Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel

Relevance of ICC chief prosecutor's visit

The ICC chief prosecutor didn't anywhere mention 'genocide'. He merely acknowledges that the ICC is prepared to investigate war crimes (of both sides?). That the Oct 7th attack was murderous is certain, but the relevance of the ICC visit isn't clear. Obviously an investigator is not going to offer an opinion either way at this stage, prior to independent ICC investigation, so why is he there? I can't read the full Haaretz piece (£££.$$$.€€€). Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Khan's statement that Hamas members who are Palestinians or nationals of another state party to the Rome Statute, and any others who are nationals of another state party, whether Hamas members or not, are within the ICC investigation's jurisdiction, despite the action taking place on Israeli territory, is highly relevant because it took 12 years, from Palestine's initial 2009 request through to 2021 to confirm jurisdiction, and it wasn't clear (at least to me) whether the investigation was limited to Palestinian territory or not. Khan clarified his interpretation of jurisdiction.

Effectively, although the quoted sentences don't emphasize it, part of Khan's statement is that if any Hamas members participating in the 7 October attack were e.g. Syrian, US, Iranian or Russian nationals without Palestinian nationality, then they're out of jurisdiction for action committed on Israeli territory, because those four states reserve the "right" of their nationals to carry out war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide: they are not state parties. Since the media (and Israeli govt) don't seem interested in Hamas members' nationalities, we don't have explicit comments about that in the Reuters article. It's critically important legally, but without a source, best leave that implicit in the same way that Khan did. Boud (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Second Holocaust

Most of this article is WP:SYNTH as most sources in the article do not explicitly state that the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel was genocide (in fact some of the sources used in this article are from before 2023). Now some sources do make this allegation specifically, but not sure why this can't be covered at Second Holocaust? VR _talk 06:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, this article is a rehash of the one that was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis. Pinging all the participants in that discussion: Ping (BilledMammal—Iskandar323—SomethingForDeletion—Marokwitz—JMWt—nableezy—Oaktree b—Daveout—Sj—Zero0000).VR _talk 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No - Topic is relevant and notable enough for its own stand alone article. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect This is a POV fork of Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis which after an AfD ended up as a redirect to Second Holocaust. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Second holocaust is per lead: The notion of a "second Holocaust" (Hebrew: השואה השנײה, romanized: HaShoah HaShniyah) or "Another Holocaust" (שואה נוספת, Shoah Nosephet) is an assertion that the Holocaust or a similar event is recurring or will recur. It is often used to discuss real or perceived threats to the State of Israel, the Jewish people, or the Jewish way of life. ------ The Second holocaust article is on the fear of a threat of extermination of the Jewish People or Israel.

This article on it's own is notable enough a topic and has been covered enough to warrant its own standalone article. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is on the allegation of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. It is not on the fear or perceived threat of a second holocaust. It is on the allegation of a genocide committed by Hamas against Israelis in 7/10. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat But it is about that. The "attempted genocide" on 7 October is being used to speculate that, if given the chance, "Hamas" would kill millions of Jews (sometimes framed as millions of Israelis). If people claiming this wanted to make a convincing argument they could call it a Pogrom, but instead they leap straight for a very broad interpretation of "or in part" from the definition of genocide. BUT I still think this should be separate. There are no other times that the Second Holocaust fear has triggered this kind of "so we need to obliterate them first" Amalekian pre-emptive strike? This situation is unique? Hamas is in quotes because it's disconcertingly ambiguous who or what Israel is at war with? Irtapil (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC) edit Irtapil (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

How is this POV fork? This is a notable topic, the whole section is made up of academic discourse and its on a specific notable event on a point of time as well as government responses. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is obviously a subtopic of Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis, which article did not survive AfD. This new article is just an end run around that decision. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this is a POV fork to attempt to get around the deletion of the first article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Deletion or the moving of this subject to another page is probably useful. Scientelensia (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scientelensia

But any article we move it to will get derailed? e.g. It would be a terrible idea to put it with the mirror image article, because that makes the ideas look like they have equal merit? People would try to balance the article by making it seem equal?

The only merging or combining that might work is to put it with other claims made about 7 October? e.g. 40 decapitated babies?

It sort of fits with the controversy about whether sexual assaults were a systematic and intentional part of the attack, but I think that could also go wrong. They are very different controversies.

17:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, I see what you mean. It’s difficult. Scientelensia (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The 7 October genocide idea is already in the War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article, but that is about what happened already. Whereas the "Hamas are genocidal" claim as a hypothetical, which is a lot of what this article is about, is a big part of the Israeli government's justification for why they need to completely obliterate Hamas, even if that means obliterating multiple civilian cities in the process.

00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier But the dubious claims are being used to justify the real thing, so I think we need to have this article, same reason we need other articles on dubious concepts, to put them in their proper context. Deleting the article doesn't delete the idea. Irtapil (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No - The topic meets notability guidelines and is much better served in a dedicated article. This is not a POVFORK; it seems whoever makes this claim has never actually read that policy. POVFORK refers to two articles on the same subject expressing different points of view. The scope of Second holocaust is completely different so the idea this is a POVFORK is absurd. Furthermore, this article is only weakly related to the idea of "second holocaust". Very few reliable sources express the viewpoint that the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel was a "second Holocaust"; the number of victims is of a different order of magnitude. However, many genocide scholars interpret the intentions of the mass killings on October 7 as meeting the legal definition of genocide. Marokwitz (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge into more appropriate articles, whichever they might be (e.g. 2023 Israel–Hamas war, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, etc). The accusation is not notable on its own. If an open letter is all that it takes to declare a genocide then Israel is guilty of genocide as well. The attack was a standard terrorist attack within a standard war. The word genocide has been cheapened lately.

–Daveout(talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• No - Second Holocaust might need a short section in referring to this as the main article. But it keep separate. This is a strange special case of what the accusation is being used to justify, so keep it stand alone. The only thing it might fit in as a merge is War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. But I still think this should stay separate. Irtapil (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Wait until the article is better edited to see how viable it is as a standalone article. The core of this article, genocide experts' claim that the attack constitutes genocide (rather than a crime against humanity), is the Academic and legal discourse section, and the strongest part of that seems to be an etherpad statement apparently agreed upon and signed by many legal experts, and referred to by mainstream media. The etherpad statement is archived, and there don't seem to be any doubts about the signees' signatures.
  A big current weakness is that the Background/Hamas ideology section needs to have sources that clearly say that their claim of genocidal intent is mainly based on Hamas' long-term policies and statements. (I haven't looked through the sources to see if that claim is clearly stated, except that in the 100s-of-experts-statement, there is As these widespread, horrendous acts appear to have been carried out with an 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part' a national group – Israelis – a goal explicitly declared by Hamas, without giving much of specifically who, when, in what documents or statements the intent to destroy was established and maintained over many decades. A policy set nearly half a century ago - just before the Cold War ended - doesn't sound like strong evidence of Hamas' intent in 2023.) I suspect that the article will be justified as standalone after the general quality is improved. Boud (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Lack of Neutrality/Bias

• There are sections for public and academic discourse, yet this discourse seems only to be in favour of this characterisation of the attacks of ‘genocide’. More needs to be added for the opposite side, as it is quite rare for one series of attacks to be termed a genocide throughout history. In the Palestinian genocide accusation article, both sides of teh argument are at least clearly represented.
• No criticism of the characterisation is used in the lede, whereas this is standard and is done in the Palestinian genocide accusation article.
• The use of the ‘Antisemitism in Islam’ accusation could potentially be seen as offensive. This conflict does not regard the whole of Islam, rather the 2023 Israel and Palestine/Hamas conflict and so just Palestine. Thus, the Racism in the State of Palestine article and/or the Antisemitism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article (seeing as this whole article only concerns the 2023 attacks) are more appropriate to be used, in my opinion.
• We need to collaborate to share thoughts and improve this article, which is arguably not yet suitable for consumption (although to me it has the makings of a strong article).

Scientelensia (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A 97.103.129.121 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a Muslim, I don't care if something is "offensive". What I do care about is these allegations are thrown around without sufficient sourcing. Can anyone provide sources that the Islamic religion motivated a genocide against Israel on October 7? VR _talk 02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Scientelensia (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent

I strongly believe it didn't. There are a lot of ethically questionable thing about that day, but they weren't genocidal, and if Hamas are genocidal (they're not, but if) it's because they're nationalists. If anything, their religious beliefs seem to reduce the risk. The announcement on 7 October even included the phrase, "don't hurt the old or the young, but fight", but I've only been able to find about 90 seconds of the 11 minute speech translated.

