Talk:Jews and Israelis as animals in Palestinian discourse

Rats and mice revert

@Zero0000 You deleted the sentence "Rats and mice are also an antisemitic trope that was used by the Nazis." claiming it is "SYNTH which is also a severe NPOV violation". I'm note sure why. When I thought which sentences in the article are likely to raise serious objections, this sentence wasn't on the list. There is no doubt that this sentence is true and not SYNTH or POV. The Guardian source I brought says it quite explicitly: "Rats remained a useful symbol for those who wished to portray their targets as inhuman for most of the 20th century. Most familiar and alien of all, perhaps, is the range of animalistic imagery that came to stand for Jews in the build-up to the second world war. In Der Stürmer, Nazi Germany’s most influential propaganda sheet, a cover image depicted a Nazi gassing Jewish rats that huddle around the base of a mighty tree. “When the vermin are dead,” the caption reads, “the German oak will flourish once more.” Vegan416 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It is textbook SYNTH because the source does not mention Arabs or Palestinians except for an example where the rats were Arabs. Jews are only mentioned in the Nazi context. So there is no actual connection to the article topic. If you think it wasn't SYNTH that means you need to refresh your memory on what SYNTH is. This sort of SYNTH might lead people to think you are pushing the Palestinians=Nazis canard, especially when you also (incorrectly) link to the Nazi-associated word Untermensch. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Zero^talk 14:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

1. First of all, regarding the word "sub-human" and the link there, which you replaced with "non-human". Actually as vegan I should have changed it myself as we vegans don't think the animals are sub-human :-) But the reason that this word and link existed here at all was because I copied it from the preface to the article Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse (as I said in the creation comment of my article). I believe it was probably put there by our friend @Nishidani. Anyway, if you think that this word is incorrectly linked to the Nazi-associated word Untermensch, then I suggest that in the name of intellectual honesty you should delete the link and replace it with "non-human" in Nishidani's article too.
2. As regards the SYNTH accusation, it would have been correct if the sentence you deleted said anything about Arabs and Palestinians. But it isn't. It only speaks about the Nazis. And it serves as historical background only. I can make its being background only more explicit if you want, for example by adding "Historically speaking" in the beginning or something like that.

Vegan416 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know Untermensch was linked from the other article and I removed it. You should strike the comment about Nishidani, since it was added by an anon. Regarding the other sentence, the fact that you consider it "background" shows that your intention was SYNTH, not just the effect. An implication that an Arab portrayal of Jews is in any way related to the Nazi portrayal of Jews, presented without a reliable source making that connection, is exactly the sort of thing that SYNTH is meant to prevent. Zero^talk 01:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion and correction about Nishidani. Did you find the responsible editor by manual binary search or is there a tool for that? Anyway regarding the SYNTH accusation:

1. I didn't make any causal claim that the Arabs copied this trope from the Nazis. But there is an obvious relation between the portrayals in the sense that both Nazis and some Arabs use the same trope of rats against Jews. This is kind of self-evident, and my sentence didn't claim anything beyond that.
2. However since you raised the subject, I can make the explicit claim that the Arab portrayal of Jews was in fact affected to some degree by the Nazi portrayal of Jews. In fact there are several scholarly sources who make this claim and they already appear in the article in a different section (see refs 6-9). Ref 8 actually contains also explicit mention of rats in this context (see [1] 1). And I can add here yet more sources regarding rats in this context (2 3), though I still have to find who is signed on the last one and it might need to be attributed.

