The question here is an ethical and humanitarian one, not merely a political or military one. How can a human being reach a degree of dehumanization, turning killing from an exceptional act into a systematic one, or even an act they see as justified or necessary?
Dehumanization is not a fleeting behavior but a complex process influenced by numerous factors: psychological, social, cultural, and ideological. In this process, the presence of the other as a human being with feelings, rights, and a life diminishes, becoming merely an enemy, a threat, an obstacle, or something that must be eliminated. At that point, killing the other becomes morally and psychologically justified; the killer does not see the human as a human but as a mere target to be eliminated.
The danger of this act is not in the act of killing itself but is manifested in language, imagery, and categorization. Seeing the other as an 'enemy,' stripped of name, memory, and family, and as a latent threat. This image emerges from a cultural, educational, and religious structure with a mythological dimension that manifests in political and military behavior governed by violence, where killing is morally and religiously justified.
There are current examples that demonstrate this. The 20th century witnessed horrific models of mass violence, from Nazism to the wars in Vietnam, Bosnia, and Rwanda, where killing was not just an individual act but one practiced by institutional groups adopting extremist ideologies and effective means of propaganda and mobilization.
But the tragedy does not belong solely to the distant or recent past. What is happening in Gaza brings back the bloodiest image of this phenomenon. The massive numbers of victims exceed what others have done relative to the population and the narrow geography of the sector. The systematic killings were accompanied by widespread destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship, roads, camps, and the essentials of life. It is an act that language cannot express or describe. Here, the question arises about the value of human life when a sector of land becomes a free-for-all arena for killing, destruction, and terror.
The concept of'self-defense,' which has been used as a pretext for killing, requires ethical and legal reflection. The right of the state and its people to self-defense cannot, in principle, be a license for unchecked mass killing.
Describing an entire people as a threat and an enemy to be eliminated makes the act of killing a national act worthy of praise and recognition. This has been practiced throughout history by blind religious ideologies that have stripped and continue to strip others of their humanity. Language has been a precursor to violence and a justification for killing, stripping people of their 'humanity.'
The troubling question is not: Why did the human commit the act of killing? But: How did they convince themselves that the one they are killing is not a human? The killing of the child Hind Rajab was an example of this act that does not recognize the humanity of the human.
