Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Analysis section

Now that the Court has ruled on provisional measures, I think we need to take a hard look at the "analysis" section and see what can be trimmed and how it might be reorganized. I have a couple of ideas:

1) create subsections for "initial analysis" and "analysis following provisional measures";

2) group the analysis by viewpoint (i.e. whether the analyst in question does or does not view the claim(s) as meritorious) with a separate section for procedural commentary that does not opine on the merits;

3) simply cut down earlier analysis that was essentially conjecture on how the court would rule on the threshold question/provisional measures, without changing the structure of the section.

I think it would be worth getting consensus on an agreeable plan of action rather than making big cuts or drastic reordering on an ad hoc basis. WillowCity^(talk) 15:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Also @Selfstudier wondering why you deleted Pezzano's comments from the Analysis section? Not necessarily opposed, just confirming it was deliberate. WillowCity^(talk) 23:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I kept the ref (a blog) at the recently added "Third states material". Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Links missing

Someone messed up all the links for the countries, now it's just plain text. Could someone fix them? Thanks in advance.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Idk, in some ways I prefer it like it is, not as if most people don't know the names of the countries. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it would be nice if we could include both the flags and the links while keeping the names. Like, something along those lines:

Algeria

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding a map of stances

I have made a map of the countries that support Israel or South Africa, could we add it to the article?

GlebRyabov (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov Do you have sources for the info on the map? Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't clarify enough. I took the data from right here, so that part's sources are mine, too. Dark blue is Israel, blue is supportive of Israel (the US and Guatemala both backed it), dark green is South Africa, green is pro-South Africa countries, light green is every country that didn't back up South Africa on its own, but is a part of the Arab League and Othe IC that supported it. I'm actually adding the legend right now, sorry for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention)#States_and_international_organizations

GlebRyabov (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

GlebRyabov (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you add the United Kingdom in blue as well? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Done! I removed Canada for a while, and added the UK.

GlebRyabov (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov 🦘🐪 We do NOT support team Nakbah, which Aussie allegedly said that? Our foreign minister is usually pretty good, but I'm a bit pessimistic about Albo. 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would be good if we could get it into the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added the map since there does not seem to be opposition to including it here. It's a very nice effort, thanks for making this. WillowCity^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The map was removed by @Semsûrî:, saying This map is unsourced and includes countries not mention in this article (like Albania). Sources in the article can be copied to the file page, but I don't understand the comment about Albania. The legend clearly states Member countries of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, both of which have supported South Africa, and Albania is a member of the OIC. Betseg (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we left organizations like the OIC and the Arab League off the map; my understanding is that while this is the position of the organization it is not necessarily the position of the member states of the organization. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not that bothered about having a map, everyone knows that it is essentially Arab/Global South versus the West, with Russia/China playing geopolitics. We can say it in prose and that's good enough. Not that I object to a map but if there objections... Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I added the map but it was on the assumption that it wasn't opposed. I don't feel strongly about inclusion, but I think the map (through its legend and the different shading) is clear enough that countries like Albania and Mozambique haven't taken a stance themselves (yet), but are affiliated with IGOs that have taken a stance. I think it makes the article "prettier", but we're here to inform, not to beautify. WillowCity^(talk) 17:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It does more than beautify in my opinion - Visual learning.

@Selfstudier, I don't think it's so obvious that "everyone knows that it is essentially Arab/Global South versus the West".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What I meant is we can source that, for example, Genocide case against Israel: Where does the rest of the world stand on allegations? Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My issue with Albania was the lack of explicit mention. Now we also have Tunisia whose stance diverges from the stance of the Arab League.[1] Removing the OIC and the Arab League would probably be a good move. On another note, can you use a map that does not detach territories and regions from the "main country" - for example many of the small dots in the map are UK territories and should be colored the same as it. When I work with maps, I usually use this one template making the more accurate and simplier. Semsûrî (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it's also missing a lot of US islands, including Guam and Puerto Rico. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Semsûrî and BilledMammal: about territories, I assume the map was created using File:BlankMap-World.svg, which is the de facto default base map for all Wikimedia projects, but which doesn't include most of the territories of the USA and the UK in the group. Can't color all the territories with the bucket tool, they would have to be colored in one by one. Betseg (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I've added a bunch of pro-Israeli countries and removed the League and the OIC ones, so it should be all good.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

what do you mean by "pro-Israeli"? If you mean that they have not explicitly opposed the case but merely generally support Israel, that wouldn't be sufficient to add them to the map as opposing the case. Paulduffill (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic for this section but this seems the most on-topic place for this comment: But assuming the sources are valid I appreciated whoever it was who added, and added to, the section of opposing countries in the text (as well as the map), and agree we should have an equivalent for "Movements, parties, and unions" when they can be found. Paulduffill (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've kept the light blue countries on the map to the list provided in the article, so the article's sources are my own, too. So far, I'm confident that the US, the UK, Germany, Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Guatemala and Paraguay should be definitely included, since the article lists them, backs it up with a source and there is a consensus on those countries backing Israel. Those ones are on the current revision of the map, and I will add three countries added since I last edited the map (so Canada, Italy and Ireland) once there's a consensus, too. So, for example, Croatia has been really supportive of Israel in general, but it has not spoken up on the South Africa's case, so I'm not adding it yet (and maybe ever, who knows).