But this article does currently have a few sources to back up the claims. There are probably far more or better sources saying the oppiste, but I'm not really sure where to start looking for them?

Irtapil (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scientelensia

"More needs to be added for the opposite side, as it is quite rare for one series of attacks to be termed a genocide throughout history." The article definitely urgently needs that. If you can find some reliable sources please share them here.

If you can't edit the article but you want to help, you can draft sections of text with citations and post them here with suggestions of where they should be included.

And I agree this article is a mess that probably, "not yet suitable for consumption" but I argued to not just delete it because otherwise similar terrible articles keep reappearing, whereas keeping it means we can turn it into something that gives the idea it's proper context.

I also think it needs to be its own stand alone article, because it's likely to derail almost anything we merge it with? But we could broaden it into "genocide accusations against Hamas".

Irtapil (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate.

I can edit the article, but am quite busy so decided to speak on my concerns rather than address them – sorry. Scientelensia (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources from notable experts on genocide stating that the attack was not genocide? If nobody is trying to remove such sources with his/her editing behaviour, then there is no NPOV dispute. Please use {{diff}} to show unconstructive edits if you believe that there are edits attempting to remove sources like this. Boud (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m sure there are, and I am suggesting that, in order to make the page less biased, we add them to the page. Scientelensia (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless you (or someone else) lists those sources, then there is no POV dispute. A POV editing dispute is when editors have difficulty reaching consensus on editing the page, based on known sources, or when there is a dispute about how to summarise the content of the sources, or which sources qualify as reliable, or what counts as due balance. When someone believes that some sources should exist, but cannot provide them, that is not a POV dispute. If you just want to leave open the recommendation for people to search for sources, that's fine.

WP:NPOV is not about neutrality, it's about neutral POV. For example, the Adolf Hitler article is extremely non-neutral - it presents him as (roughly speaking) the most evil person of the twentieth century - since that's what the sources overwhelmingly say.

Do you (or anyone else) have any objections to removing the {{POV}} tag? The invitation to people to search for more sources wouldn't seem like a valid objection to me.

I think the {{unbalanced section}} tag should be discussed separately - the section rather needs major rewriting and restructuring overall, so even if this is not the best tag, it's probably OK until someone proposes a better tag or proposes how to rewrite the section. Boud (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Boud

I think part of the problem is that most people's response to the idea of a "genocidal" terrorist attack is "you're kidding"? It's not a concept serious scholars bother rebutting in detail. Hamas et al. killed 20 kids, then the IDF killed >8000, the idea that the first attack was a genocide is crazy, especially when it's usually a claim being made by people trying to claim than killing 8000 kids is NOT genocide?

Multiple things Hamas et al. did that day were war crimes, if you want to say it was motivated by racism, you could call it a "hate crime", a "lynch mob", or even a "pogrom". But the people making the claim aren't saying that, they're jumping straight to hyperbole, severely stretching the definition of "or in part", that's why previous versions of this article just got deleted.

But i think i will check that edit history just in case…

Irtapil (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A problem with the entire conception is that Hamas is not a state although individuals within it can be found guilty of war crimes. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Irtapil: There are several people currently cited in the article who would appear to be genocide scholars. If other genocide scholars consider the cited scholars to be non-serious, but have chosen to not publicly rebut the claims, then that's irrelevant to Wikipedia. The current estimate per Wikipedia is 800 civilians killed in the attack; whether or not the Israeli response is genocide is at best only marginally relevant to this article. The article definitely needs considerable work to be improved, but so far there's no evidence of a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, ... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.

@Selfstudier: There's no problem for this article with Hamas not being a state. A case against Palestine in the ICJ could hypothetically be lodged by another state (such as the US or Israel or, say, Mongolia), and evidence for cases against Palestinian individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide for their participation in the 7 October attack is being collected by the ICC in its investigation. We don't currently have an ICJ case. We won't know specific ICC charges, or against who, until some time in the future. This article covers claims ("allegations") of genocide "in" the 7 October attack - the strength of these claims is disputable, but currently there is consensus that the topic is valid as a standalone article, with the scope defined by the title.

