Dehumanizing rhetoric

I think that a good starting point in any discussion on both sides is to avoid dehumanizing rhetoric, for example, undermining the identities of other groups, saying that certain groups aren't worthy of statehood, arent capable of coexistence, etc. There is also an issue of people not speaking up when they see dehumanizing rhetoric when it suits their supposed interests. When we see people posting articles from PressTV or from Arutz Sheva on their respective subreddits, the silence is usually deafening.

Take a look at this article this article

Text of that article:

The objectives and apparent solidarity of the “Palestinian” people

Since “Palestinians” - for reasons which will at once become apparent - were never in possession of a true original culture of their own, the foundations of their intellectual work were always provided by others. Their intellect at all times developed through the cultural world surrounding him.

The reverse process never took place.

The apparently great sense of solidarity among Palestinians is based on the very primitive herd instinct that is seen in many other living creatures in this world. It is a noteworthy fact that the herd instinct leads to mutual support only as long as the common enemy of Israel makes this seem useful or inevitable. The same pack of wolves which has just fallen on its prey together disintegrates when hunger abates into its individual beasts. The same is true of horses which try to defend themselves against an assailant in a body, but scatter again as soon as the danger is past. It is similar with the “Palestinians”. Their sense of sacrifice is only apparent. It exists only as long as fighting the Jews makes it absolutely necessary. However, as soon as the Jew state and her people are conquered, the danger threatening all averted and the booty hidden, the apparent harmony of the "Palestinians" among themselves ceases, again making way for their old causal tendencies. The Palestinians are only united when a common danger forces them to be or a common booty entices them; if these two grounds are lacking, the qualities of the crassest egoism come into their own, and in the twinkling of an eye the united people turns into a horde of rats, fighting bloodily among themselves.

If the "Palestinians" were to defeat Israel and establish their state, it is very clear based on recent history (see Battle of Gaza circa 2007) that they would stifle in filth and offal; they would try to get ahead of one another in hate-filled struggle and exterminate one another, in so far as the absolute absence of all sense of solidarity, expressing itself in their cowardice, did not turn battle into comedy here too. So it is absolutely wrong to infer any ideal sense of sacrifice in the Palestinians from the fact that they stand together in struggle, or, better expressed, in the plundering of their fellow men.

Implications for statehood and their potential to become a productive nation That is why the “Palestinian” state - which should be the living organism for preserving and increasing a nation - is completely unlimited as to territory. For a state formation to have a definite spatial setting always presupposes a peaceful attitude on the part of the nation-state, and especially a correct interpretation of the concept of work. In the exact measure in which this attitude is lacking, any attempt at forming, even of preserving, a spatially delimited "Palestinian" state fails. And thus the basis on which alone culture can arise is lacking. Hence the "Palestinian" community, despite some apparent normal intellectual activity, is without any true culture, and especially without any culture of its own. For what sham culture the "Palestinian" today possesses is the property of other peoples (stolen from the indigenous and historic Jewish people and other indigenous peoples conquered by the Arab caliphates), and for the most part it is ruined in their hands.

In judging the "Palestinian" people's attitude on the question of human culture, the most essential characteristic we must always bear in mind is that there has never been a "Palestinian" art and accordingly there is none today either; that above all the two queens of all the intellectual achievements, art and science, owe nothing original to the "Palestinians". What they do accomplish in the field of art or technology is either patchwork or intellectual theft. Thus, the self-identified "Palestinian" lacks those qualities which distinguish the nations that are creative and hence culturally blessed.

No, the self-described "Palestinian" possesses no culture-creating force of any sort, since the historical roots and sense of idealism and collectivity, without which there is no true higher development of man, is not present in them and never was present. Hence their intellect will never have a constructive effect, but will be destructive. Not through them does any progress of mankind occur, but in spite of him.

Impact on the nations of the world: past and present

As recent history shows, the "Palestinian" always a (metaphorical) parasite in the body of other peoples (e.g. attracted to Mandatory Palestine only by the productivity of the Jewish people, then as squatters or ‘refugees’ in the lands of Arab host nations, using them as a base from which to attack the Jewish people). That they sometimes left their previous living space has nothing to do with their own purpose, but results from the fact that from time to time the "Palestinian" was displaced or sometimes thrown out by the host nations he had misused (such in the wake of genocidal war against the Jews in 1948, or as a consequence of the Black September revolt in Jordan). Their spreading is a typical phenomenon for all parasites; they always seek a new feeding ground for their project of hatred.

