Not the
fringe

The standard Western defense is that dehumanizing statements about Palestinians come from the extreme edges of Israeli politics — settlers, ultranationalist parties, social media provocateurs. The documented record does not support this. The statements below were made by a sitting Prime Minister, a sitting Defense Minister, a Finance Minister, a Heritage Minister, a Deputy Knesset Speaker, an IDF spokesman, and a former Army Chief of Staff. They were broadcast on prime-time television to millions of Israelis. Some were cited by the International Court of Justice as evidence of genocidal intent.

South Africa's lawyer, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, said it plainly before the ICJ in January 2024: "The language of systemic dehumanization is evident here. Genocidal utterances are therefore not out in the fringes. They are embodied in state policy."

Official rhetoric does not exist in a vacuum. It both reflects and shapes public opinion. The polling data from Israeli society reveals a public that has absorbed the dehumanizing framework its leaders and media have promoted. The Penn State / Haaretz poll of March 2025 — the most comprehensive survey of Israeli Jewish opinion on Palestinians — produced numbers so extreme that even veteran Israeli pollsters described them as an "emergency wake-up call."

Additional polling — Israeli Jewish public

American Jewish opinion — a striking contrast

The divergence is not about attachment to Israel — American Jews overwhelmingly still feel connected to Israel as a state. The gap is explained by the media environment. Israeli Jews consume a system led by Channel 14 where Palestinian civilians are collectively guilty terrorists, where "Amalek" is a prime ministerial metaphor, and where 150+ calls for war crimes have aired on prime time. American Jews, exposed to a broader landscape, hold fundamentally different views of Palestinian humanity and rights.

The dehumanizing rhetoric documented above is not a product of the trauma of October 7. It has characterized Israeli political and military discourse for decades, across governments, across leaders, across conflicts. The language that appeared on prime-time Israeli television in 2023 had been appearing in military briefings, parliamentary hearings, and political speeches for generations.

Channel 14 is not a fringe internet outlet. It is a mainstream Israeli commercial television network, watched by soldiers and officers, that enjoys regulatory benefits from the Netanyahu government. Since October 7, 2023, three Israeli human rights organizations — Zulat for Equality and Human Rights, Hatzlacha, and the Democratic Bloc — have compiled a documented list of its broadcasts.

The Washington Post separately verified more than 120 photos and videos of IDF soldiers — posted publicly on their personal social media accounts — showing forces demolishing and burning civilian buildings, occupying destroyed homes, posing next to dead bodies, and calling for the extermination and expulsion of Palestinians. Some soldiers said they were following direct orders. A military ethicist described it as "a breakdown of not just military discipline, but a break in understanding what it takes to represent the IDF and Israel."

Human Rights Watch documented Israeli forces publishing degrading photographs and videos of detained Palestinians — including children — stripped of clothing, filmed, and published on social media. HRW called it "a form of sexual violence and also a war crime." The IDF's response was to instruct soldiers not to upload footage — not to stop the conduct.

Dehumanization is not merely offensive language. It is a documented precursor to mass violence. By stripping a group of their humanity — through animal metaphors, exterminatory rhetoric, collective guilt — dehumanization creates the psychological and social conditions under which violence against that group becomes thinkable, tolerable, and eventually ordinary.

The comparison is not made here lightly. It was made by Israeli human rights lawyers in a formal legal complaint to Israel's own Attorney General.

This piece documents a mainstream. It is not a portrait of every Israeli. A minority of Israeli citizens — on the left, in Jewish-Arab coalitions, among conscientious objectors — has consistently opposed the war in Gaza, the dehumanizing rhetoric of their leaders, and the Iran war. They are small in number. They face real consequences. And the story of what has happened to them when they try to be heard is itself part of this picture.

A 972 Magazine correspondent who attended the March 28 protest described Border Police officers dragging them across the pavement, forcing them onto their stomach, yanking them aside. "I could see the hatred and anger in their eyes," they wrote. "Their violence felt less like an attempt to disperse a protest than an effort to create chaos and punish those of us who refused to leave."

On April 4, Israel's High Court again ordered police to allow anti-war protests. On April 6, police forcibly dispersed a protest at Habima Square, arresting 17 people — again citing Iranian missile threats — even though the court had permitted a rally of more than 600 people. The police defied the High Court twice within a week.