Talk:Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse

Edit Request - add Salmon

Add a section for Salmon.  With this: Ehud Barak during the Camp David talks with Bill Clinton compared, in the context of Palestinian refugees Right of Return to the homes and land they were born, compared the Palestinians to Salmon, saying that Palestinians had "salmon syndrome."  Promoting the idea of purposefully prolonging the refugee crisis for 80 years until Palestinians with this "salmon syndrome" die, in the belief that this will somehow sever the connection between the children of the Palestinian refugees born in Palestine and their homes, now occupied by Israel, like salmon, who, separated from spawning ground for a generation might, in Ehud Barak's imagination, somehow forget their native spawning ground.  "By then, most of the generation that experienced the catastrophe of 1948 at first hand will have died; there will be "very few 'salmons' around who still want to return to their birthplaces to die"." Using this as a reference.  https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2002/06/13/camp-david-and-after-an-exchange-1-an-interview-wi/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3Fanccr (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like OR without a source connecting it to the phenomenon of Palestinians as animals in Israeli discourse Zanahary (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead defines the topic of this article, i.e.

This article surveys the terms which are encountered in Israeli narratives that zoomorphically classify Palestinians as members of different kinds of non-human species,

Barak's language shows he is thinking that their desire to return to the land of their birth, unlike the aliyah of Jews with its aspiration for Jews to return to the putative land of the birth of their ancestors 2,600-2000 years ago, can be grasped as some kind of anomalous reflex best explained in terms of a salmon instinct. The use of this put-down (silly because it would only warrant stating that Jews have an unextirpated 'salmon' reflex). Were that language used of Jews it would go into our extensive (in the scholarship) lists of the way antisemites reduce Jews to animals. Barak as elsewhere often shows himself thinking of Palestinians in terms of animal analogies (beasts in the jungle etc.) and this is another documented example.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Were this said about Jews, with no secondary source analyzing it as an animal stereotype of Jews, or any other receptive literature, it wouldn’t be due for inclusion either. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the remarks by Benny Morris. He cites the phrase and explains it. It is self-evidently an animal simile, and one does not require secondary sources to document or explicate the obvious. I've added two other books where the remark is noted.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Editorialization

this excision justifies substantial removals of text on the grounds the editor thinks they constitute examples of editorializing. Actually, the principle used here is that where sources use animal metaphors and similes re Palestinians, those sources are paraphrased for the context. The 'editorialization' is not by the author of this article: it mirrors what the authors of the reliable sources we use state in noting examples of this theriomorphic usage. So the removal was improper. Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your revert does not accurately represent the source. The source concludes in summary that "despite their disadvantaged status, Palestinians reported strikingly high levels of blatant dehumanization of their more powerful Israeli neighbors. Indeed, we observed that the participants in our Palestinian and Israeli samples dramatically dehumanized the outgroup, rating them as closer to animals than full humans. Not only was the degree of outgroup dehumanization quite high among the advantaged and disadvantaged group, but it was also quite potent: as with Israelis, Palestinians’ dehumanization of the outgroup was reliably and uniquely associated with aggressive attitudes and support for aggressive policies likely to feed cycles of intergroup violence."

I assume you will not object to the source's conclusion being inserted in full. KronosAlight (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct. That should be footnoted to the lead sentence which specifies precisely that dehumanization is reciprocal, with the appropriate efn format.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should remain in the footnotes. It instead looks like you're trying to bury the lede. In addition, you've now reverted two of my edits within a 24 hour period, so I would politely request that you undo your reversion and reinsert the complete passage from the source in the body of the text, not the footnote. KronosAlight (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The second was not a revert. I retained all of the information you added. The one adjustment that could be wildly construed as a second revert, was my removal from 'mutual and reciprocal' of the second term, 'reciprocal'. I removed it because it is patently reduplicative ballast, since you either write 'reciprocal' or 'mutual' but you cannot write 'mutual and reciprocal' as if the two words were not synonymous but mean something different.

You are accusing me of 'burying the text'. No. The text as you found it had an ample quote from the source indicating the details of a study which compared Israeli and Palestinian attitudes to each other. I placed the full evidence for this succinct statement in a footnote (as I have done throughout the article).

Please examine your edit, which left the page like this.

(i) Look up above the text you added to footnote l

(ii)Then examine the footnote to the text you added as a blockquote, and the note m it is sourced to.

You will perceive immediately that (a) the footnotes are identical' (b) the added text in your blockquote does not refer to the specific page where that passage occurs. It was thoughtless copy and past that caused a meaningless reduplication of the same footnote. You didn't take the trouble to get the precise page number for the text you added (it is page 14)

What did I do? I retained the text you added, and eliminated the reduplication of the same quote in footnotes l & m.