I currently don't see anyone presenting reasons to retain the {{POV}} tag (unless there has been a specific edit battle that needs resolving?). One more quote: Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. Boud (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not worried about the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My reasons for retaining the tag are listed at the top of this discussion: primarily a lack of neutrality(!) Scientelensia (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about this article, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scientelensia: Lack of neutrality does not justify the tag. The acronym NPOV has POV in it. Not just N. You are effectively arguing in favour of replacing {{POV}} by {{fringe}}, e.g. you stated It's not a concept serious scholars bother rebutting in detail ... the idea that the first attack was a genocide is crazy. But we don't (yet?) have the sources that establish the ((edit) possible) mainstream POV, so it would be difficult to justify the {{fringe}} tag. Boud (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) (minor fix to clarify that I don't see evidence of what conceivably might be the mainstream, but sourceless, POV) Boud (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I started a section at the NPOV noticeboard (here until archived here) to try to get help in separating out the specific issues in this article versus the relevance of the POV tag. Boud (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC) (add archive: no reaction at NPOV noticeboard Boud (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC))

Insufficient context

• The context in the article introduces Hamas, yet some text could be devoted to explaining the beginning of the formation of Hamas in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict in general. (e.g. reasons for formation, context within the first Intifada, formed by who?)
• This is simply a suggestion, discussion is of course welcome.

Scientelensia (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that context etc can be useful, however lots of content was removed on grounds of SYNTH... Homerethegreat (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 pinging you since this is relevant discussion. Can you explain why you think lots of content on charter, background and etc should be removed... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat

I think they should be included, at least briefly, because that old 1988 charter is constantly quoted to accuse them of antisemitism or genocidal ambitious. It is kind of the core of the accusation. Irtapil (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You get relevant context without synth from sources mentioning the subject and mentioning the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: the material you have re-added largely predates the topic and so is still OR/SYNTH. Since WP:OR is policy and a core content pillar, this is non-negotiable - nothing written on talk can magically make synth permissable. Background sections aren't something editors get to just make up out of thin air. Each source must be directly connected to the subject, which sources that predate the event this page refers to clearly do not - not least direly dated material from 1992. Please clean up your own mess here. Violating core policies in a contentious topic area is fairly disruptive, and more so when repeated. I would prefer not to have to waste my time escalating this. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Iskandar, I don't think its the case. You can see there is content and sources including experts that also directly connect (therefore not synth or OR). For example Bruce Hoffman, Dr. Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen... Homerethegreat (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat

The article is about an accusation. The 1988 charter is often included in that accusation. If it's looking like synth then I think the problem is that are missing something rather than something needing removal.

It sounds like we're missing examples of the accusation actually using the charter as part of their argument?

We're missing the thing the page is about?

But there is heaps on terrorism, a thing the page is not about.

Irtapil (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Even more information was removed... Also relevant information that is sourced... Homerethegreat (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scientelensia

Formed by Yassin, who was born in Ashkelon, and then in 1948 his family were forced to relocate to Gaza? Irtapil (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I’m not so clear as to what you are talking about. Scientelensia (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scientelensia

I was asking what background you meant? And asking if that was the kind of background you had in mind re "who formed it"? Irtapil (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in a way actually. I was also thinking the origins of foundations and why it was formed if sufficient reasons can be formed. Also recent activity of the group before 2023, and previous allegations of genocide. Etc. Scientelensia (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scientelensia

When did they switch from suicide bombings to mass shootings? That seems somewhat relevant. Blokes in body armour with machine guns are pretty much the exact the opposite of a suicide bomber? and that's interesting. Though maybe that belongs more on the general page bout Hamas? If it's not already… Irtapil (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes: that is interesting. Possibly because when they decided to ramp up their attacks/resistance they decided to use guns and less suicidal bombers because the latter is unsustainable in a long conflict. Scientelensia (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis and other templates

I've added several templates to the article. Here are my justifications [1] [2] [3]. This article has serious problems. It apports few useful informational value, and basically only serves to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE situation with articles like Palestinian genocide accusation. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