GlebRyabov (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Paulduffill (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If the map is well sourced and was only removed because "This map is unsourced", then it should be restored. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I kinda agree, adding the Arab League and the OIC members was a bit of a reach. I changed it to bring it into the line with the listed countries.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question of, whether OIC members should be added or not (not just to the map but also the list of supporters) would depend on how the OIC came to its decision to support the South African case: assuming it was a voted decision then that would be either (see Article 33 of their Charter: https://www.oic-oci.org/upload/documents/charter/en/oic_charter_2018_en.pdf which is linked in the "Documents" menu at the top of: https://www.oic-oci.org/home/?lan=en ) by consensus (in which case I think all OIC members should be added as they have all actually publicly shown their support for it: I think it's too unlikely countries were absent from this kind of high-profile vote unless there is a reliable source that says they were absent) or two-third majority (in which case we'd need a list or report of how each country voted in order to add them). Unfortunately I can't find any official sources (in English) about which method was used to make the decision (the only documents that mention support that I could find are: https://www.oic-oci.org/topic/?t_id=40161&t_ref=26840&lan=en and https://www.oic-oci.org/topic/?t_id=40224&t_ref=26858&lan=en) and I can't find any news reports with that info either. Perhaps someone with Arabic language skills could see if they can find the info? Paulduffill (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a group of Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors that we could ping in order to ask them if one of them could look into this? Paulduffill (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of the Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors. I can confirm the addition of the OIC as it is considered the collective voice of the Islamic world as mentioned in this reference. Therefore, I suggest re-adding OIC/ Arab League countries to the map. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for finding that! I'm still uncertain how the OIC reached that decision. For example, when the EU makes a collective statement on foreign politics, all the member states have to support it. If this principle is the same for the OIC, I would like to see a source stating that: for example, I'm not really sure that Albania would have joined the unanimity. Or, alternatively, if the decision was made with a majority voting, a list of yays and nays would have been enough.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've realied this OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) also relates to the other intergovernmental orgaisations' support (currently: Arab League and Non-Aligned Movement). I totally agree with @GlebRyabov and think their comments apply to all intergovernmental orgaisations' support. And yes thank you to @Freedom's Falcon for your attention on the OIC support. If the OIC "is considered the collective voice of the Islamic world", as @Freedom's Falcon states, it seems less likely that individual Islamic countries would publish their own support for the case since they have already "spoken" through the OIC statement. @Freedom's Falcon, or another Arabic speaker, can you find a reliable source in Arabic (or another language) stating how this decision of support was made by the OIC, and if not unanimous, a source that lists the yays and nays? As @GlebRyabov concurs that will then allow us to add each specific individual country as supporting or not having show support. If @Freedom's Falcon cannot find it or can't spend time looking for it, is there a way to ping a group of Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors? The only group I've been able to find is Taghreedat#Arabic Wikipedia Editors Program but I don't know how to ping them or other Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors. And we need to do the same for the other intergovernmental orgaisations' support (currently: Arab League and Non-Aligned Movement) Paulduffill (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov The Canadian government's stance is closer to neutral than pro-Israel (unlike the United States, for example). Also, relying on a tweet by the Czech Republic PM is not enough to include Austria on the map. Therefore, please change the status of Canada and Austria on the map, as they remain neutral. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done!

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov Thanks! The map still needs to be updated. Algeria and Zimbabwe are pro-South Africa. Also, Are you sure that the Australian stance is pro-Israel? It is very similar to the Canadian one. Please check this reference. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added Zimbabwe, but I don't have a source for Algeria just yet. It seems quite reasonable that a Muslim African country would back South Africa, but I have not seen anything to confirm it. If you could find it, that would be nice.

As for Aussie stance, I have two sources, both paywalled, stating that their Foreign Minister opposes the claims of a genocide. It would be good if someone with a subscription could read the full articles, though.

• https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/albanese-ducks-taking-a-stand-on-israeli-genocide-court-case-20240116-p5exlk
• https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/penny-wong-unveils-21m-in-gaza-aid/news-story/04a09d19e2f37cd893a7307cef546358