You wanted to set out in the maintext the following:

(a)In sum, despite their disadvantaged status, Palestinians reported strikingly high levels of blatant dehumanization of their more powerful Israeli neighbors. Indeed, we observed that the participants in our Palestinian and Israeli samples dramatically dehumanized the outgroup, rating them as closer to animals than full humans. Not only was the degree of outgroup dehumanization quite high among the advantaged and disadvantaged group, but it was also quite potent: as with Israelis, Palestinians’ dehumanization of the outgroup was reliably and uniquely associated with aggressive attitudes and support for aggressive policies likely to feed cycles of intergroup violence.

I.e. it is you who, by that edit, appeared to prioritize Palestinian dehumanization of Israelis, by selectively quoting the source. The source states that but it also states

(b)On average, Israelis showed the "highest levels of blatant dehumanization towards any outgroup observed to date using the 'Ascent of man' measure of blatant dehumanization",

Now were I a POV pusher for Palestinians I would have done exactly as you have done for the other perspective and put that in a blockquote in the main body of the article. No. I 'buried' it in a footnote.

So I am burying nothing, while you are highlighting one conclusion about Palestinian dehumanization to the disadvantage of the other.

I construed the mutual dehumanization as affecting both sides to similar degrees and left the statistical details in footnotes. That is NPOV- Your text violated NPOV by accepting the superior (according to the authors) index of discrimination by Israelis be left in a footnote, but the striking dehumanization of Palestinians be quoted in the maintext.

To repeat. You messed up your edit by (a) reduplicating the content of footnotes (b) by providing a new quote with a false sourcing because the quote you gave is nowhere to be found on pp. 1–2, 7–9, 11 (as you claimed) (c) you unbalanced the NPOV construal by singling out for prominence one of two conclusions, negative for the Palestinians, for the maintext. (d) in addition you added the word 'reciprocal' when it is a reduplicating synonym for 'mutual'. If you disliked 'mutual' you could have replaced it with 'reciprocal'. The only thing in my fixing this mess you might cite as violating 1R is my removal of that reduplicative (piddling) Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible rename?

The article discusses Palestinians being labelled as bacteria 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 Palestinians in Israeli discourse? starship.paint (RUN) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Dehumanisation of Palestinians in Israeli discourse? TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

All those objections can be met by simply retitling:Dehumanizing and animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse. Bacteria and viral agents belong to the biological order. The emphasis is on animal stereotypes, but this dehumanization extends to the lowest biological order, and even extends to considering them inert material. 'Dehumanization' alone is far too broad a category, since that topic is vast and would destabilize, if followed through on, the essential focus of this article. Actually, I don't think we need a title change. The part you worry about is attached at the end more or less as an afternote.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing the Begin quote purportedly describing Palestinians as beasts

• What I think should be changed

  −

  According to Amnon Kapeliouk, in a 1982 address to the Knesset in justifying the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Menachem Begin likened Palestinians to "two-footed beasts."

  +

  :
• Why it should be changed: This supposed quote by Begin has been widely debunked. Begin never said it. What he actually said was:

"I want to announce in the ears of all nations: The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of one and a half million Jewish children was different from the fate of all the children of the world in all generations. Not anymore. We shall protect our children. If the hand of a two-legged animal shall be raised against them, that hand shall be cut off and our children will grow up happily in their parent’s homes." [Hebrew source below has text of speech in Hebrew]

Begin was discussing terrorists targeting Jewish children, not Palestinians. Unless you include all Palestinians under that umbrella, it is false to say Begin was describing all Palestinians. The incorrect quote often circulates in antisemitic circles as proof Begin/Israelis/Zionists/Jews hate Palestinians. Continuing to share it contributes to the rise in antisemitism.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

SK6074 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

(a)All of your sources are not RS (b) attribution is given (c) the source was Amnon Kapeliouk (d) who was present when Begin is reported as making that remark and (e)Kapeliouk was a linguist and journalist (f) there is no record I know of of his inventing stuff (g) we provide attribution in order to distinguish the truth (unknown) from a reliably sourced report. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you please explain why CAMERA, the Algemeiner, and the text of the discussion aren't considered reliable sources? SK6074 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. An explanatory footnote immediately follows the sentence, giving more context and stating that This has been contested as not referring to Palestinians but to terrorists generally. Removing the sentence entirely would not be an uncontroversial change. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Add mention that gallant referred to Gazans as "human animals"

For some reason I've gotten repeated requests to state this request in this fashion: change the lack of the existence of a section on gallant referring to the Palestinians in Gaza as "Human animals" by saying "“Everything is closed... We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”' to an additional paragraph in the "Palestinians as simply animals" section to include: "Yoav Gallant referred to Palestinian Gazans as 'Human animals' by saying “Everything is closed... We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” (referring to him stating that his strategy would be to enact a complete blockade of all food water and electricity from all of Gaza targeting all Gazans not any one particular group or any combination of multiple groups but the entire population." Using https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e9q4nylwjo as a source. Fanccr (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)