Blood as a Sacred Ritual: How Violence Transformed into Worship in Zionist and Nazi Ideologies?

In the midst of armed conflicts, religious and nationalist ideologies are often used to justify acts of violence and mass killing. In the Israeli context, religious statements have emerged from prominent rabbis that confer religious legitimacy on military operations in Gaza, viewing them as holy wars aimed at achieving "redemption" and liberating the Jewish people from "universal morality" that is seen as an obstacle to fulfilling the divine mission.

This trend raises questions about the potential similarities between these religious justifications and those used by the Nazi regime led by Adolf Hitler to justify the Holocaust, where nationalist ideologies and religious justifications were used to portray genocide as necessary to achieve lofty goals.

First - Jewish Religious Justifications for the Massacres in Gaza

In recent years, the Israeli arena has witnessed an escalation in religious discourses that legitimize military operations against Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip. Rabbi Yigal Levinstein is considered one of the most prominent figures who have offered religious justifications for bloodshed. He views the war against the Palestinians as not merely a political conflict, but a holy war aimed at liberating the Jewish people from universal moral constraints.

In his book, "The Warlord – The Seed of Redemption," Levinstein highlights that dealing with the feelings of guilt resulting from the killing of Palestinian civilians is achieved by transforming the view of the enemy into a sacred entity, making the reluctance to kill a spiritual obstacle that must be overcome to build a "pure warrior" who transcends ordinary human conscience.

This approach is not unique to Levinstein; other rabbis, such as Rabbi Eliyahu Mali, have adopted the principle of "not taking any life" against the people of Gaza, considering women and children to be no exception, as they are viewed as potential future enemies.

These statements demonstrate a shift in Jewish religious discourse toward justifying violence and genocide as a means to achieve religious and nationalist goals.

Second: Nazism and the Holocaust: Justifying Brutality Through “Duty” and “Purity”

On the other hand, the Nazi regime led by Adolf Hitler used nationalist ideologies and religious justifications to justify the genocide of Jews and non-Jews during World War II.

One of the most prominent examples of this is the 1943 speech of Heinrich Himmler, the SS commander—who initiated a program aimed at producing ideal “Aryan” children from the Nazi perspective—in which he referred to a “very difficult chapter” facing his men—the challenge of exterminating the Jewish people. In this regard, he said his fateful sentence: “Most of you know what it means to see 100 corpses thrown together, or 500, or 1,000. To persevere through it, and yet… remain honorable, that is what has refined us. This is a glorious page in our history.”

This speech demonstrates how ideology was used to justify mass murder and portray it as a moral and patriotic duty.

These words, despite their different context, share with Levenstein's sermons the fact that they are techniques for dealing with human guilt.

In this regard, the philosopher Hannah Arendt's words bring us back to a profound understanding of the nature of these mechanisms. Arendt explained that the challenge facing the Nazi genocidal machine was not to unleash brutality, but rather to "neutralize the animal fury that awakens in every normal human being in the face of physical pain." This was achieved by "dehumanizing the Jews" and affirming "the transcendent mission of the German people."

This ideological justification, which elevates the state, race, or divine mission above human standards, serves the same purpose: making horrific acts possible by redefining morality and subordinating it to higher goals.

Third: Similarities between Jewish and Nazi Religious Justifications

A comparison between the two discourses highlights fundamental similarities in the strategies for ideological justification of mass violence:

1. Self-aggrandizement and the supremacy of the nation/people: Both ideologies, religious Zionism and Nazism, rely on the concept of racial or religious superiority. While religious Zionism views the Jewish people as the "chosen people" of God, bearing a "divine historical message," Nazism views the Aryan race as the "superior race" with a "historical destiny." This sense of superiority places adherents of each ideology above others, making it easier to justify their persecution or extermination.

2. The sanctity of violence and blood: Rabbi Levinstein transforms war and bloodshed into a sacred commandment or duty, while Nazism considered violence, especially military and racial violence, an essential tool for achieving racial "purity" and "continuity." In both cases, violence is stripped of its tragic nature and transformed into a virtue necessary for achieving a higher goal.

3. New Moral Justification and Denial of Humanity: Both approaches offer "new morals" or "new interpretations" that allow for transcending traditional humanistic norms. Levenstein views "universal morality" as antithetical to Jewish morality, while the Nazis separated "Aryan morality" from "Jewish morality" as "impure" and "anti-life." These ideological divides justify the dehumanization of the other, making them a legitimate target for violence.

4. Mechanisms for Dealing with Guilt: As mentioned, both Levenstein and Himmler aim to provide combatants with mechanisms for dealing with guilt. This involves creating emotional distance, reframing actions, and portraying the enemy in a dehumanizing manner.

5. Alleged Historical Collaboration and Methodological Similarity: The text refers to claims that Zionism and Nazism, both products of Western civilization, have historically collaborated, and that the two ideologies share a strategy of "killing or deporting" people settled in their homelands. It is also noteworthy that Zionist thought, like Nazi thought, derives its ideology from materialistic values ​​that favor the survival of the fittest.

Fourth: Contemporary Incarnations Linking Zionism to Nazism

The dangerous consequences of these discourses are evident in contemporary events. In Rome, in May 2025, a shocking graffiti titled "The Final Solution" was displayed, depicting a kiss between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

The artist, Laika, described her goal as "shocking" to point to a "systematic process of destroying the Palestinian people," describing Operation Gideon's Wagons as "ethnic cleansing" and claiming that the Israeli army is starving the population and killing children, and that the next stage will be the expulsion of survivors.

This comparison, though harsh, reflects a deep concern among some about the use of rhetoric that justifies extreme violence and links it to the history of the Holocaust. Historians and sociologists such as Zygmunt Bauman and Moshe Zimmerman point to the parallels between Israeli practices and Nazi practices, such as the construction of the Apartheid Wall, which resembles the Warsaw Walls.

Even a prominent Jewish philosopher such as Zygmunt Bauman has criticized Israeli policy and condemned the use of the Holocaust to legitimize crimes against Palestinians.

Thinkers such as Roger Garaudy see Zionism, like Nazism, as a product of European colonialism and nationalism.

These comparisons, though controversial, highlight the dangers inherent in any ideology that views violence as a necessary tool for achieving its vision, sanctifies it, and justifies the dehumanization of the other. They are a call to reconsider the moral and theological foundations that can be used to justify atrocities, and a reminder that the history of genocide often begins with a discourse that redefines morality and sanctifies violence in the name of a higher mission.

In conclusion, comparing the religious discourses and ideological justifications in the Gaza War, as represented by Rabbi Levinstein, with the Nazi discourse that led to the Holocaust offers a cautionary insight.

It reveals disturbing similarities in the ideological structure, in the use of language to legitimize violence, and in the psychological mechanisms aimed at overcoming guilt.

Both paths, despite their different historical contexts, reflect a distorted use of religion or nationalism to justify actions that go beyond basic human standards.

Understanding and handling these comparisons with caution is essential to avoiding the repetition of historical atrocities and to affirming the common human values ​​that must prevail over any ideological or religious considerations.