Vegan416 (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You missed one

When you copy pasted the other article to make this embarrassingly POINT-y piece of work, literally doing a find replace for "Israeli" to "Palestinians", you forgot to fix one of them. Unless this article is introducing us to a new concept with the Palestinians-Palestinian conflict? Not sure blatantly copying the text of another article is a great idea to begin with. Parabolist (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relatedly, "Despite that nowadays many Muslims use both "pigs" and "apes" to insult and describe traits of all Jews" might be one of the most stunningly offensive things I've seen said in Wikivoice (and poorly written. "nowadays"? Jesus). The citation afterwards doesn't even support this. Disgraceful article. Parabolist (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Only the first 2 sentences were copied form the analogous article and even they were significantly rephrased by me. And as for the second point it is supported by the citation, and by the many examples that follow. And I could bring 10 times more examples from all over the Muslim world. It's just that this article concentrates on the Palestinian discourse. Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the relevant line from the cited source: "descendants of apes and pigs - one of the most common insults directed at Jews and Christians (as a quick search online will attest)". I can bring here more scholarly citations to support this if you still think it's necessary. Vegan416 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Historical and cultural background

@Nishidani, regarding your last edits, I agree that this article should concentrate mainly on Palestinian examples, and you will note that indeed almost all of my examples come from Palestinian sources, despite the fact that it easy to find many other examples like this in general Arab and Muslim sources.

But some historical and cultural background is required nonetheless. And contrary to what you implied, your own parallel article does contain at least one background example that doesn't come from an Israeli, Zionist, or even a Jew: "At times, Orientalist writers on Palestine drew an analogy in which they likened the inhabitants of the country to animals. For example, Ermete Pierotti wrote that the idea that the domestic animals in Palestine are more intelligent than the people is not far from the truth."

In particular I think that it should be clarified that the expression "sons/brothers of ape and pigs" is not a Palestinian invention but stems from a long Muslim tradition. Also I think it should be noted that in Arab culture the term "dog" is much more derogatory than in Western culture, due to the different attitude to dogs in those cultures (as a generalization). But I am willing to hear your suggestions on how to phrase these background points. Vegan416 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that several variants of a Palestinian children's song contain the phrase "the Jews are our dogs"?

• Source: Nazzal, Nafez & Leila (1996). "The Politicization of Palestinian Children: an Analysis of Nursery Rhymes". Palestine-Israel Journal. 3 (1).

El-Masri, Yafa (2019). "I Will Never Sell My Father's Shop" (PDF). Jousour (2). Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Committee: 16.

Langton, James (2007-05-12). "Life as an infidel". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Retrieved 2024-04-24.</ref>

• • ALT1: ... that when Hamas took responsibility for the 1995 Beit Lid suicide bombing it said that it had killed and injured 20 pigs and 60 monkeys? Source: Oliver, Anne Marie; Steinberg, Paul F. (2006-04-27). The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–102. ISBN 978-0-19-802756-0.
  • Reviewed:

Created by Vegan416 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Vegan416 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

• This proposal is simply outrageous and Wikipedia should not stoop so low as to advertise this sort of thing. Regarding the requirement of "well-sourced and neutral", the article is under serious dispute over its neutrality. Zero^talk 13:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Not a serious dispute, and it will be resolved long before the reviewers will get to this DYK suggestion weeks from now.

2. Wikipedia "stooped so low" as to publish this in DYK on March 28:"... that Aaron Bushnell said that his action of setting himself on fire was less extreme than "what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers". What's the difference? Vegan416 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, the dispute is deep and serious, making the article unstable. It definitely will not be allowed to remain in its present state. 2. While I would not have submitted the Bushnell proposal, the fact that Vegan can't see the difference between a political statement and hatred of an ethnic group is telling. Zero^talk 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. The dispute is only about how to present the background. There is no dispute about the truth of the core facts presented in the article. And unless people would try to destabilize the article nefariously to disrupt the DYK process, it would naturally stabilize long before it reaches the DYK reviewers a few weeks from now. And Zero still hasn't explained what is "outrageous" here. This is a true fact. Why should it be censored? Vegan416 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Did you know about this Israeli song? Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this DYK suggestion? Vegan416 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• These hooks are on the wrong side of WP:DYKGRAT's prohibition against "excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks"; I would suggest proposing a new hook Vegan416. That simply may not be possible, which is fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why do you think so.Vegan416 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Even by the standards of the Israeli-Palestine topic area, this topic is controversial and sensational. I am using my editorial discretion, as someone who has promoted over a thousand hooks, to say that these two cross the line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