There is scholarship and sources on the issue. Regarding false balance, I hardly think there is need to compare the article to Palestinian genocide accusation. This article is modeled on the allegations of genocide against Ukraine. Regarding synth, go to the discussion above and see that on the contrary, there is a feeling there there is insufficient context. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The article on Ukraine is much more serious, with an international investigation ongoing if I understood correctly, the whole article is simply more developed and opinions of scholars are not simply listed but complemented into a coherent text with a point. About synthesis, it is clear it is a present worry of several users so I recommend leaving the template some time now that the AfD has closed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat

Against Ukraine or in Ukraine? Irtapil (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There are serious sources for the article. There does not seem to be an issue of WP:SYNTH here, see the discussion above. Dovidroth (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus

It's an article about an accusation, an accusation currently being used to promote a real genocide.

Or that is what it should be about.

But last time I read it, it was mostly about terrorism? Which is almost the opposite of Genocide, other than being violent. They are both violence, but done by an opposite type of actor, for the opposite reasons.

If anything this long rambling thing about how they're religious terrorists makes a case for them NOY being genocidal.

Irtapil (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is against a page move at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 00:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel → Allegations of genocide during the Israel–Hamas war – For a broader article scope (possibly still include the year if this is an issue, i.e. Allegations of genocide during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war). GnocchiFan (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Israel and Hamas have been at war for a looong time.

Kire1975 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Allegations of genocide during the Israel–Hamas war" would be a very different page with a much broader scope. Perhaps one can just create such new page, where this page covering only the attack by Hamas would be a sub-page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support anything other than the current POV-pushing mash-up. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We already had a merge request with another article and lots of reasons were presented there regarding notability and GNG and I think they also apply here. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose that would fundamentally change the scope of the article, overstepping the complimentary Israeli article. Yeoutie (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Live Steam of South Africa at the ICJ

Live Steam of South Africa at the ICJ from South African TV news network SABC News on YouTube https://m.youtube.com/live/4f_yoal4gx8 "Live Steam of South Africa at the ICJ on the YouTube channel of National TV network" Irtapil (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting here to include in article if it stays up as a recoding, but also likely to interest many people here as background. Irtapil (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3 Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier

Thank you, that is a much better reference. Do you know where to find a full transcript? Irtapil (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Israel on trial at ICJ

The response from Israel at the ICJ and commentary on it might be useful to cite? Irtapil (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias and constructed narrative

There's an immense lack of sourcing in the article to support the title's claim of a Hamas-led genocide against Israelis.

This type of article is common on Wikipedia where it seems to pre-emptively construct a narrative that is at odds with what is happening on the ground and what is reported on by media.

The Hamas terror attack on a single day doesn't constitute a genocide. To date, Israel has killed more than 1% of people in Gaza in 5 months (2 thirds are women and children). That's an equivalent of 3 million Americans dead in 5 months.

On the other hand, we have Israeli politicians calling for Gaza to be depopulated, turned into Auschwitz Museum, etc. Not to mention their actual actions of withholding aid, killing indiscriminately, ethnic cleansing. None of that fits with what Hamas did on Oct 7th; especially when Israel is on trial at the ICJ for genocide.

Also, the use of genocide in the title is used to mislead readers into reading the dubious claims made in this article. I consider it biased and Zionist propaganda.

I propose the contents of this article be merged into an appropriate and existing article or deleted. Maqdisi (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This article has improved since I last looked. It seems to be reasonably structured, separating academic claims, wider "public" claims, and two legal claims in which at one clearly has lawyer François Zimeray asserting that the claim of genocide is legally justified. Whether the long-term wide consensus of academic research agrees that the attack was an act of genocide is currently unknown, by definition. Wait 5-10 years and then we may know.

The previous deletion proposal resulted in no consensus, and a new proposal would likely give the same result or keep, given its general improvement over 5 months.

I would be surprised to see consensus for a merge. This is a specific side or sub topic of several others (such as the 7 October attack itself), and distinct enough in terms of WP:GNG to remain separate.

As for the the question of Israeli military and war crimes actions in Palestine after 7 Oct 2023, that's not directly relevant for this article: see WP:WHATABOUT. In any case, we have Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. The existence of that article is not an argument to delete or merge this article.

