In all conflicts, whether fought with weapons or not, the opposing sides will aim to win in the court of public opinion. This will give them justification at least and support at most. Justice will not necessarily prevail, but what people deem to be just. In a similar way, in warfare, the goal of the parties is also to persuade its own people as well as allies to believe their cause to be true and just. Analogically, this will give them justification at least and financial/military support at most.
One of the primary tactics used to achieve this objective is the dehumanization of the enemy. The preamble to the UNESCO Constitution includes the phrase „Wars begin in the minds of men“. No firearm needs to be drawn to start a conflict; the lethal weapons are more subtle.
We saw it in the second world war, when Jewish people were being depicted as rats, a narrative that ultimately contributed to the Holocaust. We witnessed it in the myth-based propaganda against Bosniaks and Muslim Kosovars in the Balkans, leading to the genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo. More recently, during the war in Gaza, the Israeli defence minister referred to Palestinians as „human animals“.
Studies have shown that the immediate objective of dehumanization may differ, but the consequences are remarkably consistent. One objective, for example, is „moral disengagement“ from the suffering of the oppressed or adversary. This helps to maintain public support but also the troops carrying out the war. If you don’t see the enemy as human, it is easier to fight them. Timing also matters; dehumanization is often used to condition individuals to overcome «the normal human revulsion against murder». Again, this supports different targets during war.
Dehumanization occurs not only through language but also through violent acts, which reinforce and perpetuate the mindset. Studies have shown that dehumanization becomes increasingly common as people gradually become desensitized to the experience of committing extreme violence.
It is important to note that dehumanization can occur and does function similarly „both up and down a power gradient during asymmetric conflict“. In the current war on Gaza, many Palestinians harbor hateful emotions toward their deemed oppressor, the Israelis, seeing them as monsters and their actions as monstrous.
One outcome of this form of dehumanization is self-perpetuating will to continue. Believing one is fighting a monster can generate a sense of moral high ground on both sides. The Israeli soldiers, in this example, are being persuaded that they’re fighting „animals“ who live to obliterate them. It is unclear with what exactly, given the vast difference in fighting power, mobility and range of movement. But to them, this discrepancy is irrelevant, as they believe their mission to be true and just.
This complexity is something that Hannah Arendt, a German-American Jewish publicist and author, explored in her book about the Eichmann-Trials in Israel in 1961.
Whether it is the oppressed or the oppressor, the fighter or the victim: they are human. Arendt described it as „the banality of evil“, describing how ordinary individuals can commit atrocities. While it is easy to paint our enemies as monsters, and while it certainly is a strategic tool in warfare, it lacks a simple yet important consideration: they are in fact not monsters.
Psychological operation and its employ of dehumanization is something that we all might fall victim to. However, we can arm ourselves with certain questions and warning signs to ensure we look for answers that don’t solely support our initial beliefs but hold more complex explanations and critical analysis of what we’re presented with. We must develop or strengthen both emotional awareness and analytical habits.
For one, we can look at how similar events are being described for different parties. For example, when Western media talks about Palestinians, they will often mention that „X people died“, while similar reports about Israelis might say „X many people were killed“. A bombing on one side will be described as „barbaric“, while the other will be described as „an act of self-defense.»“
Children of one group will be described as «young adults», while others will be referred to as «toddlers». This aids the dehumanization that is necessary for the justification of heinous acts, perpetrated by humans and not so-called monsters.
We should also analyze the terminology used to describe events of war, for example calling something an «explosion» instead of a «bombing». Sometimes the dehumanization is more blatant, describing a group as „monstrous“, „barbaric“ or „animals“. These words strip people of their humanity and make atrocities easier to accept.
Additionally, we can examine literature from both sides of the conflict without discrediting either perspective from the outset. Diversify your information sources; seek news and analysis from a variety of cultural, geographic and political perspectives.
We must make an active effort to humanize the «other». Seek stories that show their daily lives and humanity. The consequence of dehumanization is that we start to accept the unacceptable. It makes excuses for the inexcusable, resulting in death and immeasurable destruction, often disproportionately to the initial events of war.
As a global society, we need to be able to agree on certain universal truths. Civilians need to be protected at all costs, international law needs to be upheld, and if broken, the perpetrators need to be prosecuted accordingly, and disproportionate use of force needs to be condemned and sanctioned, not supported with more weapons.
Most importantly, we must try to approach these events with as much empathy for the ones who suffer. The antidote to dehumanization is deliberate rehumanization, through empathy, awareness and a commitment to the truth.
11. Juni 2025