How are these hooks more controversial and sensational than this hook that was published on DYK on March 28:"... that Aaron Bushnell said that his action of setting himself on fire was less extreme than "what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers"? Vegan416 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, how are these hooks more controversial and sensational than this hook that was published on DYK on November 21, 2023: ".. that the novel Minor Detail is based on a true story of a 1949 gang rape and murder of a young Arab Bedouin-Palestinian girl by Israeli soldiers?"

Or that from January 24 this year: ".. that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight?" Vegan416 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would say they're more sensational than any of those. See editorial discretion line above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Without bringing up the article content concerns, would rejecting ALT0 and only allowing ALT1 solve the issue? There do seem to be strong objections from multiple editors against ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No, that's probably worse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Unless a new hook is proposed that can get editorial consensus, there does not seem to be a path forward for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reasoned explanation why this is not OK except for "editorial discretion" which might be just a fancy name for Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Anyway, putting that aside, I'll come up with new hooks later.Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning—that they fall on the wrong side of "excessively controversial and sensational"—has been given, and backed up by WP:CONSENSUS from multiple editors. Yes, that is partly subjective—that is an essential premise of DYK reviewing, as outlined at the top of WP:DYKCRIT. It has been more than a week, and as no new hooks have been proposed, I am marking this nomination as rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

AfD?

When I read this a few days ago, I was tempted to suggest it be submitted to AfD because of the WP:SYNTH problems, and the inevitable incompetence of taking the earlier page on Israeli animal stereotypes of Palestinians as a template and, by mirroring it, try to fudge a serious article inverting it wholesale. I refrained for one simple reason, rather nasty. It is so bad it makes the other article look good, and, being linked to it, would draw more eyes to the original it has cannibalized, a sort of advertisment for the sister article. But, now with the leisure to examine it more closely, it is too much of a mess to fix. Take this:-

Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab since the middle ages. There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world.

The first reference is to Bernard Lewis, notable for his view that, as one reviewer put it,

There was almost no religiously-based anti-Semitism of the type prevalent in medieval Christian Europe. Modern anti-Semitism was introduced to the Middle East by European missionaries and diplomats.

Everyone knows that BL considered antisemitism, as opposed to mere contemptuous sense of superiority over subordinate Abrahamic peoples who had not accepted Islam, essentially a retrojection into the different world of the past of a modern notion more at home in the West, which in turn influenced modern Arab nationalism. This, and other patches, crash disparate sources in a mishmash of interlinked themes without having one master text which joins these disiecta membra into one narrative in the context of animal stereotypes. The other text restricts its focus to sources which directly address the question of Israeli stereotypes and Palestinians as animals. In the difference lies the overriding WP:SYNTH problem here.

Whereas the original page attempts to hew closely to the topic, this page veers off to rope in a large set of resonances of 'antisemitism' and 'Nazism' ostensibly seeded into the Palestinians hatred of their occupiers. Many Jews swore, cursed, and expressed hatred against their Christian oppressors, but that is not to be treated as a mirror of Christian antipathy to Jews.In rabbinical thought, the very nature of man is often defined as twofold, Jews have two souls (neshamot), non-Jews - poor devils - only one, implying an essential distinction in their natures, the latter on a lower level in the animal order. I wouldn't ring this kind of thing into the background of the Israeli stereotype article, though it is a commonplace in West Bank yeshiva teachings inspired by the Kabbalah, and functionally serves to reinforce in students into believing that, as so many Israeli politicians assert, Palestinians are 'animals', meant literally.