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a reference stating that Algeria's stance is against Israel. I suggest not adding Australia until you are sure of its stance. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov In addition to Algeria, please add Belgium as a pro-South Africa. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That source is quite literally RT, Russia Today, the key part of Putin's genocidal propaganda. It is also a deprecated source (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources), so I will *not* add anything backed by RT. If you want Algeria to be added onto the map, please find a different source, I will wait for the consensus and add it myself. Regarding Belgium, its stance has been listed separately on the article, and I'm not supportive of its addition just yet. I'm going to revert your change to the map, and I'm going to add Algeria separately once it is listed on the main article.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is this your personal opinion or a Wikipedia policy not to cite Russian sources? Please listen to the speech of the Algerian Foreign Minister, which was referred to in the source, as he spoke about his country’s official position on the lawsuit. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am Russian myself, and I do not have anything against Russian sources. However, RT is officially prohibited on Wikipedia. I'm convinced on Algeria, though, thank you for a reliable source. I'm not sure about Belgium, though. The Deputy PM and the Development Minister did speak out against Israel and German support of Israel, but the PM and the Foreign Minister didn't agree with the Development Minister. Belgium has been routinely ruled by wide governments made up of many parties (the four government members cited are all from different parties, for one example), so it's reasonable that the stance can diverge. Thank you for adding Algeria, I'll use your source to ask for Algeria to be added.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, Please have a look at this official source of Algeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating the minster's entire speech in points (namely #8). Freedom's Falcon (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GlebRyabov, Please take into consideration that many countries changed their stances from neutrality to pro-South Africa after the ICJ decision against Israel on Friday 26/1/2024. The countries are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Spain, Oman, and the EU. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

European Union and other intergovernmental organisations (currently Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and Non-Aligned Movement) and their member countries' support

European Union: With the EU's statement (joint statement by the head the EU's exective, and the EU's foreign minisiter) on January 26 2024 "We take note of today's order of the International Court of Justice on South Africa's request for the indication of provisional measures. The EU reaffirms its continuing support to the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the Parties and they must comply with them. The EU expects their full, immediate and effective implementation" [emphasis added by me] ( https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_24_465 ) this seems to show that the EU's position is now "support", whereas it is currently listed in the article as "neutral". I can see how its earlier source cited in the article (and other like this: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/01/12/where-do-eu-countries-stand-on-south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel) would have justified it being "neutral" but now it seems to be showing explicit support for the case. And as other editors have occasionally forgotten: remember the "support" section does not indicate support for South Africa's position (which the court did not completely support in its judgement) but just support for the case itself being judged by the ICJ (see for example the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch entries). Also, given that the EU make decisions only be consensus (see the Treaty on European Union here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M/TXT) this would also seem to mean that each of the EU countries should be added as individual supporters of the case. Paulduffill (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

They are supporting the ICJ itself and saying its orders should be complied with, not supporting South Africa's case. You can support the ICJ itself without implicitly supporting every case any party ever brings to it, of course. Endwise (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read the section of my comment above yours that says "And as other editors have occasionally forgotten:...". And if it still unclear please read the full statement. You'll see that your claim "You can support the ICJ itself without implicitly supporting every case any party ever brings to it" is not correct. Your claim could only be stretched to be correct in only these instances:

(1) the EU only supports the general vague idea of something like the ICJ (and not necessarily the actual ICJ) and decides on a case-by-case basis if each case brought to a court like the ICJ should be brought, which the EU has not said. The absence of that leaves only two possibilities for your claim:

(2) a statement is made showing a particular case is an exception to their usual support for the ICJ, which the EU has not said

(3) or their previous position ("This is not for us to comment at all." ) which although logically inconsistent with their support for the ICJ did indicate a lack of support for this particular case, which the EU has changed with their new statement

Thus the EU statement clearly shows that:

(1) They support all ICJ orders

(2) South Africa's case is not an exception to this and falls within the realm of this

(3) They support South Africa's case (but don't necessarily support South Africa's position - see the last paragraph - but that is not the topic of this article section we are discussing.

And range of media organisations are reporting the EU supports the ICJ order from this case (eg: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-world-court-ruling-focuses-attack-south-gaza-2024-01-26/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-urges-implementation-of-icj-ruling-s-africa-hamas-turkey-welcome-decision/ https://news.yahoo.com/eu-demands-israel-abides-icj-201211668.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/26/live-icj-to-issue-preliminary-ruling-in-south-africa-genocide-case-against-i https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/eu-says-it-expects-from-israel-full-immediate-effective-implementation-of-icj-ruling/3120070) Paul Duffill (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Other intergovernmental organisations (currently Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and Non-Aligned Movement): (Pings for people who were following this in previous thread mentioned below: @Freedom's Falcon: @GlebRyabov:)

Within the topic Talk:South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)#Adding a map of stances I started a thread on this starting with: "It seems to me that the question of, whether OIC members should be added or not (not just to the map but also the list of supporters)..." but I've realied that because it goes beyond the issue of the map so that thread should be in this new secton I just created. To avoid just duplicating a whole lot of exisitng text, first please see that thread below ("It seems to me that the question of, whether OIC members should be added or not (not just to the map but also the list of supporters)..."). Paul Duffill (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The answert to the question of adding each individual Non-Aligned Movement country seems a pretty straight-forward "Yes": as this article states (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/21/israels-war-on-gaza-live-deadly-israeli-attacks-across-gaza?update=2637040) it supports the case being brought. And we have the other ingredient of knowing how this decision was made: the Non-Aligned Movement makes decisions by consensus (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement). It doesn't have a formal constitution (and seemingly no permanent web site) so I'm using the https://www.britannica.com source. Paulduffill (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The answer to the question of adding each individual Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) country hinges on us finding out how this decision has been made (was it consensus and if not what is list of countries that voted "yay" and "nay"). I can't find anything on English on this and my reading of the OIC Constitution (English version) seems to indicates that the vote could have been either by a majority or unanimously. And so I ask that an Arabic (the official language of the OIC) speaker check this. @Freedom's Falcon has begun to look at this has but not answered this question yet. Paulduffill (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Arab League seems to be the exact same situation as the OIC and so I ask that an Arabic (the official language of the Arab League) speaker check this. Paulduffill (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Weaselly and metaphoric media titles