The title of this article does not claim ... a Hamas-led genocide against Israelis; it claims that notable sources make the claim that the 7 Oct 2023 attack was a genocide or genocidal. Wikipedia doesn't (currently, at least) argue that the claims are either valid or invalid. Boud (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Much wrong with this article

This article has serious issues and is clearly a POV push. The lead sentence is already pulling a sleight of hand. A "genocidal massacre" is not a "genocide." If you're alleging a "genocidal massacre", then you need to have a title which comports with that allegation. But the title says "genocide." We need to be careful with words here.

In terms of reliable sources presented in this article which explicitly and unambigiously describe 7 October as a genocide, we only have the open letter, the statement by Genocide Watch, and a smattering of quotes from random researchers, including a lecturer at a university in an illegal Israeli settlement and a director of some Israeli NGO no one's ever heard of. In the open letter, which is prima facie the most compelling since it has researchers from prestigious universities, it qualified its claim with the term "probably" and furthermore did not elaborate or provide reasons for why it deems the massacre a probable genocide.

All in all, this is a very weak evidentiary basis, and it gives the impression that this article exists to counteract the far more notable Palestinian genocide accusation which in fact has a formal ICJ case to its name. JDiala (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. In particular, the allegations in this article have been 1. proven exaggerated and falsified especially from "first responders" 2. proven to include casualities from IDF actions under Hannibal Directive with a likely false flag intention 3. questioned sharply given the sources are untraceable Telegram accounts and other likely compromised sources 4. conflating actions by actual fighters led by Hamas, PFLP and Palestinian Islamic Jihad officers with actions by less traceable and clearly less militarily disciplined persons who breached the fence at Nova Festival 5. used intensively and repeatedly to justify actions that ICJ considers plausible as legal acts of genocide 6. included absolutely discredited claims initially, e.g. "beheaded babies" that are still repeated often by pro-Israel propaganda.

The article should be merged into one about the Hasbara effort by Israel to lie to cover up its own actions on October 7 2023 and to blame these actions on stateless indigenous militant groups, so as to justify the Gaza and other actions since. To let this article stand without extreme qualifications to literally everything it claims is to discredit Wikipedia itself.

Similarly, the Bucha article ought to be similarly merged with examples of other pro-Ukraine claims and propaganda, with clear reference to forensic evidence that most victims there died by shelling with flechette ammunition on Ukraine had, and strong evidence that Ukraine SBU executed persons on April 1-2 who had white armbands signifying a lack of resistance to Russian forces. A BBC documentary made long after the fact was only about to assign about 50 deaths out of about 400 to the Russian occupation, and 20 of those were armed civilians who were legal military targets, leaving 30 atrocities or ambiguous. That event, also, assumed outsized importance in the context of the UK-led sabotage of Russia-Ukraine peace talks, the assassination of Denis Kireev and other NATO and EU propaganda accusing Russia of various crimes - including Nordstream and the assassination of Daria Dugina - that do not appear to be Russian led or in Russian interests, but were very much in the declared policy and interests of the West. 142.134.26.141 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert

This revert by an editor following an undiscussed page move (which I have already undone) claims that the "parent article has had its title altered so then this one should to. However the other article title is currently subject to move review and likely relisting at this point, so a) This is jumping the gun and b) Even if the other article title does end up being changed, that is not of itself sufficient reason for the edits made. Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No objection to holding off until the move review (and potentially the reopened RM) concludes, but following that, I think this title and infobox should reflect the outcome of that. We can do an RM here if it's controversial, but I would think consistency would be the main consideration since this is essentially a child article of 7 October attacks, or at least quite closely related. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

infobox: should "immolation" also be marked "(alleged)"?

Currently the section I'm talking about says, "Attack type: Mass shooting, immolation, genocidal rape (alleged)" should it say "Attack type: Mass shooting, immolation (alleged), genocidal rape (alleged)"?

Is there strong evidence that people were intentionally burned to death by Palestinians?

One of the burned houses (at Be'eri) was attributed to Israeli security forces, it wasn't the only one, but for genocide you also need the deaths to be intentional, not just reckless.

There's other explanations for militants burning housing, that are still war crimes, but not genocide. From what I have seen, those explanations have stronger evidence, or at least strong enough that you can't state intentional immolation of people as fact.