There is a strained attempt at parity here that doesn't work encyclopedically. Comments? Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This clearly meets notability guidelines and is well sourced. I noticed you editing this article from this edit [2] where you give a false edit summary "A generalization re Islam with no Palestinian content" when the content clearly has a reference to Palestinians. Your IDONTLIKEIT editing needs to stop.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are writing without apparently taking much notice of what is going on. In the parent article, I made an effort to show that abusive epithets were common between Jews, Christians and Muslims before going into the Israeli specifics. Vegan just isolates the Muslims, and their use of dog imagery (which is almost universal as a term of contemptous dismissal of others, i.e. Isaiah 56:9-12). You have not addressed any of the points I made. Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Here is the quote from Bernard Lewis that is referenced in the first reference in this article (ref 1):

Jews of Islam p. 33:

"On the whole, in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or fear or envy but simply of contempt. This is expressed in various ways. There is no lack of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews. The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur. The language of abuse is often quite strong. The conventional epithets are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians.35 Different formulae of greeting are used when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims, whether in conversation or in correspondence. Christians and Jews were forbidden to give their children distinctively Muslim names and, by Ottoman times, even those names that were shared by the three religions, such as Joseph or David, were differently spelled for the three.36 Non-Muslims learned to live with a number of differences of this sort; like the sartorial laws, they were part of the symbolism of inferiority."

What's your problem with this reference? How does it contradict what I wrote in the sentence preceded by this reference: "There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world."? Vegan416 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW I suppose if add this link to the ref now it's not considered a new revert? Vegan416 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand exactly what is going on in this discussion. Because this is a CTopic, if it continues a ANI may be needed.  // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If what continues? Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani, The only correction in the article that may have some sense after rereading the quote from Lewis is to change the first sentence to "Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and contempt for Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab world since the middle ages. There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world". Doesn't see material for me, but does that satisfy you? Vegan416 (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Nishidani, 1. It is clear that deleting this page without deleting the page Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse would be an extreme violation of the WP:NPOV policy. 2. If you have specific issues with mentioning antisemitism in this article, you are welcome to suggest other ways of writing the background to this article and its sections and subsections. Suggesting to delete the entire article because of that might lead to the impression you are not acting in good faith. 3. Regarding your specific criticism, your language is a bit opaque, but in any case the article has many references to reliable sources that suggest that Palestinian attitudes towards Israelis are somewhat intermixed with antisemitism.

Vegan416 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't waffle. Reply to what I specifically identified as incompetence and distortion.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See full quote from Lewis above Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Garbage article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Very well reasoned criticism. Can you explain why? Vegan416 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

LOLling does not explain what you were asked to explain. I.e. why you sourced to Bernard Lewis, for one, a view many of his works specifically argue against, etc.etc.etc. You are shifting the goalposts to sidestep the criticisms Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See full quote from Lewis above Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I already examined it and there is no way that quote can be used as a source for the following:-

Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab since the middle ages. There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world.[1=Lewis][2][3][4]

Lewis wrote:-

"On the whole, in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or fear or envy but simply of contempt. This is expressed in various ways. There is no lack of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews. The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur. "

The proper way to paraphrase this would have been.

In contrast to Christian antisemitism's view of Jews, contempt, rather than hate, fear and envy, characterised Muslim attitudes to non-Muslims, and this contempt was both religious and social rather than ethnic or racial, though on very rare occasions that also is attested.

How you get from that a 'paraphrase' - Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab since the middle ages - which suggests the exact contrary of the point Lewis made, is anyone's guess. It is a total distortion.