We use the mainstream news media as sources of information, but without using WP:WEASELly language or metaphors from the WP:RS unless they are notable enough to be quoted. I did this edit to the lead because the metaphor of a running race in which the ICJ stopped short seems to be very popular in the English-language mainstream media, but it's a metaphor, not a factual description. As far as I know we don't have any sources explaining in what sense the ICJ ruling has a "start" and an "end". Boud (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Analysis section

Now that the Court has ruled on provisional measures, I think we need to take a hard look at the "analysis" section and see what can be trimmed and how it might be reorganized. I have a couple of ideas:

1) create subsections for "initial analysis" and "analysis following provisional measures";

2) group the analysis by viewpoint (i.e. whether the analyst in question does or does not view the claim(s) as meritorious) with a separate section for procedural commentary that does not opine on the merits;

3) simply cut down earlier analysis that was essentially conjecture on how the court would rule on the threshold question/provisional measures, without changing the structure of the section.

I think it would be worth getting consensus on an agreeable plan of action rather than making big cuts or drastic reordering on an ad hoc basis. WillowCity^(talk) 15:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Also @Selfstudier wondering why you deleted Pezzano's comments from the Analysis section? Not necessarily opposed, just confirming it was deliberate. WillowCity^(talk) 23:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I kept the ref (a blog) at the recently added "Third states material". Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Links missing

Someone messed up all the links for the countries, now it's just plain text. Could someone fix them? Thanks in advance.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Idk, in some ways I prefer it like it is, not as if most people don't know the names of the countries. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it would be nice if we could include both the flags and the links while keeping the names. Like, something along those lines:

Algeria

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding a map of stances

I have made a map of the countries that support Israel or South Africa, could we add it to the article?

GlebRyabov (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov Do you have sources for the info on the map? Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't clarify enough. I took the data from right here, so that part's sources are mine, too. Dark blue is Israel, blue is supportive of Israel (the US and Guatemala both backed it), dark green is South Africa, green is pro-South Africa countries, light green is every country that didn't back up South Africa on its own, but is a part of the Arab League and Othe IC that supported it. I'm actually adding the legend right now, sorry for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention)#States_and_international_organizations

GlebRyabov (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

GlebRyabov (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you add the United Kingdom in blue as well? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Done! I removed Canada for a while, and added the UK.

GlebRyabov (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov 🦘🐪 We do NOT support team Nakbah, which Aussie allegedly said that? Our foreign minister is usually pretty good, but I'm a bit pessimistic about Albo. 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would be good if we could get it into the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added the map since there does not seem to be opposition to including it here. It's a very nice effort, thanks for making this. WillowCity^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The map was removed by @Semsûrî:, saying This map is unsourced and includes countries not mention in this article (like Albania). Sources in the article can be copied to the file page, but I don't understand the comment about Albania. The legend clearly states Member countries of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, both of which have supported South Africa, and Albania is a member of the OIC. Betseg (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we left organizations like the OIC and the Arab League off the map; my understanding is that while this is the position of the organization it is not necessarily the position of the member states of the organization. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not that bothered about having a map, everyone knows that it is essentially Arab/Global South versus the West, with Russia/China playing geopolitics. We can say it in prose and that's good enough. Not that I object to a map but if there objections... Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I added the map but it was on the assumption that it wasn't opposed. I don't feel strongly about inclusion, but I think the map (through its legend and the different shading) is clear enough that countries like Albania and Mozambique haven't taken a stance themselves (yet), but are affiliated with IGOs that have taken a stance. I think it makes the article "prettier", but we're here to inform, not to beautify. WillowCity^(talk) 17:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It does more than beautify in my opinion - Visual learning.

@Selfstudier, I don't think it's so obvious that "everyone knows that it is essentially Arab/Global South versus the West".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What I meant is we can source that, for example, Genocide case against Israel: Where does the rest of the world stand on allegations? Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My issue with Albania was the lack of explicit mention. Now we also have Tunisia whose stance diverges from the stance of the Arab League.[2] Removing the OIC and the Arab League would probably be a good move. On another note, can you use a map that does not detach territories and regions from the "main country" - for example many of the small dots in the map are UK territories and should be colored the same as it. When I work with maps, I usually use this one template making the more accurate and simplier. Semsûrî (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it's also missing a lot of US islands, including Guam and Puerto Rico. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Semsûrî and BilledMammal: about territories, I assume the map was created using File:BlankMap-World.svg, which is the de facto default base map for all Wikimedia projects, but which doesn't include most of the territories of the USA and the UK in the group. Can't color all the territories with the bucket tool, they would have to be colored in one by one. Betseg (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I've added a bunch of pro-Israeli countries and removed the League and the OIC ones, so it should be all good.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

