---

​Dehumanization as a Weapon:
​Echoes Between Nazi and Israeli Rhetoric

One of the most dangerous tools in the arsenal of war is not a bomb or a bullet. It is language. The words leaders use to describe their enemies lay the foundation for how violence is justified, excused, or celebrated.

Throughout history, oppressive regimes have used dehumanizing rhetoric to strip people of their humanity, making atrocities not only possible but also palatable to the public. A disturbing parallel can be drawn between the Nazi regime’s portrayal of Jews and the language used by some Israeli leaders and media to describe Palestinians today.
 
In Nazi Germany, Jews were not simply political adversaries or outsiders; they were depicted as vermin, disease carriers, subhuman or parasites. German propaganda repeatedly framed Jews as threats to public health, morality and national security. These portrayals weren’t accidental; they were systematically crafted to foster an environment in which genocide could be rationalized by the broader population.

In modern-day Israel, many Palestinians and observers note a strikingly similar pattern. Israeli officials, including high-ranking politicians and military spokespeople, have described Palestinians as “human animals,” “terrorist breeders,” “barbarians” and “donkey riders.” These terms are not isolated slips; they appear across media, military briefings, and public statements, shaping how the Israeli public perceives Palestinians.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant infamously referred to Hamas militants as “human animals” in October 2023, a phrase Dehumanization as a Weapon: Echoes Between Nazi and Israeli Rhetoric that was not followed by clarification or apology, but by policies that included the siege of Gaza. Israel cut off food, water, electricity and medical supplies to a population of over two million people, nearly half of whom are children. The collective punishment of a civilian population, justified by portraying them as less than human, is a tactic that finds painful historical precedent.

The function of such rhetoric is the same in both cases – to create emotional distance, to extinguish empathy and to render suffering acceptable. When an entire group of people is painted as violent, irrational or inherently dangerous, their deaths can be ignored – or even cheered.

This is not to equate the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in scope or outcome. The Holocaust was a singular, industrialized genocide. But the tactics of dehumanization – the first step in the path to atrocity – are disturbingly similar.

If the world vowed “never again” after the Holocaust, it must include a refusal to tolerate the kind of rhetoric that made such horrors possible. This means calling out all forms of dehumanization, no matter the identity of the speaker or the target. We dishonor the victims of past genocides when we allow similar patterns to unfold in the present – unquestioned, unchallenged and unopposed.

---

lan Herman is a freelance fiction and nonfiction writer living in Sebastopol CA. .

---

---