Talk:Jews and Israelis as animals in Palestinian discourse

Changing the name of the article to "Animal stereotypes of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse"

In my view the current title ("Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse") does not mean at all that all the examples in this article necessarily refer to all the Jews in the world (though many clearly do), and it seem that all the editors who looked at it till now didn't think so either. But since one newcomer to this article thinks otherwise, and to avoid further irrelevant nitpicking about antizionism ≠ antisemitism, I suggest to change the name of the article to "Animal stereotypes of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse" (or "Animal stereotypes of Jews or Israelis in Palestinian discourse"). Vegan416 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Roughly 20% of Israelis are Palestinians, so your new title would suggest they be included as objects of Islamic or Palestinian theriomorphic scorn. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

We could have "Animal stereotypes of Jews or Israeli-Jews in Palestinian discourse", but that sound cumbersome. Still I won't object to that either. In any case as I said before, in my view the current title ("Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse") does not mean at all that all the examples in this article necessarily refer to all the Jews in the world, and likewise my first suggested title doesn't imply that all the examples in this article necessarily refer to all Israelis... Vegan416 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Palestinians have a diaspora as well, you know. Enforced, mostly. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416: Again, like I said in the section above, using the term "Israeli-Jews" focuses on Jewish identity and implies that the main issue lies with Jews rather than the ongoing occupation, which is a core belief of Zionists. The article conflates criticism of Zionists or Israelis with criticism of Jews. You yourself have said that since Israel is "home to half of the Jews in the world" and "supported by most of the Jews in the world" (citation needed) criticizing Israel or its policies "can be considered dehumanizing Jews". That is your personal interpretation. Have there been instances of genuine antisemitic discourse from Palestinians? Yes, probably. However, criticism of Israel or Zionism is not inherently antisemitic or dehumanizing to Jews and thus does not belong in this article. - Ïvana (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As Nishidani's response says the problem with using "Israelis" instead of "Israeli-Jews" is that it might look as if these terms are intended also against the Palestinian citizens of Israel, which is of course not true (especially as some of the examples come from Palestinian citizens of Israel...). However I don't mind changing it to "Israelis". It seem however that you think that we shouldn't mention dehumanization of Israelis at all, even under the title "Animal stereotypes of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse". What is the encyclopedic justification for your opinion? Vegan416 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I know that Palestinians have a diaspora as well. How is this related to this discussion? What's your point? Vegan416 (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No need to ping me. Well we are discussing the use of the word Jew and and that Jews are in all the world as well as Israel and I merely said that the same applies to Palestinians, who are in Israel and all the world as well. What's confusing about that? What's your point? Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how this information is contributing to the discussion about the title of this article. Do you have some suggestion to make in view of this info? Vegan416 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Palestinian discourse" includes Palestinians in Israel? I think what you mean is "Animal stereotypes of Israeli Jews in Palestinian discourse" Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Palestinian discourse" includes all Palestinians in the world and in all times that such a national group existed. If you read the article you'll see that while most of the examples are from Gaza and the Palestinian authority, there are also examples from Israeli Palestinian citizens and Palestinians from the diaspora (and historical examples from the British mandate period, and even one from the Ottoman period). Vegan416 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Just so y'all know, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestinians_in_Israeli_discourse/Animal_stereotypes_of_Jews_in_Palestinian_discourse Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m thinking a better title might be “Jews and Israelis as animals in Palestinian discourse” or something like that. Zanahary (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

