“At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales said. He added that a “neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: ‘Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.’” Currently, the article bases its position that a genocide exists on conclusions from United Nations investigations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and “multiple human rights groups,” among others.
Hey Jimmy, people who are committing genocide denying that they are committing genocide doesn’t make it highly contested.
Yeah. But also people who are not are contesting it somewhat. E.g. brit government.
The UK started the fucking genocide by giving away land that was not theirs to an entire religion/ethnic group who hadn’t been more than a minority in the region in all of recorded history.
Everyone denying the genocide is complicit or bought.
You are mental.
The UK did not redistribute land to Jerusalem this millennium. Claiming borders and deeds of old to justify (military) action is a book out of a warmongers playbook.
What does the turning of the millennium have to do with it? We’re still talking within a single person’s lifetime…
The active current genocide started in 23. The UK did not redraw borders to trigger it. It was triggered by a terror attack. Some have considered the attack inevitable due to continued oppression and border fences. Public opinion in Israel also does not appear to be influenced by the British.
let’s start with the easy one: this is completely irrelevant. public opinion is largely worthless and means nothing.
it started in the 1940s, arguably earlier.
the very first thing that happened in the region was Palestinians being expelled from their own land in order to make way for the zionist regime.
that’s how Palestinian oppression started, and it’s the reason the situation got so bad in the first place.
it got much, much worse in '23, but that’s not the start at all.
no, it was the other way around; ongoing genocide triggered the terrorist attack.
and more importantly:
is this supposed to mean that genocide can be justified? is that what you’re saying?
gee, i wonder how that oppression started in the first place… certainly couldn’t have been the british! they’d never meddle in the middle east for colonialist reasons!
well…except in afghanistan…and iraq…and syria…and egypt…wait, how long is this list anyway?
could the british empire be responsible for most of the clusterfuck that is the current middle east, by having drawn completely arbitrary lines on maps more than a century ago, which were deliberately designed to fence in diverse ethnic communities, with the explicit goal of suppressing the local populations by putting them in a constant state of unresolvable armed conflict in order to ensure instability in the region and as a result keeping education and living standards low, thus guaranteeing cheap oil for the foreseeable future by making it trivial to install dictatorships across the region?
…are you for fucking real?
(hawara, du saufst den lack aber auch im liter pack…)
The current invasion of Gaza was preceded by relative peace. You not liking Israel has been made to exist is fine. Does not change the facts, that Jewish people live in in Israel, policy changed substantially at that point, and so did public opinion in Israel.
A trigger is not a justification. A trigger does not justify genocide. A trigger is just a trigger. You read too much between the lines. Sometimes a sunrise is just a sunrise.