this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
698 points (96.0% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2361 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On July 25, after a couple of months of debate, the Wikipedia entry "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" was changed to "Gaza genocide." This was done despite the fact that the International Court of Justice in the Hague has not made an official ruling on the matter, in the wake of South Africa's petition to the court alleging that Israel is committing or facilitating genocide in Gaza.

The Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal, which followed the Wikipedia discussion and vote, wrote that the editors who voted on this change claimed to be relying on an academic consensus based on statements of experts on genocide, human rights, human rights law and Holocaust historians.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

well i mean, most human rights orgs dont like war or people dying, so im not really sure why that's a surprise.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Designating something as a genocide is not a matter of opinion -- it's a legal definition.

[–] claudiop@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

An homicide is an homicide before the court case for it is done. Just because some words also have legal definitions it doesn't mean that they're incorrectly used before the judge concluded them and the guilty party.

Maybe easier to visualise with assault. Assault happened from the moment the aggression happened, not from the moment the aggressor got convicted of it

[–] suction@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Right, that’s why the ICJ exists

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

yup, and the court hasn't deliberated just yet, so there is no actual determination as to what's going on.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the NPR article itself quotes a block about how experts believe there is "grounds for genocidal acts to be committed" which is a bit of a far shoot from "experts believe there is active genocide" happening.

And just so we're on the same page here, i'm inclined to agree with the assessment that there is significant potential for genocide to occur in this environment. My problem is the explicit nature and totality of the usage of the term which i find to be irresponsible.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But they don't call all such events genocides.

they don't and that is true, but there is a relative predisposition there in that regard.