As is the marked distortion of citing Shelomo Dov Goitein's equally authoritative A Mediterranean Society p.293 to buttress the same mockery of Lewis's statement. He wrote:

It has often been said that it is incorrect to speak about "Anti-Semitism" in the Islamic world, since the Arabs, who profess Islam, were Semites themselves . . .Though the terms is perhaps inappropriate to a medieval Islamic setting,, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from the discriminations practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Geniza material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of "anti-Semitism," if we may use that term, appears to have been local and sporadic, rather than general and endemic.'pp.292-293

These two examples show that your editing cannot be relied upon to report faithfully the sources you stack up. Lewis disowns the term 'antisemitism' as appropriate to early Muslim tradition, contrasting the difference between discrimination in Islam and anti-Semitism in Christianity. Goitein acknowledges Lewis's influential view, allows that antisemitism may be inappropriate to medieval Islamic attitudes. and specifies that in his usage, it refers to 'animosity' (somewhat like Lewis's 'contempt') . Lewis says Muslim statements of contempt 'very rarely' express ethnic or racial stereotypes only 'very rarely'; Goistein states that 'animosity' (as opposed to discrimination) was only 'local and sporadic'. The essence of anti-Semitism is racial hate, nota bene.

You spin this, wittingly or not, by trampling on their careful distinctions between Christian antisemitism and Muslim contempt/animosity, attributing to both scholars the idea that medieval Islam has 'some amount of antisemitism . .including dehumanization of Jews.' You say also it consisted of hate a word Lewis specifically challenges. Worse still, if you had troubled to read both, rather than apparently google snippets, you would have noted (as I do on the parallel page) that in citing Muslim attitudes to non-Muslims, that both Jews and Christians were the objects of such prejudice. Repressing that detail only consolidates the standard politicized/ethnicized reading of Jews as somehow unique in their suffering under common prejudice (On the other page, this common ethnocentric victimization meme is carefully avoided). Bref. Your editing and use of sources is not to be trusted here, and Timothy's complaint I removed RS unreasonably just means he didn't check the sources and closely compare them to how you distorted them.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again the above nonsense boils down to IDONTLIKEIT, not actual problems.  // Timothy :: talk  13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That response is the nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani Much ado about nothing. You are splitting hairs and making a lot of distinctions without a real difference (for the purpose of this article). But in truth It's not worth my time to argue about this. I don't mind removing this entire sentence about Medieval Islam, which seems to offend your sensibilities, because it is not really that important for the article. I included it for completeness, but we can do without it. I have no objection to having the first paragraph of the "Background" section like this (this is modelled after the beginning of the article Antisemitism in the Arab world):

"Antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews) has increased greatly in the Arab world (including in Palestine) since the beginning of the 20th century, for several reasons: the dissolution and breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Arab Christians; Nazi propaganda and relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world; resentment over Jewish nationalism; the rise of Arab nationalism; the widespread proliferation of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, especially those coming from the communist bloc during the cold war; and the rise of radical Islamism and Jihadism."

This is more closely related to the Palestinian portrayal of Jews etc... Will this satisfy you or do you have more objections? Vegan416 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That 'answer' is probably why this article should be deleted since, given concrete evidence of the way you distort sources to make what they state unrecognizable in your creative POV rewriting and your refusal to take that carefully parsed explanation seriously ('much ado about nothing') means that no one can trust anything in the article as it stands, except perhaps for what your plagiarized from the sister article, where everything was double checked and all comments were exhaustively addressed. Incompetent editing has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani You are so wrong both on the content level and on the procedural level.

On the content level:

