Larry Sanger

So I'm not saying that it's incorrect.

I'm not saying that Gaza didn't have a genocide.

I'm simply saying that it's an obviously biased article that just buys from the very title because a lot of people dispute the idea that there was, in fact, what is properly called a

a genocide in Gaza.

Well, they probably refer to some primary sources in the sense that they are attributing opinions to the people who hold them.

But they tend to, by policy, use secondary sources, right?

So rather than

you know, directly pointing to a copy of a UN speech or whatever, wherever the opinion might have been, you know, published, they will talk about a news story in the New York Times or something like that.

So they prefer secondary sources because they are more carefully vetted, I suppose, than the original.

It's actually...

Um, it's very problematic, but we can read it here if you like.

Yeah, sure.

Right.

So, I mean, just look at the very first sentence there.

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people.

Right.

So it doesn't say it is a hypothesis or it is the widely held view or anything like that.

It's talking about the thing itself, which actually exists.

It's a genocide and it involved in the ongoing intentional and systematic destruction of people in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian people.

If it really was a genocide, then I'm certainly against it.