Wikipedia editors have added a section on “Palestine” to the “Genocide of indigenous peoples” Wikipedia article.
The article begins by stating that “the genocide of indigenous peoples, colonial genocide,[1] or settler genocide is the elimination of indigenous peoples as a part of the process of colonialism. According to certain genocide experts, including Raphael Lemkin – the Polish lawyer who coined the term genocide – colonization is intrinsically genocidal.” (Emphasis in the original.) The article does acknowledge that “the designation of specific events as genocidal is frequently controversial.” Under the “contemporary examples” section is a subsection dedicated to Palestine that states: “Throughout the extended Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the State of Israel has been accused by some scholars of committing a genocide against the Palestinians. Events such as the 1948 Nakba, the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, the blockade of the Gaza Strip (2007-present), and the 2014 Gaza War have been used as examples of evidence for a genocide committed by Israel. Some scholars, such as Raz Segal and Martin Shaw, consider there to be an ongoing genocide in Gaza taking place during the Israel-Hamas war, and the government of South Africa has instituted proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (South Africa v. Israel), alleging a violation of the Genocide Convention.[420]”
One editor told me: “There isn’t a fishing net in the world this wide to compare to the reach happening here. Genocide by whom against whom? The Nakba (running with one of its many roaming definitions) was a mass displacement event, not a major casualty event. As for Sabra and Shatila, Israel was not the principal aggressor … are we saying Lebanese Christians were genociding Palestinians now?”
“There isn’t a fishing net in the world this wide to compare to the reach happening here. Genocide by whom against whom?”
“It is made-up propaganda,” Middle East historian Asaf Romirowsky, who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for the Study of the Middle East and North Africa, told me about the Palestine subsection in the Wikipedia article, noting “the use of these trigger words of genocide and massacres … they are part of the Palestinian propaganda and what happens with them is that each of one of these trigger words connote an entire swath of history with no context. However, it generates an emotional response and the emotional response that has been amplified by the media and the propaganda ether that goes out there.”
He added that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has no jurisdiction over Israel. “Israel has never signed onto the Rome Standard, there’s no legal accusation … but it’s been generated solely as a goal to aggrandize the so-called genocide.” Romirowsky noted that “there were Iranian influencers in South Africa looking to generate this kind of emotional visceral reaction in other to create this distinct narrative. That’s the point of these words. They are detached from reality.” Romirowsky contended that “the conduct of the IDF, which has been conducting urban warfare in the most humane possible way against barbarism and against terrorism. That’s fact.”
The subsection also refers readers to the Wikipedia articles “Palestinian genocide accusation,” “Gaza genocide” and “Zionism as settler colonialism” for further information. I have previously written about the issues with the “Gaza genocide” article; the other two are both listed in the World Jewish Congress’s March 2024 report as examples of biased articles on Wikipedia.
At the beginning of August, a formal discussion — a Request for Comment, or (RfC) — was launched, where editors put in their “!votes” debating whether or not there were enough sources to justify including “Palestine” in the article. These contentious discussions usually result in a closer (an uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing) rendering a verdict based on the numbers and quality of the arguments as they pertain to site policy. On Sept. 25, the closer, “Maddy from Celeste,” concluded that the “discussion has resulted in consensus to include a description of the allegations of genocide against Palestinians, obviously adhering to WP:NPOV,” referencing Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. “The key policy in this case is WP:NPOV, whose core tenet is ‘representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic,’” they continued. “Editors in favor of inclusion have provided sources that consider the situation in Palestine one that is relevant to this article. Those opposed have failed to challenge the significance of this view, or the reliability of the sources. Furthermore, many of the opposing arguments are plainly not in line with NPOV, arguing instead that only one viewpoint should be represented. A tally of editors confirms that inclusion gained more support than non-inclusion.”
One editor told me that “at least the text includes the qualifiers ‘has been accused by some scholars’” but it “ostensibly” did not meet the list criteria and should have been excluded. The editor added that the !vote count being 9-6 (and one neutral !vote) in favor of inclusion “is probably not a consensus.” Another editor told me that the decision to include the Palestine subsection “is a ‘genocide by any means necessary’ exercise and it’s just getting tiresome.”