1. I have not distorted any sources. The word antisemitism was invented in Europe in the 19th century, so it can be argued that any use of it to describe discrimination and negative feeling against Jews before that and in different cultures, is anachronistic. Despite that it is quite common to do so (e.g. see Antisemitism and History of Antisemitism). Now in page 33 here that is referenced from Lewis (and the page before that) he says that the Muslims in the Middle ages had "unambiguously negative attitudes" towards Jews; that they felt "contempt" towards Jews; that they practically discriminated against Jews in various ways - the Jews had to dress differently, have different types of names and address modes, that were all meant as "symbolisms of inferiority"; and that they used against Jews "quite strong" "language of abuse". And most importantly for the purpose of this article: "The conventional epithets are apes for Jews". This is an expression of zoomorphical dehumanization. All of this would definitely be considered antisemitic in our (anachronistic) way of speaking.
2. It's true that Lewis says that this is different than the antisemitism of the Christian world in the sense that it doesn't have the "deep-rooted emotional hostility" of Christian antisemitism. But this is precisely what I said in my words that it was "less severe than in the Christian world". I think this is a reasonable summary of Lewis' (and the other sources there) considering that I wanted to put it all in once sentence, because this is quite not the main issue of the article, just a short background.
3. It's also true that the Muslims behaved the same way (more or less) towards Christians. This only means that they were anti-Christians as well as anti-Jewish. As the fact that the KKK are antisemites doesn't stop them from being racist also towards black people. Moreover the fact that the KKK are antisemites doesn't mean that in an article which specifically speaks about KKK's hatred of black people we must mention that they also hate Jews. Likewise here, in this article that speaks about anti-Jewish stereotypes, it is not obvious that we must mention anti-Christian stereotypes as well. Though in fact, in a part of the article which you deleted a few days ago I actually did mention that Muslims in the past called the Christians "pigs". But you didn't like that either...

On the procedural level:

4. have shown till now that the fact that you didn't like my summary of Lewis etc. doesn't mean that I was mistaken or that I am an incompetent editor. These are different valid interpretations of the source. But even if we assumed that my interpretation was definitely a mistake (which it isn't), one mistake doesn't invalidate a whole article. This would be completely against Wikipedia policy. See inWikipedia:Deletion policy: "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". Also, presumed "incompetence" of an editor, even if it can be proven (which you completely failed to do in my case) is not mentioned there among the possible reasons to delete a page.

You simply don't delete the page because of one (or two or even three mistakes). If a few mistakes are found they should be corrected. And no more than that. Only if a page contains so many mistakes that show that the entire topic is unsupported by reliable sources can it be deleted. This is clearly not the case here, since the main content of the article is very well supported by many reliable sources. For example, unlike your parallel article, I never rely on sources that are considered unreliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Vegan416 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

All those reasons and not a single mention of the overwhelmingly most important reason for Palestinian animosity, that was quite impressive. Zero^talk 15:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually it appears right there "resentment over Jewish nationalism". Vegan416 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Read 'resentment' at having a land, populated by 95% Muslim-Christian Arabs, expropriated by European Zionists. The 'Jewish right to self-determination' actually always meant 'the indigenous people of Palestine have no right to self-determination' and 'resentment' a complex word in modern theories from Nietzsche onward, has nothing to do with it, unless a householder surreptitiously robbed of his home 'resents' the thief, rather than feeling outrage.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have a lengthy reply to your other comment about Lewis etc. But I am on a cellphone now. But as for this point I can answer shortly. We cannot write this in the anti-Zionist way you did just now. That would be gross violation of NPOV. Can you suggest a more neutral version? Vegan416 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000 Anyway as I said above you are welcome to suggest constructive corrections, and I'll probably accept them if they make sense and not materially harm the article. Vegan416 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been professionally a reader trained to parse texts in various languages closely. I have shown that you lack even an elementary understanding of how this is done, and you just keep sidestepping the evidence in what strikes me as waffle. Go ahead and keep ignoring what I demonstrated. It means that your text is flawed, vitiated, by a studious refusal to face the evidence, and what we have is therefore a distortion of sources. No matter how many times you keep argufying, you are wrong in manufacturing text which does not exist in those sources. One cannot coedit and fix a text with someone who doesn't grasp these principles.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, I answered your points to a T. Did you read the lengthy response I just wrote above? Let me quote your words from elsewhere back at you: "You appear to have a bee in the bonnet about this article. I suggest you avoid wasting your time on trivial objections like this, which suggest inexperience or simply antipathy to the topic".