OK Vegan416 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416: I think that most of the "dehumanization" of Israelis by Palestinians is based on the Israelis' Zionist beliefs, not their Jewish identity. Palestinians, and even Hamas, have stated that their problem is with the occupiers/Zionists, regardless of whether they are Jewish or not. And a lot of the sources that are being used here support that, since they are only referring to Zionists or Israel as an occupying entity. Again, dehumanizing language from oppressed people towards their oppressors is not uncommon, and I don't see the encyclopedic value in basing an article around that. If you want to address antisemitism, then focus on examples that are purely antisemitic, referring to Jews with no ties to Zionism. As of right now, this article is using Zionist, Israeli, and Jew interchangeably. That is my main objection. - Ïvana (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Antisemites often conflate the concepts, deliberately or not. If reliable sources describe something as pertaining to Jews, then we should follow them, not try to discern the true target and affected party of rhetoric in question. Zanahary (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If a source doesn't explicitly mention Jews and only says Zionists, Israel, or Israelis, how can that be an acceptable example of dehumanization towards Jews, understanding that Jews refers to the Jewish identity regardless of their political beliefs or nationality? Criticism of Zionism or Israel is not inherently antisemitic. - Ïvana (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ïvana, You are making some factual errors and one significant procedural error.

On the factual side: First, contrary to your claim it seems that most of the examples in the article are explicitly using the word Jews/Jewish/Jewry and not the words Israelis and Zionists. For example, almost all of the examples in the dogs section. Also, in the monkey and pigs section the word Jews is not always used explicitly, but the underlying metaphor comes from an old religious tradition that was aimed against Jews (and sometimes Christians too) hundreds of years before Zionism was born. Caricatures usually don't have words, so they can be interpreted either way (though the octopus image from 1936 does speak about "World Jewry").

Second, your claim that Hamas doesn't have a problem with Jews as Jews is patently false. Even some of the sources in this article show you to be wrong on this, but beyond that you can look at the Hamas founding charter from the 80s. It is a manifestly antisemitic document. And you can also find explicitly antisemitic claims by more "moderate" Palestinians, even in this article, such as the General Union of Palestinian Students using the fake antisemitic Franklin Prophecy.

But all these are side issues. Your main error is on the procedural side. Suppose, for the sake of argument only, that all of the Palestinian "animalistic stereotyping" was aimed only against Israelis and Zionists, and never at Jews. Why even in this hypothetical situation would it be wrong to write an article about this kind of "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians? Especially since there is already an article about the "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinian by Israelis. If you allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinians by Israelis, then you should allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians. There is no encyclopedic justification for making a distinction between those two articles. Furthermore making such a distinction would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Vegan416 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"If you allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinians by Israelis, then you should allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. If you have a problem with the other article, which you clearly do, you can discuss improvements on its talk page or take it to the administrators. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. My problem is with the scope of this article. Like I've said again and again, you're assuming that Zionist, Israeli and Jew are all the same thing. Can these overlap? Sure, but it is not a given. If a source doesn't mention Jews and is only criticising Israel or Zionism that is not a valid example of dehumanization toward Jews. (Btw we already have a couple of articles describing antisemitism within the palestinian community: Antisemitism in the Arab world and Racism_in_the_State_of_Palestine#Antisemitism_in_Palestinian_territories). You need to decide what this article is going to cover and then stick to it. As of right now it has plenty of WP:SYNTH issues, which other people more capable than me have pointed out in detail. - Ïvana (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I already explained what the scope of the article is, and even suggested to change the name of the article to clarify this. The article cover both "animalistic stereotyping" of Jews by Palestinians and "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians. This way we don't have to get into arguments about the relation between antisemitism and antizionism etc.
2. And the justification for this scope is like the justification for the scope of any other article, as Zanahary explained, we follow the reliable secondary sources on which this article is based. And those sources describe and analyze the "animalistic stereotyping" of Jews and Israelis by Palestinians together without making the distinction that you suggest between Jews and Israelis.
3. Also of course it is completely untrue that I assume Zionist, Israeli and Jew are the same. I never said or even hinted anything of this sort. Also there are no SYNTH issues in the article.

Vegan416 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to assume that Zionist, Israeli and Jew are the same thing because the article conflates criticism towards any of those as dehumanization towards Jews as a group and tries to frame it as antisemitism. Plenty of examples here only refer to Zionists. Are all Zionists Jews? Are all Jews Zionists? We can all agree that that's not the case. - Ïvana (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Do the cited sources treat them as relating to Jews, or to Zionists? If the sources study what seems like references to Zionists as references to Jews, it's not our place to exclude them because we don't agree, just as it's not our place to decide that sources relating to Zionists should fall under the umbrella of Jews.

