Talk:Gaza genocide recognition

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

african union

Should we keep the African Union countries as recognizing a genocide in Gaza, or should we only highlight countries whose individual governments have made such statements? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

China's stance

This official website of the Chinese government, titled "Full text: The Report on Human Rights Violations in the United States in 2024" links to a document which states the following:

The United States has been serving as an accomplice to the genocide in Gaza. Since the outbreak of the latest round of the Israel-Palestine conflict in October 2023, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has worsened dramatically. According to statistics published on Dec. 31, 2024 by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the conflict has resulted in nearly 46,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza, over 108,000 injuries and the displacement of 90 percent of the population in Gaza.[i] Since the outbreak of the conflict, the U.S. government has provided unwavering military and diplomatic support to Israel, repeatedly thwarting international efforts to secure a ceasefire. It has exercised its veto power seven times to block United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Washington’s stance has sparked widespread controversy and discontent across the country. Student protests have erupted on dozens of college campuses, only to be met with forceful responses from both university administrations and law enforcement. On Feb. 25, 2024, a member of the U.S. Air Force set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington to protest against the U.S. administration’s support for Israel.[ii] On Feb. 23, 2024, a group of United Nations human rights experts issued a joint statement, which emphasizes that the International Court of Justice's ruling on Jan. 26, 2024 that there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza, underscoring the imperative of an arm embargo on Israel. The experts urged countries to halt arms transfers and military aid to Israel, while the United States remains the largest arms exporters.[iii] A report published on Aug. 25, 2024 by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft stated that a significant portion of U.S.-supplied weaponry has been used in the Israel-Palestine conflict.[iv] Another joint statement issued by 32 UN human rights experts pointed out, “The transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk State complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide.”[v]

[i] “Reported Impact Snapshot | Gaza Strip (31 December 2024),” Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), December 31, 2024. [ii] “Air Force Man Sets Himself on Fire Outside Israeli Embassy in Washington DC,” BBC, February 26, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68398479. [iii] “Arms Exports to Israel Must Stop Immediately: UN Experts,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), February 23, 2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/arms-exports-israel-must-stop-immediately-un-experts. [iv] Stephen Semler, “Gaza Breakdown: 20 Times Israel Used US Arms in Likely War Crimes,” Responsible Statecraft, August 25, 2024. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-weapons-gaza/.

[v] “States and Companies Must End Arms Transfers to Israel Immediately or Risk Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: UN Experts,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), June 20, 2024.

Based on this official document published directly by the Chinese government via the State Council Information Office, China is characterizing Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide (as well as assigning culpability to the United States government). This should be added to the article (and the accompanying image showing the stances of countries). JasonMacker (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 19 September 2025

Description of suggested change:

Greece's opinion on the matter shall be "No" with the following text: In an interview on 17 September 2025, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said that a major humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Gaza, but he considers the term “genocide” to be heavy.

References

Anamakr (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 17:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Mexico's position

President Claudia Sheinbaum has formally referred to the actions of Israel in Gaza as a genocide.

"... Una situación que está viviendo Gaza y todo el posicionamiento de acuerdo con la comunidad internacional de que pare este genocidio en Gaza, esa es nuestra posición"

"... A situation that's going on in Gaza and all the positions among the international community calling for the end of this genocide in Gaza, that's our position too"

https://www.proceso.com.mx/nacional/2025/9/22/sheinbaum-reconoce-el-estado-de-palestina-pide-que-pare-el-genocidio-en-gaza-359281.html

Also, Mexican chancellor Juan Ramon de la Fuente has also pointed out that Mexico accepts the findings stated by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which has formally declared that Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza

https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/internacionales/mexico-pide-guerra-gaza-urge-implementar-solucion-dos-estados-20250922-778286.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrIqSIrsuFI Uskill (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This has been added to the article's text, but the image still needs to be updated. JasonMacker (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The author has updated it Uskill (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Updating the map

@Tobby72, @Uskill, @Nubzor, @Segagustin: Please update the map when adding new entries or changing the positions of existing entries so there aren't any discrepancies. It is becoming quite burdensome that I am the only one updating the colors of the map. I recommend using the SVGEditor userscript for this job. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 I had no idea how to update it, so thanks for sharing the script! Will look into it for the future. Nubzor [T][C] 15:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fogelstrom: Thank you for your contributions but please also update the map. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I echo what Nubzor said above – I didn't know how to do it either, but the script you mentioned looks handy. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I will look into it! Fogelstrom (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

---

List of state positions on the Gaza genocide → Gaza genocide recognition – For conciseness and consistency with other articles like Armenian genocide recognition (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Should this name change in any way imply that criteria for inclusion on the list should change? The Armenian genocide recognition article appears to have a stricter standard for recognition, only counting countries which have passed a resolution in their national legislature to recognize the genocide, whereas this article also counts statements by foreign ministers, heads of state (or government).