Thus, the “Palestinians” of all times since the Arab colonization of Judea in 640 A.D. has lived in the rightful states of other peoples, and there attempted to form their own “state” only in recent times, which, to be sure, habitually sailed under the disguise of ‘national community' as long as outward circumstances made a complete revelation of their nature seem inadvisable. But as soon as they felt strong enough to do without the protective cloak, they always dropped the veil and suddenly became what so many of the others previously did not want to believe and see: the Muslim Arab, with the same aspirations and culture as all other Muslim Arabs.

The “Palestinian” nation’s life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states explains a characteristic which recently caused Deputy FM Hotovely to call them the great “thieves of history”. Taqiya (Islam's commandment to deceive the non-believers) impels the Palestinians to lies and to lie perpetually, just as it compels the inhabitants of the northern countries to wear warm clothing. And this is the first great lie.

In order to carry on his existence as a parasite on other peoples, they are forced to deny their inner nature. The more educated the individual “Palestinian” is, the more she will succeed in this deception. Indeed, things can go so far that large parts of the international community will end by seriously believing that the “Palestinian” is really a real identity; a legitimate people. Especially state authorities, which always seem animated by the historical fraction of wisdom, most easily fall a victim to this infinite deception.

Conclusions and suggestions for future research

The “Palestinians” have always been a people with generic characteristics and never a real nation; only in order to get ahead they early sought for a means which could distract unpleasant attention from their fake identity. And what would have been more expedient and at the same time more innocent than the concept of a national community? For here, too, everything is borrowed or rather stolen. Due to their own original special nature, the Palestinians cannot possess a national institution, if for no other reason because they lack liberal values in any form, and hence belief in peace is absolutely foreign to them. And a nation in the modern western sense cannot be imagined when the "Palestinian" lacks the desire for responsible statehood. Indeed, the Quran is not a book to prepare a man for peace and life in this world, but only for preparation for martyrdom and the hereafter.

On this first and greatest lie, that the “Palestinians” are a nation, more and more lies are based in necessary consequence. Among them is the lie with regard to the language of the “Palestinian”. For them it is not a means for expressing their thoughts, but a means for concealing them. When they speak peaceful words in English, they think hatred in Arabic, and while they turn out peaceful verses, in their actions in life they only express the nature of their hatred towards Jews. As long as the “Palestinian” does not become the master of the Jews in Israel, he must speak foreign languages whether he likes it or not in order to increase sympathy for themselves, but as soon as the Jews become their dhimmis, they would all revert to only Arabic, so that they could speak their true supremacist intentions. It is for this reason that all freedom and peace-loving peoples must remain vigilant in the face of this current and growing threat to our civilization and way of life.

Now I would like to invite users to read this section from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and see how similar the rhetoric is:

Since the Jew-for reasons which will at once become apparent-was never in possession of a culture of his own, the foundations of his intellectual work were always provided by others. His intellect at all times developed through the cultural world surrounding him.

The reverse process never took place.

...

Their apparently great sense of solidarity is based on the very primitive herd instinct that is seen in many other living creatures in this world. It is a noteworthy fact that the herd instinct leads to mutual support only as long as a common danger makes this seem useful or inevitable. The same pack of wolves which has just fallen on its prey together disintegrates when hunger abates into its individual beasts. The same is true of horses which try to defend themselves against an assailant in a body, but scatter again as soon as the danger is past.

It is similar with the Jew. His sense of sacrifice is only apparent. It exists only as long as the existence of the individual makes it absolutely necessary. However, as soon as the common enemy is conquered, the danger threatening all averted and the booty hidden, the apparent harmony of the Jews among themselves ceases, again making way for their old causal tendencies. The Jew is only united when a common danger forces him to be or a common booty entices him; if these two grounds are lacking, the qualities of the crassest egoism come into their own, and in the twinkling of an eye the united people turns into a horde of rats, fighting bloodily among themselves.

If the Jews were alone in this world, they would stifle in filth and offal; they would try to get ahead of one another in hate-filled struggle and exterminate one another, in so far as the absolute absence of all sense of self-sacrifice, expressing itself in their cowardice, did not turn battle into comedy here too.