But in any case I think that this article's scope can reasonably cover animal stereotypes relating to Jews, Israelis, and Zionists in Palestinian discourse. Zanahary (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ïvana It is as if you don't hear what I am saying, and just keep on bludgeoning. Let me say again, with concrete example this time, so maybe you'll finally grasp it.

A lot of the secondary sources on which the article is based, especially those who make overview statements about the subject, use "Jews", "Israelis", "Zionists" and even "Israel" interchangeably. Therefore the scope of the article that is based on them Should be "animal stereotypes" of both Jews and Israelis. And this what I am going to change its title to (next week), as the title of this thread suggests, unless some serious argument will be made against it (so far none had been made).

Here are some examples of these sources (the emphasis in them is mine):

Oliver, Anne Marie; Steinberg, Paul F. (2006). The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–102. During the Intifada, Israelis and Jews were commonly described in the media of nationalists and Islamists alike as animals—octopuses, dragons, monkeys, and so forth.

Gordon, Gregory (2018). "Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, and Incitement to Terrorism and Genocide: Resonances and Tensions". In Bayefsky, A. F.; Blank, L.R. (eds.). Incitement to Terrorism. Brill. p. 20. The Palestinian Authority's outlets – and even children's shows and school curricula – have long called Jews snakes, monkeys, and pigs and called for the annihilation of Israel.

Black, Ian (2008-12-19). "Cartoon symbols of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". The Guardian. repulsive, hook-nosed Jews are portrayed as snakes or vampires;

Solomon, Dana L. (2018). Ideological Battlegrounds: Entertainment to Disarm Divisive Propaganda. Lexington Books. p. 108. The rhetoric of the polemical voice articulating some of the extreme arguments of the Arab-Israeli conflict is rife with dehumanizing language. Israelis, Jews, Zionists, Palestinians, and Islam itself are all portrayed as a "cancer." [..] Similarly, the Hamas Prime Minister likened the State of Israel to "a cancer that is threatening to spread to other parts of the body."[.. ] The examples of dehumanization of Jews, Israel, and Zionists cited above—as well as numerous others—come from the respective leaders of Iran, Gaza, and Egypt. They are part of the dominant, even state-sanctioned rhetoric of those respective countries.

Dan, Peter (2009). "How Vampires Became Jewish". Studia Hebraica (9–10): 417–429. The dynamic of this new connection is similar to the previous vampire – Jew one: the negative feelings associated with Nazism are projected onto Israel and by extension, the Jews. Vegan416 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet another example: Normand, Linn (2016). Demonization in International Politics: A Barrier to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Springer.

On Appendix A she brings a long list of examples titled: "Statements of Palestinians Demonizing Israelis". But this list contains animal stereotyping examples that use the word Jews as well... Vegan416 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that’s well within scope. I’ll also point out that a lot of the epithets that use “Zionist” use it as an adjective, not a defined target, like “the Zionist germ” could be inferred to mind the Zionist germs called the Jews. So that stuff is not disqualified at all.

Really, as long as the sources study something as relevant to Jews (or Israelis, if you’re expanding that scope), it is not irrelevant. Zanahary (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If you allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinians by Israelis, then you should allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians.

I haven’t examined the sources, so I have no comment on the actual status quo of the article, but you should know that this is not an argument for an article’s existence. A topic has to be notable and present in reliable secondary sources; just mad-libbing the scopes of existing articles (which might themselves be controversial in terms of whether they should exist) with other terms is not how we assess a topic for inclusion.