If we applied the stricter standard to the current list, then only Ireland would count as its parliament passed such a resolution in November 2024. However, the Armenian genocide recognition article appears then to contradict itself by including Vatican City (an absolute monarchy with no legislature) as having a parliament which passed such a resolution. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Howardcorn33 The Armenian genocide recognition is based on the legislature because that's what we found easy to source and resolve conflicts where the executive did not endorse the resolution-there would be fewer green countries if the position of the executive was counted instead. I don't think that the same criteria needs to be used for this list. Since it's a present day situation, there is more reason for prime ministers and presidents to weigh in. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Support: if it means no change in inclusion criteria, then it makes more sense. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONSISTENCY Ahammed Saad (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Support shorter, more plausible as a search term, and consistent 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 14:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom and Howard. Lewisguile (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per arguments given above. Hasan (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India

@Tobby72: as I understand it, "unclear" refers to various statements by a government which appear to contradict. The Modi government does not appear to have made any comment whatsoever regarding the genocide, so it would make more sense to categorize them as "no data" and therefore not include them in the list at all. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You are right. The Indian government is criticized by the opposition for being silent all the time. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 27 January 2026

Description of suggested change: re: map caption. please change advisory opinion to ruling as ICJ’s decisions in contentious cases are legally binding.

Diff:

−

Defer to the [[International Court of Justice|ICJ]]'s advisory opinion in the case [[South Africa's genocide case against Israel|''South Africa v. Israel'']]

+

Defer to the [[International Court of Justice|ICJ]]'s ruling in the case [[South Africa's genocide case against Israel|''South Africa v. Israel'']]

Ispanas (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 2 April 2026

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

+

===Netherlands===* <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Utrecht city.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Utrecht (municipality)|Utrecht (city)]]: In May 2025, the city council of [[Utrecht]] passed a motion describing the situation in Gaza as a genocide, in line with reports from [[Amnesty International]] and the [[UN]].

Madlief (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done I adjusted the formatting and linking a bit. For other editors, I checked the source in Dutch. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

edit/update request, please 2026.apr.10

just to unbreak the Ref link for Singapore's stance, please; with a ministry site-update the Statement in-question has since been moved to

https://www.mfa.gov.sg/newsroom/press-statements-transcripts-and-photos/ministerial-statements-by-minister-and-sms-on-the-situation-in-the-middle-east-22-september-2025/

-- many thanks! g'day~ (nagao_0) ~2026-19403-45 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Scholar of International Relations Razan Shawamreh given undue weight?

User:Howardcorn33 added her to the article for the part discussing China's recognition of the genocide. Her article was published just one month (September 2025) after China issued its August 2025 report on human rights violations in the United States. Her article makes no mention of the human rights violations in the United States report. I have contacted her directly and asked for clarification. JasonMacker (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@JasonMacker: Given that the author of that article had a PhD in international relations I assumed it was worth including as due weight. I am fine with self-reverting for now. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm okay with your contribution in the meantime. I just want to make sure that what she wrote in that article was with the awareness of the human rights violations report, and that it's her current view. JasonMacker (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Use of "forthcoming"

In the article, countries awaiting on the ICJ's ruling before taking a stance on whether Israel committed genocide or not are listed as "forthcoming". By using forthcoming, we are indicating that the ICJ will rule it to be a genocide, and those countries will recognize it as a genocide. This would violate WP:CRYSTAL by presuming that that is the ruling the ICJ will make. Something along the lines of "Awaiting ICJ ruling" would work better. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Page Formatting Issue

At least on my device (Windows 11, Google Chrome), there is a huge gap of empty space in the introductory section of this article, but I'm not sure how I could/should adjust this. Thanks! Adam El-Sawaf (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request - United Kingdom's Position

The UK's position is listed as "unclear" in the table, though as near as I can tell the position of the new government has turned out to be fairly clearly in the await the ICJ ruling camp. E.g. today the foreign secretary said as much, per https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/08/uk-accuses-israeli-terrorists-ethnic-cleansing-west-bank-government-backing

The map will also need updating regardless, since it still has the UK position as "Disagree". Battle1368 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is crystal clear. I have changed the UK's position in the list. Thank you for this contribution. Fogelstrom (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding Colombia's position

Colombia's position is listed as "No", with the reasoning given being that they withdrew from South Africa's ICJ case under current president Espriella (having joined the case under former president Petro).

In my mind, this isn't quite the same thing: Even though the current Colombian government is generally pro-Israel, it does seem reasonable to include some kind of direct statement on whether the government in question holds that genocide has been/is being committed or not, before we add a yes/no stance in the list. I have yet to find anything of that kind from them.

Am I being too strict here? What do you think? Fogelstrom (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

On further reflection, and based on what we have now, I am removing the current Colombian government from the list. All the other countries have direct statements made on the matter, and this seems to be a good inclusion criterion, rather than trying to infer what their stance is. Strict, yes, but reasonably so, in my view. (Still open to discuss this further, though.) Fogelstrom (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)