the English treat the word as a topic on which a scholarly academic consensus can be pronounced, in addition to the legal proceedings. One can argue back and forth about which approach has more or less merit, but they are both valid.
Edit: grammar
I agree that that’s probably the difference.
Germans are allowed to shove their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala I can’t hear you therefore it’s not genocide”. In fact, all of us are allowed to. It’s just that most of those who aren’t a cunt will choose not to. It seems Germans do not pass that particular filter.
I prefer to not throw words on something based on emotions.
There are usually 3 views on the internet:
- “It’s a genocide!!! I am sure.”
- “It’s not a genocide!!! I am sure.”
- “I was not a virologist during Corona and I’m not an expert on genocides right now, but others are. So, I’ll wait for the experts of ICJ to decide.”
Mine is Nr. 3! If you think, that Nr. 2 and Nr. 3 are the same, the problem is on your side.
That’s a bad comparison. The Wikipedia decision was made specifically because the experts – i.e actual scholars of genocide and war crimes – have a very widely held consensus that a genocide is occurring.
Do you disagree with the experts?
There is the UN with its ICJ. That’s what pretty much the whole world agrees on.
They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.
What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that’s just speculation at this point.
Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:
According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.
- The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
- The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean “large-scale violence against civilians” when used by governments and international organisations.
- Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses “genocide” is usually “as a stand-in term for the greatest evils”.[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is “simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale”.[13]
Removed by mod
“They should not be the final authority anymore.” And who should be? Creating something new that the whole world agrees on seems like a hard task right now.
I’d rather accuse a country of genocide too soon than being a fucking denialist.
It’s not that we agree on whether it’s a war or whether children die. It’s a Genocide accusation, which is pretty much the hardest accusation possible. My view: I don’t want to accuse a country too soon.
I’d rather get called a denialist for now reason (just, because I don’t throw the hardest accusation on the target) than potentially having to back-pedal later. I think, that our language(s) has/have a lot of potential to describe the terrible things that happened in Israel on Oct 7th and in Gaza since then (which is the opposite of denial) without using the word “Genocide” like there was already a decision by the ICJ.
What are you afraid off? Less people dying?
What is your hope by using the word before there is a ICJ decision? Less people dying? Because I don’t see a causal connection there.
Removed by mod
Yes but what is Wikipedia going to actually do about it? Just create another article? We should dismantle Wikipedia!
What the fuck are you talking about
deleted by creator
Might have needed the \s here
It’s not really me that needs it.
Keep fighting the good fight against the unnecessary \s. I appreciate you.