Again, no comment on this article, as I’ve done no literature review. Zanahary (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why we should follow reliable sources on the topic, not evaluate the phenomena they describe ourselves and arbitrate about whether we as editors agree with the source’s characterizations. Zanahary (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

unrelated vampire discussion

You cannot as you do confuse Muslim/Arabs generally with Palestinians by using article space to describe Muslim/Arab stereotypes as evidence for Palestinian smears, unless the sources make that link. Where in each of those sources do the authors speak specifically of Palestinian caricatures? Take Ian Black's article: it is about Arab cartoons, not Palestinian cartoons/caricatures. The same is true of Peter Dan's "How Vampires Became Jewish". No mention of Palestinians. These are therefore salient examples of WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

others might be borrowed from European culture (as in the case of vampires[2][16][17][18]).

All those sources, with their page directs and notes, do not cite the Palestinian-vampire connection. So the sourcing is a complete WP:OR fudge.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that Palestinians are not part of the Arab world? Because that's obviously false. Or are you saying that Palestinians, in contrast to other Arabs, never used the vampire metaphor and caricatures? Because that's false either. There are several examples of this in the article.Vegan416 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also look at the title of Ian black's article. Vegan416 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani. Also you have a habit of making a mess in this talk page by inserting your comments in unrelated discussions. If you have a comment about the question of the origin of the vampire metaphor than open a new discussion on the subject. Don't push yourself into an unrelated discussion about changing the name of the article. Vegan416 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the quote from Kotek (ref 16) is actually a preface to a section of his book that includes a cartoon of Shaul Mofaz as vampire that was published in the Palestinian Authority official paper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. (see ref 140) Vegan416 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The rule is that one cites sources that directly address the topic of an article. You haven't, throughout. As instanced, those sources, save for Kotek's preface, do not speak of Palestinians and vampires, but of that imagery in Arab sources. It is an open confession that you are engaging in WP:OR when you ask:'Are you saying that Palestinians are not part of the Arab world.' As any experienced wikipedian will tell you, you cannot write an article about X using sources that do not speak of X. If you adopt the silly premise that X is a subset of Y, and write the article inferring from Y that therefore the generalizations apply to X, even if that connection is not made, you are indulging in original research, and making inferences from sources you are not permitted to draw. This is extremely elementary, and the technique you use is forbidden.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong in two ways:

1. You didn't read carefully the sentence that all these sources are referenced in. The main thesis of it is the European origin of the vampire metaphors. So even if two of the sources do not explicitly mention Palestinians in this context, but only Arabs or anti-Israelis in general, they still explicitly speak about the European origins of it, and they support that main thesis of the sentence, whereas the part of "Palestinian connection" is explicitly supported by the other two sources.
2. As to the general principle you raised, I don't think that I necessarily agree with that. I would argue that If a reliable source says that group Y of people\media-outlets\cartoonist or whatever, have a certain common behavior Z, without mentioning any exceptions to this, then we can assume that this is also true to any random subset of Y. That is, unless there is some specific a-priori reason to assume otherwise, or of course if other reliable sources contradict this, and show that a certain subset of Y doesn't have this behavior Z at all. But none of these conditions apply here: In this case there was no a-priori reason to think that the Palestinians would be different from other Arabs and refrain from using the vampire metaphor. If anything the opposite is true, as they have stronger reasons to be anti-Israelis. And the second condition doesn't apply as well since in fact the Kotek reference (and several other references elsewhere in the article) directly show examples of Palestinians using this vampire metaphor.
3. Having said all that if you'll say that you feel strongly that the references that do not mention Palestinians explicitly in this sentence should be removed I wouldn't object to that. The remaining sources are sufficient anyway. And this sort of constructive criticism is what this talk page is here for. What I strongly object to however is your condescending ad-hominem vendetta-style attacks against me. This method of playing the man instead of the ball won't do.