In any case the sentence to which you objected so much was already removed by me. As I already said it's not that important to the article and I don't want to waste more time on it. So you will have now to find another excuse to try and delete this page. I wanted to write something more poignant here now, but I'll leave it at that. Vegan416 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I.e. you now remove precisely the distorted text I challenged and removed, an implicit acknowledgement that you accept my arguments, while disputing above that you completely misread those sources. I am not trying to delete the page. I raised the question as to whether this rather weak screed was acceptable for wikipedia, asking for input. As far as I am concerned, it can stay up, since it is so embarrassingly poor, even in its ungrammatical bits, compared to the article it aspires to mirror that readers will draw their own conclusions from the comparison.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't accept your arguments explicitly or implicitly. It is just that when you argue with a professional nitpicker it is sometimes better to give up on unimportant issues than to engage in endless and pointless discussions that waste everyone's time.

In any case I'm still waiting for your suggestion about what to replace "resentment over Jewish nationalism" with. I'm sure that even you understand that we can't write in Wikipedia something like "outrage because the Jews surreptitiously robbed the Arabs home".... Vegan416 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

='The friction between Zionist aspirations for a Jewish state and Palestinian opposition to the settlement of their territory by foreigners' Ian Black, Enemies and neighbours:Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1\917-2017, Penguin Books 2017 ISBN 978-0-141-97914-4 p.xxi (2) 'The inherent conflict arising from the creation of a Jewish homeland in a land where 9/10ths of the population were Arabs' ibid. p.44 Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are too late as Zero had already deleted the entire passage, and I'm not going to fight him over this issue... Vegan416 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That passage is irretrievable and needs a TNT. It is simply appalling that you think "resentment over Jewish nationalism" covers land theft, active suppression of self-determination, ethnic cleansing, blocked roads, endless humiliation, midnight raids, imprisonment without trial, raids by pseudo-civilians, yadda yadda. Never mind lots of dead bodies. But no, according to you it is resentment of an ideology combined with adoption of Nazi propaganda. If you can't do better than this type of twaddle you should let other people do the editing. Zero^talk 05:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually some of the examples in this article start at 1919 and in the British mandate period and predate all of these things you mention, which proves that there is more in this than you try to claim. However as I said to Nishidani I don't want to waste time on unimportant (from the point of view of the topic of the article) discussions, so I won't fight you on this. Vegan416 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Dogs in Muslim and Arab culture

@Zero0000 I see that you have some issues with the claim that "dogs have lower status in Arab, Muslims and Semite culture in general, compared to Western culture", claiming that the book I referenced is not talking specifically about the Palestinians. Well, in case you missed it, Palestinians are part of the Arab world, and most of them are Muslims. Also, the second source I brought is an article that speaks specifically about Palestinian society. The reason for this note is that without it a Western reader may perhaps not grasp the full meaning of a comparison to dogs in an Arab context. (BTW, this applies also to using the word dogs against Arabs). Vegan416 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also added this source: "To dub an Arab a dog [..] is a major humiliation. The same words however convey neutral or even positive connotative associations in English". Vegan416 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm tired of trying to teach you about Wikipedia policy. "Translation and Religion" also does not connect the subject of dogs to relationships between Jews and Palestinians. You aren't allowed to add your own commentary to articles even if you do it by way of sources that do not relate the commentary to the article topic. This is you constructing a narrative out of bits and pieces, the very essence of SYNTH. You even admit above ("without it...context") that that is your intention. So that source will be deleted also. Zero^talk 11:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So how about this phrasing of the comment? This source is specifically talking about dogs as insult to Jewes in the context of Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"References to animals is common in Arabic-Islamic culture, but it is pertinent to point out that there is a stratification in the animal kingdom. The dog is the lowest". Nazzal, Nafez & Leila (1996). "The Politicization of Palestinian Children: an Analysis of Nursery Rhymes". Palestine-Israel Journal. 3 (1). Vegan416 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of many sections and subsections headers

@AirshipJungleman29 You have removed many sections and subsections headers without any justification. I want to draw your attention that this article is modelled after the parallel article Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse in which the same layout is used. Please justify why these two article should be treated differently on this point or self-revert. Vegan416 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)