Other reasons:

1. "smoke people out" to take them hostage

2. Destroy housing to pressure people to relocate, that's ethnic cleansing, which is close, but not genocide.

3. Intimidation to send a political message (i.e. Terrorism)

In all of those, it's property destruction with accidental or sporadic deaths. The evidence that the intent was to burn the people doesn't seem wrong enough to state "immolation" as fact in the infobox.

MWQs (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"In all of those, it's property destruction with accidental or sporadic deaths"

"Property destruction and accidental and sporadic deaths" is ironically the collateral of Hamas hiding among civilian populations. Unless you dispute that well documented fact? 2600:100E:B062:AC60:0:F:9B0F:601 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to follow the parent article. This will have no effect at the moment due to the MR result, but if the RM is closed as moved, anyone is welcome to move this article to a matching title, citing this closure. (I realize this is an unusual outcome, but there's no point in further relists when everyone agrees that consistency should be determinative.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Allegations of genocide in the 7 October attacks – To match the current 7 October attacks page name. MWQs (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This makes the title briefer, and doesn't unintentionally exclude other groups who attacked Israel alongside Hamas. It also fits the title of the "7 October attacks" page. Lewisguile (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: Considering the articles is "7 October attacks", it makes sense to have them align. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose the 7 October attacks page move is at MR and will likely be relisted and even if it should not be, I will propose a new RM. A date without even a year and zero context makes absolutely no sense (other than to Israelis). Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom Personisinsterest (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support following the parent title. No strong opinion on whether we should rename now or await the MR result. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Requested_move_15_June_2024 was relisted as the result of the move review. This should wait until the resolution there. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note that this RM was opened by the sock of a banned editor. Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Move to "Genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack in Israel" (or alternatively: October 7 genocide)

In line with Transgender genocide and Gaza genocide, the article should be moved towards the more common term used for the discussion, maintaining the tone within the article, as was done with Gaza genocide. Is someone opposed to this, or have an alternative title suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a chance. It's not even a close call. That's why there is no "Israeli genocide accusation" and only a Palestinian genocide accusation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Palestinian_genocide_of_Israelis&redirect=no

The just released HRW report on the Hamas attack (which Israel unfortunately can't applaud because they think HRW is biased and antisemitic) says plenty about war crimes and crimes against humanity by Hamas (just like Israel) but nary a mention of the word genocide, unlike Israel.

There is no comparison between the sourcing in the two cases, and there are no court cases either. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Was there an article where the redirect was before? If not, I think there is enough to create an article there at some point. A court case would be rather pointless here (particularly against what is plausibly a non-state actor), and the question of sourcing is not really relevant, considering the rationell and state of sourcing for trans genocide is rather similar, and the argument at Gaza genocide was based on use, not veracity. FortunateSons (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes there was, it was created, retitled and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis deleted.

the argument at Gaza genocide was based on use and a consensus among scholarly and legal sources, which is not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The deletion discussion suggests merging into the Palestinian article, and I would argue that Second Holocaust meets the role filled by Palestinian genocide accusation, don’t you think?

In the move of Gaza genocide, the move close did not state that there was consensus among experts, and the opinion of legal opinions arguably trend towards “not a genocide” or at least “too close to call.” FortunateSons (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

POVNAME had to be dealt with and that was done on a consensus of sources basis (albeit with no consensus). That's separate from the use/distinction thing. But anyway that has nothing to do with what you are asking here.

After deletion there was a redirect Second Holocaust (I seem to recall it being bounced around a couple different places before ending up there), the point is that it was deleted even though "only" being allegation, so cat in hell's chance of reintroducing that with a POVNAME. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a few RS can be brought to show that the term is used, though the question when it becomes a proper spin out does remain.

