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.
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.
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.
Israeli asked the court to dismiss the case as not being genocide. The court refused, saying it's plausible and will look further.
So it's more likely than not to be genocide.
Have you ever been to a court? There are requests for full rulings, which can take monthes, and requests for express rulings before the full rulings, to avoid some catastrophe about to happen.
If the court waited monthes and years, it would be too late to prevent genocide.
If Israel doesn't want to be seen as an outlaw, it should comply to international law.
If Israel says that criticizing the government is anti-semitism, then:
Israel has to provide a definition of anti semitism. There are many, including one by the journal Times of Israel in 2022 in which it's argued that seeing Jews as equals is anti semitic. Israel also try to sell the definition of anti semitism to include any critics to the government of israel. So clearly some definitions are designed to let Israel do whatever it wants without being hold accountable.
Israel claims to be a democracy, but I don't know any democracy in which criticizing it's government is seen as something bad
According to State Theory, a State needs: a) a people b) a terrain c) a government. Those 3 entities are clearly separated, and being against a government doesn't mean being against it's people. There is also Jewish people outside Israel, thus Israel cannot claim to be their government and speak for all Jews.
protecting Jews in Nazi Germany was seen as Anti-German. So, if a government defines protecting other people as being against their own people, that's a bad sign about this government.
If Israel claims to be for the Jewish religion or Jewish race (non religious), it should accept that it is either a racist country or a theocratic country, and will be seen and treated accordingly.
You are joking, right?
See interviews with Israelis in YouTube and you will see they qre craving for killing all Palestinians, even before 2023
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.
If you see South Africa evidence on ICJ, there's plenty of proof there Israel (Neytaniahu and IDF highest commanders) has genocidal intent.
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.
I see. But ICJ said it's plausible genocide.
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.
Israeli asked the court to dismiss the case as not being genocide. The court refused, saying it's plausible and will look further.
So it's more likely than not to be genocide.
Have you ever been to a court? There are requests for full rulings, which can take monthes, and requests for express rulings before the full rulings, to avoid some catastrophe about to happen.
If the court waited monthes and years, it would be too late to prevent genocide.
If Israel doesn't want to be seen as an outlaw, it should comply to international law.
If Israel says that criticizing the government is anti-semitism, then:
Israel has to provide a definition of anti semitism. There are many, including one by the journal Times of Israel in 2022 in which it's argued that seeing Jews as equals is anti semitic. Israel also try to sell the definition of anti semitism to include any critics to the government of israel. So clearly some definitions are designed to let Israel do whatever it wants without being hold accountable.
Israel claims to be a democracy, but I don't know any democracy in which criticizing it's government is seen as something bad
According to State Theory, a State needs: a) a people b) a terrain c) a government. Those 3 entities are clearly separated, and being against a government doesn't mean being against it's people. There is also Jewish people outside Israel, thus Israel cannot claim to be their government and speak for all Jews.
protecting Jews in Nazi Germany was seen as Anti-German. So, if a government defines protecting other people as being against their own people, that's a bad sign about this government.
If Israel claims to be for the Jewish religion or Jewish race (non religious), it should accept that it is either a racist country or a theocratic country, and will be seen and treated accordingly.