what do you mean by "pro-Israeli"? If you mean that they have not explicitly opposed the case but merely generally support Israel, that wouldn't be sufficient to add them to the map as opposing the case. Paulduffill (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic for this section but this seems the most on-topic place for this comment: But assuming the sources are valid I appreciated whoever it was who added, and added to, the section of opposing countries in the text (as well as the map), and agree we should have an equivalent for "Movements, parties, and unions" when they can be found. Paulduffill (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've kept the light blue countries on the map to the list provided in the article, so the article's sources are my own, too. So far, I'm confident that the US, the UK, Germany, Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Guatemala and Paraguay should be definitely included, since the article lists them, backs it up with a source and there is a consensus on those countries backing Israel. Those ones are on the current revision of the map, and I will add three countries added since I last edited the map (so Canada, Italy and Ireland) once there's a consensus, too. So, for example, Croatia has been really supportive of Israel in general, but it has not spoken up on the South Africa's case, so I'm not adding it yet (and maybe ever, who knows).

GlebRyabov (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Paulduffill (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If the map is well sourced and was only removed because "This map is unsourced", then it should be restored. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I kinda agree, adding the Arab League and the OIC members was a bit of a reach. I changed it to bring it into the line with the listed countries.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question of, whether OIC members should be added or not (not just to the map but also the list of supporters) would depend on how the OIC came to its decision to support the South African case: assuming it was a voted decision then that would be either (see Article 33 of their Charter: https://www.oic-oci.org/upload/documents/charter/en/oic_charter_2018_en.pdf which is linked in the "Documents" menu at the top of: https://www.oic-oci.org/home/?lan=en ) by consensus (in which case I think all OIC members should be added as they have all actually publicly shown their support for it: I think it's too unlikely countries were absent from this kind of high-profile vote unless there is a reliable source that says they were absent) or two-third majority (in which case we'd need a list or report of how each country voted in order to add them). Unfortunately I can't find any official sources (in English) about which method was used to make the decision (the only documents that mention support that I could find are: https://www.oic-oci.org/topic/?t_id=40161&t_ref=26840&lan=en and https://www.oic-oci.org/topic/?t_id=40224&t_ref=26858&lan=en) and I can't find any news reports with that info either. Perhaps someone with Arabic language skills could see if they can find the info? Paulduffill (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a group of Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors that we could ping in order to ask them if one of them could look into this? Paulduffill (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of the Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors. I can confirm the addition of the OIC as it is considered the collective voice of the Islamic world as mentioned in this reference. Therefore, I suggest re-adding OIC/ Arab League countries to the map. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for finding that! I'm still uncertain how the OIC reached that decision. For example, when the EU makes a collective statement on foreign politics, all the member states have to support it. If this principle is the same for the OIC, I would like to see a source stating that: for example, I'm not really sure that Albania would have joined the unanimity. Or, alternatively, if the decision was made with a majority voting, a list of yays and nays would have been enough.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've realied this OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) also relates to the other intergovernmental orgaisations' support (currently: Arab League and Non-Aligned Movement). I totally agree with @GlebRyabov and think their comments apply to all intergovernmental orgaisations' support. And yes thank you to @Freedom's Falcon for your attention on the OIC support. If the OIC "is considered the collective voice of the Islamic world", as @Freedom's Falcon states, it seems less likely that individual Islamic countries would publish their own support for the case since they have already "spoken" through the OIC statement. @Freedom's Falcon, or another Arabic speaker, can you find a reliable source in Arabic (or another language) stating how this decision of support was made by the OIC, and if not unanimous, a source that lists the yays and nays? As @GlebRyabov concurs that will then allow us to add each specific individual country as supporting or not having show support. If @Freedom's Falcon cannot find it or can't spend time looking for it, is there a way to ping a group of Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors? The only group I've been able to find is Taghreedat#Arabic Wikipedia Editors Program but I don't know how to ping them or other Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors. And we need to do the same for the other intergovernmental orgaisations' support (currently: Arab League and Non-Aligned Movement) Paulduffill (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov The Canadian government's stance is closer to neutral than pro-Israel (unlike the United States, for example). Also, relying on a tweet by the Czech Republic PM is not enough to include Austria on the map. Therefore, please change the status of Canada and Austria on the map, as they remain neutral. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done!

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov Thanks! The map still needs to be updated. Algeria and Zimbabwe are pro-South Africa. Also, Are you sure that the Australian stance is pro-Israel? It is very similar to the Canadian one. Please check this reference. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added Zimbabwe, but I don't have a source for Algeria just yet. It seems quite reasonable that a Muslim African country would back South Africa, but I have not seen anything to confirm it. If you could find it, that would be nice.

As for Aussie stance, I have two sources, both paywalled, stating that their Foreign Minister opposes the claims of a genocide. It would be good if someone with a subscription could read the full articles, though.

