• guojing@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      Thanks for proving my point, even that article doesnt have a single mention of the word genocide.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Applying the term genocide to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be shaky, given that there is no consensus among experts. It would be a clear break with the Neutral Point of View policy.

        • caveman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          You are joking, right?

          See interviews with Israelis in YouTube and you will see they qre craving for killing all Palestinians, even before 2023

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’m not sure why you’re replying to a two year old comment, but whatever. I was talking about Wikipedia policy. It’s not going to take a stance using an emotionally charged and poorly defined word like genocide unless there is an expert consensus. And no, an individual or even a high ranking official going on a bloodthirsty rant doesn’t make for a genocide. Instead, Wikipedia has an article that specifically covers the Palestinian genocide accusation very thoroughly from a neutral, well sourced, and historical prospective.

            • caveman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              If you see South Africa evidence on ICJ, there’s plenty of proof there Israel (Neytaniahu and IDF highest commanders) has genocidal intent.

              • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Again, I’m not taking a stance on that here. I’m pointing out that when it comes to Wikipedia, it has to reflect expert consensus and be well organized. Where there is not a consensus, the opinions of individuals are presented. Wikipedia editors are expressly forbidden from synthesizing stances in articles.

                Speaking of South Africa’s presentation, the ICJ has not ruled that what is happening is a genocide. It ruled that Israel must take care to prevent genocide, among other things. It’s effectively the ICJ version of an injunction. So there again, one set of reasonably neutral experts have not made a ruling.

                  • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable

                    From a court, what that is saying is that the argument brought in front of it is reasonable enough for the court to take action to prevent harm within their power. It’s very different from an actual ruling, which comes later. There was a lot of criticism of South Africa’s case, that it was weak and grandstanding. Likewise, there was criticism of the ICJ for using the wording plausible genocide when many people would rely on that to accuse Israel of genocide without a full ruling.