Talk:Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 

Line 14: Line 14:

|image=[[File:Nuvola apps package editors.png|50px]]

|image=[[File:Nuvola apps package editors.png|50px]]

}}

}}

{{section sizes}}

== Lead ==

== Lead ==


Latest revision as of 14:17, 17 October 2025

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Currently, the Lead is focused on “that intent is affirmed by organization X, Y, Z” to Israeli officials, and Israeli journalists. This is necessary; however, I think it would be better to be a little bit more precise.

i.e., What specifically of these statements/actions are indicative of intent: e.g., statements that call for direct violence to destroy a protected group, dehumanizing that licenses destruction, operational doctrine prioritizing destruction over discrimination, patterns of conduct used to infer intent when statements are absent or disputed. Greensminded24 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good to me! Lewisguile (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change:

Diff:
{{Text diff

After : “Ayala Panievsky, a researcher at Molad, compared Israel’s Channel 14 to Radio Rwanda and believed they should be tried for incitement to genocide.[159]”

The reader needs the why, demonstrated through a concrete example; here is one :
12 Oct 2025 — On Channel 14’s “HaPatriotim,” host Yinon Magal cut off panelist Guy Meroz and said: “Let them [the Palestinians] go to hell. I have only one thing to say: destroy Amalek; we did our part—70,000 is fine”

source : https://www.ice.co.il/media/news/article/1086675

}}
JeanClaudeToussaint (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version