• https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/albanese-ducks-taking-a-stand-on-israeli-genocide-court-case-20240116-p5exlk
• https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/penny-wong-unveils-21m-in-gaza-aid/news-story/04a09d19e2f37cd893a7307cef546358

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a reference stating that Algeria's stance is against Israel. I suggest not adding Australia until you are sure of its stance. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov In addition to Algeria, please add Belgium as a pro-South Africa. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That source is quite literally RT, Russia Today, the key part of Putin's genocidal propaganda. It is also a deprecated source (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources), so I will *not* add anything backed by RT. If you want Algeria to be added onto the map, please find a different source, I will wait for the consensus and add it myself. Regarding Belgium, its stance has been listed separately on the article, and I'm not supportive of its addition just yet. I'm going to revert your change to the map, and I'm going to add Algeria separately once it is listed on the main article.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is this your personal opinion or a Wikipedia policy not to cite Russian sources? Please listen to the speech of the Algerian Foreign Minister, which was referred to in the source, as he spoke about his country’s official position on the lawsuit. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am Russian myself, and I do not have anything against Russian sources. However, RT is officially prohibited on Wikipedia. I'm convinced on Algeria, though, thank you for a reliable source. I'm not sure about Belgium, though. The Deputy PM and the Development Minister did speak out against Israel and German support of Israel, but the PM and the Foreign Minister didn't agree with the Development Minister. Belgium has been routinely ruled by wide governments made up of many parties (the four government members cited are all from different parties, for one example), so it's reasonable that the stance can diverge. Thank you for adding Algeria, I'll use your source to ask for Algeria to be added.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, Please have a look at this official source of Algeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating the minster's entire speech in points (namely #8). Freedom's Falcon (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GlebRyabov, Please take into consideration that many countries changed their stances from neutrality to pro-South Africa after the ICJ decision against Israel on Friday 26/1/2024. The countries are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Spain, Oman, and the EU. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Weaselly and metaphoric media titles

We use the mainstream news media as sources of information, but without using WP:WEASELly language or metaphors from the WP:RS unless they are notable enough to be quoted. I did this edit to the lead because the metaphor of a running race in which the ICJ stopped short seems to be very popular in the English-language mainstream media, but it's a metaphor, not a factual description. As far as I know we don't have any sources explaining in what sense the ICJ ruling has a "start" and an "end". Boud (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight in lead given to Israel

The second paragraph of the lead ends with a sentence describing Israel's criticism of the case against it: "Israel's Foreign Ministry characterized South Africa's charges as "baseless" and further described South Africa as "functioning as the legal arm" of Hamas." This would be more appropriate in the third paragraph, which already offers a lengthy and detailed description Israel's arguments in this case.

Overall, the lead right now gives undue weight to Israel's position and does a poor job of adequately explaining South Africa's. There's no explanation offered for why South Africa has alleged Israel has been engaging in "genocide" since the October 7 attack. The lead only refers to the "broader context" of apartheid, occupation, and blockade and what South Africa has requested the court do, but nothing is offered to explain why South Africa would allege Israel is engaging in genocide. --WilliamTravis (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I did the shift of the Israel's Foreign Ministry ... case sentence from the 2nd to the 3rd paragraph, since otherwise the lead looks weird thematically. (I also shifted the sentence about what the Court did not do to a position after the sentences stating what it did do; without a strong justification, it's more natural to say first what the Court did rather than what it didn't do.)

Whether the current status of the lead counts as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE, the legal opinion of there being sufficient evidence to justify provisional measures to prevent genocide is the overwhelming majority decision. The ICJ's decisions were almost unanimous, whether or not the ad hoc Israeli and South African judges' positions are removed from the count as being biased in favour of the states that appointed them: about 80-95% depending on how we count and depending on which measure we consider. While we cannot require numerically matching these proportions, having the majority of the lead present South Africa's arguments and a small minority of the lead represent the Israeli response would be better in proportion to the POV of the most reliable sources: the ICJ judges.

Of course, the body of the article should also follow WP:DUE, but better separate the two issues - editing the lead is more tightly constrained than editing the body. Boud (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Edit to include the below material was reverted with cryptic edit summary "Link to this case is unclear". Since it refers to a US judge using the phrase "it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide" it seems it should go in the article somewhere.

Thoughts?

"The case Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al was dismissed on 31 January 2024. The judge said that the constitution limited his actions, that he would have preferred to have issued the injunction and urged President Biden to rethink U.S. policy, writing "it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide.""

References

Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. How about we just put a link to Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al in the "See also" section? I know that might seem limited, but I think its the best idea, as it IS related in that the case is about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. On the other hand, South Africa's case is distinct on its own. I would actually be willing to update the "Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al" page if I have time. Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I would actually be willing to update the "Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al" page if I have time. Already done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems the US position on this case is not very well covered in the article, just in the opposition list with a cite and nothing more, maybe that should be expanded and this covered in that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a general article about Israel's actions possibly constituting genocide (which would be Palestinian genocide accusation). It is an article about a specific ICJ case. The US judge referring generally to genocide doesn't link that article to this article. Ergo, I see no reason why this article should include coverage of the US case. Even a See Also mention seems dubious. The section in this article on the US position should be specific to US reaction to this case, not to the general charge. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war#CCR lawsuit against Joe Biden is another similar case and this The Legal Case Against Joe Biden for Enabling Israel’s Genocide Against Gaza specifically links it to this case. Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The same case, by the look of it Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, they are both cases about the Palestinian genocide accusation (which is all The Intercept people are saying), but the judge in Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al didn't refer to this particular case (as far as I know). There are better ways of linking all these cases together, like the Palestinian genocide accusation and War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war articles. There's no specific link between Defense for Children and this case. There's no need to spam every article with links to in Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There are better ways of linking all these cases together, like the Palestinian genocide accusation and War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war articles Already linked there.