So you agree that […] genocide is a POV name without a full expert consensus? That seems to not have been convincing on the other move. FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Idk why people do not understand the close, keep mixing up different things. There was no consensus among editors as to POVNAME but taken together with usage, that was sufficient to overcome the POVNAME objection. Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I got that far. If I recall correctly, you argued that it wasn’t a POV-name but instead the common term, right? FortunateSons (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I argued that were was a majority in sources, a consensus. Not just some or even many, sources. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

But thank you for the info, I would probably need immaculate RS for a new article. FortunateSons (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

bloodied Image

I think the image of bloodied room [[4]] violates wiki image content policy and hence i think its grounds for removal. You dont see such images in Gaza genocide

MOS:OMIMG -> a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar, horrifying, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1]—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

MOS:SHOCK -> lead images should be selected with care. Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Astropulse (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the first image in the infobox there shows a row of body bags... Alaexis_¿question? 21:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about [[5]] Astropulse (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to your comparison "You dont see such images in Gaza genocide". Alaexis_¿question? 08:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the page you've referenced is not an active policy. Alaexis_¿question? 21:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right. i updated by post. to reflect correct policy Astropulse (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that MOS:OMIMG is less relevant - the image is not really offensive.

As to MOS:SHOCK, it's in the eye of the beholder. Can we objectively say whether a row of body bags is more or less shocking than a room full of blood? We also have WP:NOTCENSORED and one could argue that showing an image with damage only to the building downplays the significance of the events. Alaexis_¿question? 08:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

both can be MOS:SHOCK - we may still put the image in the article - but not as lead in my opinion. To me the visual of blood can be very distressing and is more shocking. But i'm sure we can find another image instead without lots of blood in it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not to shock. While WP:NOTCENSORED is an important policy, it does not override the need to balance the inclusion of images with sensitivity to readers. The argument that showing less graphic images downplays the significance of events can be addressed by detailed textual descriptions alongside less graphic images.

MOS:OMIMG Application: Although the image may not be deemed overtly offensive, it still falls under the category of potentially offensive images that require careful handling. The guideline specifies that such images should only be included if their omission would make the article less informative or accurate, and if no equally suitable alternatives are available. In this case, alternative images could provide the necessary context without the graphic nature. Astropulse (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep the image of the pool of blood in the lead, per WP:NOTCENSORED. The suggested replacement (a building damaged by a missile) relates more to a military operation than a genocidal massacre. I believe this image accurately portrays an attack on civilians without being too explicit. MOS:SHOCK states to avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there; the article at hand is about an alleged genocidal massacre, so such an image could be expected. Note that more explicit image of corpses are used in several articles on genocide (Armenian, Rwandan, Bosnian) and even in the infobox for the alleged genocide in Ukraine. If there's a strong insistence that the image be replaced, the editor should propose alternative photos that accurately depicts the article's topic, as per MOS:SHOCK. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 09:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the bloodstain image is a poor choice for a lead image. Bloodstain doesn't really tell the reader anything about the topic. It's seems like gore for the sake of gore. The current image is better (less gory), but still doesn't tell a reader much about the topic, just an example of damage. I think a better lead image would be something like a map that shows where the attacks took place, or the satellite image used in the article about the attack. Something that provides some context or information. Levivich (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Previous image seemed like gore for gore's sake, and shock value. It was also hard to discern, and more of a visual distraction than an illustration. Agree that the current image is better, but likewise reflects the topic of "an attack" more than the overarching topic of genocide or allegations therein. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a memorial photo as done in other genocide articles, possibly one of the Nova Festival Victims Memorial? I couldn't find any memorial that alleges genocidal massacre though that would likely be the best pick. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Something like that is a potentially better option – it would be at least indicative of a plurality of victims. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the memorial image (or something like it), would be better than the current image; that would give the reader a sense of the scale of the casualties. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Memorial photo added. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 09:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all Astropulse (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

ICC

The ICC never accused Hamas of genocide, right? So material on mere war crimes doesn't belong. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

BBC report that discusses genocidal rhetoric and intent by Hamas

BBC report that discusses genocidal rhetoric and intent by Hamas. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is mainly discussing Israeli incitement to genocide. The ICC wants to charge Hamas leaders with extermination or a mass killing but that is short of genocide and one has to ask whether Hamas could actually carry out a genocide on the scale and type that Israel/IDF is being accused of. It's still quite hard to see these allegations as much more than a response to the accusations faced by Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

should be moved to the top of the page

While the current version looks fine on desktop, the notconfused box appears below the infobox on mobile.

Unfortunately I don't have enough edits to fix this, could anyone help please? Amberkitten (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken so long to correct, but the not confused template has now been moved. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Huge bias

This article is hugely biased in favour of Zionist Israel and doesn't begin to cover the numerous infamous lies and propaganda of OCTOBER 7 APaul2021 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)