ahh yes, the loophole that has non dictators absolutely flummoxed. can't be a genocide if you don't blow up ALL of the aid. this is just sparkling mass shooting.

No, it's not true to say that an event is not Genocide just because the party (rightly IMV) accused of Genocide hasn't blocked 100% of humanitarian aid. Blocking humanitarian aid is illegal under international law.[1][2]

In deciding whether or not the event constitutes Genocide, It matters whether the killings and conditions imposed on the population of the Gaza Strip can be proven to be carried out with genocidal intent. South Africa has already presented ample evidence of statements from Israeli leaders which are/seem tantamount to statements of genocidal intent, and the ICJ has already ruled that there is a plausible risk of genocide being committed. We are just waiting for the ICJ to make their ruling.

Wow, you don't have a single person agreeing with you, that's really impressive.

The definition of genocide according to the UN genocide convention consists of two parts. The first part is action which is subdivided into five subcategories:

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Ticking one of these boxes is enough to qualify for the action part. Certainly, Israel ticks the first box, probably the second, and if Yoav Gallant's words are anything to go by, also the third:

“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed, we are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly"

This quote is actually a nice segue into the second part of the definition of genocide, which is intent. Performing the actions outlined above only counts as genocide if it is done with the intention of destroying (in whole or in part) an ethnic, a religious, or national group. This is usually a bit harder to show. Not in this case though!

"“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved. It’s absolutely not true. … and we will fight until we break their backbone.”

"“there is no such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza"

"The people should be told that they have two choices; to stay and to starve, or to leave"

These are all quotes from high placed Israeli officials (one of them is even president), all said in the context of justifying and directing the current attacks on Gaza. There's many, many more, each more overt and disgusting than the last, outlined in South Africa's 80 page document accusing Israel of genocide.

Back in december 2023 it was already indisputable that Israel is committing genocide. Even more so now. One more for good measure:

"Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children."

They're not allowing aid in, hence the famine in Northern Gaza.

https://apnews.com/article/famine-northern-gaza-humanitarian-aid-2710a0e41f740fb50cc8075fec7df62d

It's a genocide.

The Nazis didn't shoot Jews in the streets, they just sent them to work camps!

Fucking listen to yourself dude

I think what's incredibility obvious to you and I is an area of willful and encouraged ignorance for some who benefit from the results of their ignorance. I think that the media is largely complicit is beyond distasteful, but it's also the reality we live in.

I also think it's important for wikipedia to work through their own NPOV policies. It should be applauded that they eventually arrived at the correct conclusion, AND moreso that they spent time considering and discarding contrary positions.

Accepting one particular viewpoint with no consideration is dogmatism, and is not helpful to progressive causes.

Not really. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate. The fact that it arrived at the right conclusion is a testament to Wikipedia's editorial policies.