In Romirowsky’s view, there are “so-called scholars who are pro-Palestinian and on the progressive left that will use any so-called evidence that can come up with to demonize the state of Israel and make accusations of massacres in order to create part of this international pressure and isolationism when it comes to Israel … the war in Gaza is not a massacre, it’s a war that Hamas started. In ’82, they went in because the Palestinians started [it]… However, they flip the narrative … they take individual battles or take individual incidents and typify them as Israeli conduct at large. It’s ahistorical and lacking context.” He added that Segal and Shaw “have a clear axe to grind” as their writing suggests that “everything Israel does is wrong.”
As to the question on if scholars widely view the Palestinians as being indigenous to the land, “that’s all part of the propaganda … There was never a Palestinian state,” Romirowsky said, pointing out that pre-1948, the Palestinians were part of large “mafioso, clannish-type families that were in the area … so it was a result of the Grand Mufti and later on Yasser Arafat that created the notion, or the imagery, of a connectivity to the land itself based on the eradication of Zionism. So that’s where the binary perspective plays out.”
A veteran editor who stopped editing Wikipedia after getting disillusioned by the site’s bias told me, “If the closer is really concerned with NPOV, where are the opposing views in this text?” To that point, a neutrality tag — a banner adorning the section stating that “the neutrality of this section is disputed” — was inserted on Oct. 2 by an editor named “Gwillhickers,” who argued that the tag was necessary because the article provides “no coverage about genocidal intentions among Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran towards Israel.” But the editors “Selfstudier” and “IOHANNVSVERVS” objected to the tag as being an example of “drive-by tagging,” a term used to describe the tagging of articles “for non-obvious or perceived problems — without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed.” Selfstudier and IOHANNVSVERVS told Gwillhickers to simply go ahead and add in the text.
Gwillhickers defended the tag, contending that “the section was missing any coverage of genocidal efforts and intentions towards Israel… By insisting that the tag was inappropriate you are more than suggesting that you actually believe there are no genocidal efforts and intentions against Israel, which is a bit curious, because various Hamas officials, including Ghazi Hamad, have stated their intentions publicly, as has Hezbollah and Iran, time and again, let alone all the missiles and drones these entities have aimed specifically at civilians.” Selfstudier replied that the tag “was inappropriate because it was nothing more than an attempt to tag material that there is nothing wrong with… For the second time, I am not objecting additions you want to make but so far I haven’t seen any.”
Gwillhickers then wrote that “the material it has seems to be well sourced. It was the material that was and remains missing that is at issue. Again, there remains no coverage of genocidal efforts and intentions against Israel. That I have to recite the ‘alphabet’ for you on such a glaring issue seems to indicate you have no desire to include this material. Now [another] editor has removed the section you created, without a discussion, claiming in edit history that you had ‘no point,’ and did not restore the original section title. i.e. Palestine/Israel.” Selfstudier had created an Israel subsection with an empty template for text to be added in that was later removed by IOHANNVSVERVS.
“As I said, I’d like to add material but at this point I fear it’s going to be reverted because it seems I’m the only one thus far who wants to obtain neutrality over this issue,” Gwillhickers continued.
As of publication time there is nothing in the Wikipedia article about genocidal intentions and efforts against Israel.
An editor told me that “if there’s a discussion on the talk page it’s not a drive by and telling someone they can add the material is not a reason to remove the tag. The tag is supposed to stay until the issue is resolved or the discussion dies down.” Another editor told me that “it’d be more typical to make a change, have it reverted then add a tag versus tag first.”
At the end of the day, as the longtime editor behind “The Wikipedia Flood” told me, “it’s just the Flood flooding the zone.” Wikipedia is ultimately a numbers game in which Israel is often on the losing side.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage of Wikipedia’s bias against Israel. See our cover story from May explaining the basics of how Wikipedia works and some tactics editors have used to spread bias.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.