OK, leave as a see also ftb, the cases are obviously related to each other and therefore not spam. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree. The cases are undoubtedly related to one another. Historyday01 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The standard for plausibility is a "very low threshold"?

Most sources I have read say the plausibility threshold is “low”, but not “very low”. An editor has added and readded the “very low” wording, with one source. I think this should be explictly attributed, and other balancing views added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It is low only compared to the threshold for proving genocide is the main thing in sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is correct. More accurately it is "comparatively" or "relatively" low. It doesn't require proof on a balance of probabilities, but there is still an evidentiary burden on the claimant—which the court concluded was satisfied in this case. WillowCity^(talk) 15:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a provisional ruling, not a ruling on merits of the case. It is also incorrect to say that the plausibility is related to genocide intent. For example, Judge Nolte did not find intent plausible, but found incitement plausible. Drsmoo (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In a declaration, not in the Order of the Court. If other judges felt similarly they could have penned similar declarations, and if a majority was of that view, it would have been reflected in the Order. But it wasn't. In fact, the Order itself states (at para. 30) that at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention. (emphasis added). It is a finding of plausibility in respect of Israel's conduct, which a greater or lesser majority viewed as plausibly coming within the Convention's ambit. WillowCity^(talk) 19:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There’s no incongruence between Judge Nolte’s declaration and the order. “at least some” is not intent, and there was no mention of which acts are plausible. Drsmoo (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're incongruent (if they were, it would be a dissent or a separate opinion, not a declaration), I'm saying that the fact that one judge takes a narrower view of the Order is not indicative of what the Court actually decided. If a majority of the Court ascribed to the narrower view it could be expected to say so clearly in its Order. It did not. WillowCity^(talk) 20:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

E.g. Opinio Juris, "... South Africa only had to prove that the rights for which it was seeking protection were plausible (the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocidal acts). This was a relatively low threshold for South Africa..." WillowCity^(talk) 15:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: regarding your writing of the following sentence in the article: The plausibility threshold has been described as "relatively low", "very low", and "exceedingly low". With two out of three suggesting it is very/exceedingly low, this looks POV and inconsistent with the preponderance of sources. Dozens of sources have written on this question; the discussion above is where the consensus interpretation currently stands. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s widely attested in reliable sources that the evidentiary standard is very low, exceedingly low, much lower, etc. One of the judges in the case said the standard is lower. This is not an opinion attributable to commentators, it’s a legal fact. Drsmoo (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's legal analysis. Which requires RS. WillowCity^(talk) 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Which is provided. Drsmoo (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No one is disputing the low bar, just that it only low in comparison to a very high bar (proving genocide). It doesn't imply/mean that the ruling is inconsequential or lacks punch. In fact many sources say the contrary, the fact that the naughty schoolboy has to report back in a month tells all. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that is the view of some commentators, there was no determination of naughtiness aside from Hamas being ordered to release all hostages unconditionally. Drsmoo (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Most commentators said it is "low" relative to the bar for actually proving genocide, which is correct. Cherrypicking every commentator who added an adverb ahead of "low" and listing them all in a row is patently POV. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The version of the article you’re describing was active for 10 minutes and has been inactive for over an hour. Why are you still talking about it? Many sources have emphasized the lowness of the standard, including outside of this case. Drsmoo (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, the claim of cherry picking is demonstrably very false. Drsmoo (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please demonstrate it then? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

To confirm, you’d like me to demonstrate additional commentators who placed an adverb ahead of “low”? What about commentators who say South Africa went to the ICJ because of the low standard of plausibility? Drsmoo (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You said you can demonstrate that the claim of cherry picking is very false. Following the definition from our article cherry picking, you would need to demonstrate that you have not ignored a significant portion of commentators who did not use such adverbs. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You said that I cherry picked every commentator who added an adverb ahead of low and listed them all in a row. That is very demonstrably false. Before going into detail though, are you interested in a discussion over whether A. The standard of plausibility is low in-and-of itself, as opposed to just in relation to a merit-based decision. B. Whether this standard is considered more than just simply "low"/"lower". Or a pedantic game about adverbs? Drsmoo (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, one week later this has still not been demonstrated at all. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That was blatantly obiter dicta, not only is it beyond the ICJ's jurisdiction to make such an order in the context of this case, it didn't do so, as reflected at the operative clause of its Order (para. 86 of the decision). "Calling for" something is not the same as ordering it. For example, I could call for you to refrain from cherrypicking, but I can't order you to. WillowCity^(talk) 21:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I will always refrain from cherry picking, no need to call, ask, or order. Drsmoo (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As you said they can’t make that order, but they called for Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally. Drsmoo (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Judge Barak's false 1200 civilians claim