Vegan416 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources not relating or referring specifically to Palestinian discourse are not relevant and constitute something like synthesis or original research. Zanahary (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary. If, to support a claim that there is a relation between Palestinians and the vampire metaphor, I have some references that explicitly talk about the relation of Palestinians to the vampire metaphor, and I also add to them references to other sources that talk about the relations of Arabs in general to the vampire metaphor, does this still constitute something like OR? Why? The claim is supported after all by the first sources. You may say that the other sources are not relevant, and should be removed. I can understand that. But I don't understand how you can say that the claim itself is OR. Vegan416 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources about Palestinians are good; those about just Arabs and Muslims writ large are not. Without this policy, any framing gathered from tangential sources would be allowed. Zanahary (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine. I'll go over the sources with a fine-tooth comb and remove any that don't have explicit reference to Palestinians. Vegan416 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Vegan. You have been repeatedly alerted, and your reply shows you won't budge but rather argufy your way around a core principle. What you are doing violates para 1 of WP:NOR

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.

The article is about stereotypes of Jews/Israelis in Palestinian discourse, not about 'stereotypes of Jews/Israelis in Arab, ergo Palestinian, sources'. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What claim did I make that is not supported by published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented? Vegan416 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Palestinians (and not just other Arabs) use the vampire metaphor is supported by many sources referenced in the article. The claim that the origin of this metaphor is European is also supported by sources. So what claim is not supported here? Vegan416 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are not going to read, and reply to what someone like myself writes, pointing out basic errors, there is no point in your replying at all. You evidently haven't read WP:OR either, for what I stated is referred to that policy. Read it. Then examine the sources behind 'others might be borrowed from European culture (as in the case of vampires)' where the four sources do not state that the vampire stereotype used in Palestininian discourse might come from European culture'. You make that connection vampire-Palestine-European sources, your references do not. This is what goes on all through the article.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Kotek source actually makes this connection "vampire-Palestine-European sources" explicitly. He says "The Arab cartoonists revive the antisemyth [sic] of the Jew as a vampire in a heightened form. [..] This image, legacy of another age, is central to contemporary Arab-Muslim cartoons." (earlier in the book he talks more at length about the European origins of this "antisemyth of the Jew as a vampire", but I don't have the exact words at the moment since I didn't photograph those pages in the library). And after that passage he brings several cartoons, one of whom was published in the Palestinian offical paper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. Vegan416 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I noted that, but it means your other three sources are dud, and must be removed and (2) you are obliged to provide the precise pages from the citation of Arab cartoonists, the European origins and the page for the one example in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. That's how we do things round here, precise refs for independent verification, and text when asked for.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already done that. Except for the exact page of the European origin which I can't as I explained I don't have the book at my home but rather in the library. But I could change the claim to read "borrowed from antisemitic sources". This is already supported by the page numbers that I have. Would that make you feel better? I will be glad to do that for you. Vegan416 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

YouTube videos

There are in 2024 new YouTube videos being produced and uploaded that show Jews as pigs and give them the characteristics of pigs. For example this channel: https://youtube.com/@user-fh6du2cb2s?si=i3UivLJPvD6vP6Vu

There needs to be a section about the current media and how some people are continuing to use these racist stereotypes. 2A0D:6FC0:B6E:A000:2297:C0AB:5A68:3713 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be OR to add primary sources. You will need to supply secondary reliable sources that report on these youtube videos. Vegan416 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible rename?

The article discusses Jews and Israelis being labelled as germs, microbes, viruses and cancer. These are obviously not animals and thus out of scope for the current article title. Shall we rename the article to Non-human descriptions of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse? starship.paint (RUN) 02:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You could do a {{requested move}} but I don't think "non human" works well. The best options are "Dehumanization" (a recognised concept in ethnic conflicts) or broadly "slurs and tropes". This kind of crass language is fairly rare in anything I've seen, but things like Nazi comparisons are much more common. Very broadly in neutral language: "offensive comparisons" or "controversial analogies" but I don't know how to phrase that in full title? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint, I was considering requesting this be merged with the mirror article, Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse, if that page is not too long? The combined title could be "Dehumanization and demonization in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"? Or just "Dehumanization in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"? Broadening might not be a good idea when they are both quite long? (tag me if you reply) Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)