So it is absolutely wrong to infer any ideal sense of sacrifice in the Jews from the fact that they stand together in struggle, or, better expressed, in the plundering of their fellow men.

...

That is why the Jewish state-which should be the living organism for preserving and increasing a race-is completely unlimited as to territory. For a state formation to have a definite spatial setting always presupposes an idealistic attitude on the part of the state-race, and especially a correct interpretation of the concept of work. In the exact measure in which this attitude is lacking, any attempt at forming, even of preserving, a spatially delimited state fails. And thus the basis on which alone culture can arise is lacking.

Hence the Jewish people, despite all apparent intellectual qualities, is without any true culture, and especially without any culture of its own. For what sham culture the Jew today possesses is the property of other peoples, and for the most part it is ruined in his hands.

In judging the Jewish people's attitude on the question of human culture, the most essential characteristic we must always bear in mind is that there has never been a Jewish art and accordingly there is none today either; that above all the two queens of all the arts, architecture and music, owe nothing original to the Jews. What they do accomplish in the field of art is either patchwork or intellectual theft. Thus, the Jew lacks those qualities which distinguish the races that are creative and hence culturally blessed.

....

No, the Jew possesses no culture-creating force of any sort, since the idealism, without which there is no true higher development of man, is not present in him and never was present. Hence his intellect will never have a constructive effect, but will be destructive, and in very rare cases perhaps will at most be stimulating, but then as the prototype of the ' force which always wants evil and nevertheless creates good.' Not through him does any progress of mankind occur, but in spite of him.

....

In the Jew, however, this attitude is not at all present; for that reason he was never a nomad, but only and always a parasite in the body of other peoples. That he sometimes left his previous living space has nothing to do with his own purpose, but results from the fact that from time to time he was thrown out by the host nations he had misused. His spreading is a typical phenomenon for all parasites; he always seeks a new feeding ground for his race.

Thus, the Jew of all times has lived in the states of other peoples, and there formed his own state, which, to be sure, habitually sailed under the disguise of 'religious community' as long as outward circumstances made a complete revelation of his nature seem inadvisable. But as soon as he felt strong enough to do without the protective cloak, he always dropped the veil and suddenly became what so many of the others previously did not want to believe and see: the Jew.

The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states explains a characteristic which once caused Schopenhauer, as has already been mentioned, to call him the 'great master in lying.' Existence impels the Jew to lies and to lie perpetually, just as it compels the inhabitants of the northern countries to wear warm clothing.

And this is the first great lie.

In order to carry on his existence as a parasite on other peoples, he is forced to deny his inner nature. The more intelligent the individual Jew is, the more he will succeed in this deception. Indeed, things can go so far that large parts of the host people will end by seriously believing that the Jew is really a Frenchman or an Englishman, a German or an Italian, though of a special religious faith. Especially state authorities, which always seem animated by the historical fraction of wisdom, most easily fall a victim to this infinite deception. Independent thinking sometimes seems to these circles a true sin against holy advancement, so that we may not be surprised if even today a Bavarian state ministry, for example, still has not the faintest idea that the Jews are members of a people and not of a ' religion' though a glance at the Jew's own newspapers should indicate this even to the most modest mind. The Jewish Echo is not yet an official organ, of course, and consequently is unauthoritative as far as the intelligence of one of these government potentates is concerned.

The Jew has always been a people with definite racial characteristics and never a religion; only in order to get ahead he early sought for a means which could distract unpleasant attention from his person. And what would have been more expedient and at the same time more innocent than the 'embezzled' concept of a religious community? For here, too, everything is borrowed or rather stolen. Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world.

...

On this first and greatest lie, that the Jews are not a race but a religion, more and more lies are based in necessary consequence. Among them is the lie with regard to the language of the Jew. For him it is not a means for expressing his thoughts, but a means for concealing them. When he speaks French, he thinks Jewish, and while he turns out German verses, in his life he only expresses the nature of his nationality. As long as the Jew has not become the master of the other peoples, he must speak their languages whether he likes it or not, but as soon as they became his slaves, they would all have to learn a universal language (Esperanto, for instance!), so that by this additional means the Jews could more easily dominate them!

Rhetoric like this shouldn't be ignored. When we see articles like this we should call it out, even if it ostensibly helps 'our side' in its conclusions.