- Judge Barak in his opinion, published by the ICJ, page 4, paragraph 18, claims that 1200 civilians were killed during the 7th of October attacks: "Overall, more than 1,200 innocent civilians ... were murdered on that day." [3]

- This is false, 766 [4] died out of a 1,139 as seen in the attack's article. (a similar ratio to civilian deaths caused by Israel in Gaza)

Would this be interesting for an edit request, or is out of scope for this article? Bowad91017 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ARBECR allows for filing edit requests only. Treating this as as such an edit request, not done, as this article is about the claim and the reporting on it.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm the only one not understanding this: what exactly is the edit request you are suggesting? I see that currently the article doesn't list this false claim from Judge Barak so presumably it's not a request for a correction (the falseness of his claim is also attested to here: https://www.haaretz.com/haaretz-explains/2023-10-19/ty-article-magazine/israels-dead-the-names-of-those-killed-in-hamas-massacres-and-the-israel-hamas-war/0000018b-325c-d450-a3af-7b5cf0210000)? So are your requesting to include the fact that Judge Barak made this false claim in the article as new content? It seems to me that by itself the only thing that might possibly make it notable enough to include would be that it is demonstrably a false statement by one of the judges in the ICJ's January 26 order but unless it uniquely stands out for some reason including it would seem to require a fact check of the whole of the ICJ's January 26 order? Paul Duffill (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

- "So are your requesting to include the fact that Judge Barak made this false claim in the article as new content?" yes, if it's notable enough. (which I do not know that's why I asked)

- Judge Barak's opinion spent a lot of time underlying IDFs morality and how they try to avoid civilian casualities. The strengh of such argument is strongly affected by the fact that both Israel and Hamas have the same civilian kill ratio according to Israel's numbers. Israeli military says 2 civilians killed for every militant is ‘tremendously positive’ ratio given Gaza combat challenges | CNN ( But adding this context to the mistake might be orginial analysis or fail neutrality rule, at least to my understanding).

- In introduction of page 7, of the full icj order, the court correctly stated 1200 persons killed 192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf (icj-cij.org) Judge Nolte says "more than 1000 israelis" but he doesn't specifically refer to civilians. But beyond checking for basic facts, I don't have expertise to help. Bowad91017 (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The recently removed section text

Hello.

Given that the recently removed section text seemed to raise some worthwhile points, am I allowed to quote the text in question here given that I do have extended confirmed editing rights, or is that against Wikipedia's rules? David A (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I see no problem with quoting the text as long as its authorship is attributed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. The Wikipedia member A248 recently posted the following text:

"The description of the case arguments outlined in the second and third paragraphs seems to be biased in favor of the defendant. The text introduces South Africa's arguments and mentions its request for provisional measures. Little detail about the charges themselves is included. By contrast, the third paragraph describes Israel's counter-arguments and summarizes their legal strategy.

The level of detail is remarkably different between these two paragraphs. The Palestinian death toll is not mentioned and the charge of "indiscriminate bombing" is never brought up. However, the text highlights specific Israeli points. One sentence reads "Israel points to [1], [2], and [3]," and the next one "While acknowledging [1], Israel attributes [1] to [2]." No comparable exposition is afforded to South Africa's legal charges. Instead, the South African charges are reduced to the basic accusation of genocide, the contextualization of the genocide, and the provisional measures requested. None of South Africa's supporting arguments are mentioned.

Besides the bias inherent in describing only the defendant's legal counterarguments, it also makes the article confusing. For example, the high number of civilian casualties and the charge of indiscriminate bombing is not mentioned with respect to South Africa's arguments. However, the Israeli apology is mentioned: "While acknowledging the high incidence of civilian casualties, Israel attributes them to Hamas and other militant groups using civilian infrastructure." This surely is confusing to readers. These couple of paragraphs mention Israel's counter-arguments without covering the accusations that prompted them.

Witness the sentence "Israel asserts compliance with international law and claims to facilitate humanitarian aid into the territory." The first point is straightforward, but the mention of the humanitarian aid raises questions. Who charged Israel of denying humanitarian aid? Why would Israel feel the need to make this claim? Better exposition and summary of the South African legal arguments would reduce this article's bias in its opening paragraphs and make the subject easier to understand for unfamiliar readers."

What do you all think? David A (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We have WP:ARBECR, to prevent unsourced forum type material from being posted by non EC editors, the same material being reposted by an EC editor doesn't improve it at all. Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, if reposting such texts is not allowed by the rules, feel free to remove this talk page section. David A (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am more interested in why you think we need to read it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The material is not off topic, restriction relates to editors, not to content. An EC editor is free to post any relevant material, whatever its source. Actually, I find the remarks quite constructive. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a source anywhere, just opinion. If an editor thinks that edits should be made based on this, that would be up to them. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it raises some good points about the lead detailing the defenses more than the accusations. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. As long as it is allowed by the rules, I think that we can talk about this then. David A (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)