Antisemitism as an Underlying Precursor to Violent Extremism in American Far-Right and Islamist Contexts

Key Findings:

This paper argues that, in the American context, adoption of antisemitic beliefs by a group or an individual can be considered a potential indicator of adoption of extremism. Non-violent and violent iterations of the same extremist milieus often share antisemitic views as central elements of their belief system. Therefore, antisemitism constitutes a linkage between activist and violent extremist segments of the same movement.

The researchers further posit that antisemitic ideology is so essential to American extremist groups that perpetrate it, that removal of anti-Jewish discourse from the group’s worldview would render the character, goals, and strategies of the movement unrecognizable. Salafi-jihadist and far-right white supremacist groups (the U.S. extremist movements that arguably pose the largest threat for inspiring terrorist attacks) are exemplary case studies.

The extreme right-wing current draws on the same racial, essentialist and conspiratorial views of Jews that were established in Europe in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and also incorporates contemporary elements such as Holocaust denial. The jihadist movement draws on a long history of antisemitism in the Islamic world, which has been exacerbated in recent decades by conflicts with Israel and the West. However, the import of these European manifestations of antisemitism has deeply influenced views of Jews in the Muslim world, and in particular amongst Islamists.

Antisemitism plays two essential roles within extremist groups’ ideology and function: 

(A) The otherization of Jewish people, which permits extremists of multiple persuasions to distinguish “us” from “them” and clearly identify a target for hostile actions. 

(B) Wide-sweeping conspiracy theories, which scapegoat Jews for historic and current grievances of the in-group. These include notions of Jewish “control” of world governments, the media, society, the economic system, and other sociopolitical entities. Fundamentally, they help extremists provide a key gateway issue for new recruits (who may be coming in with broad pre-existing ideologies), and justify the legitimacy and scope of their actions.

This cocktail of narratives results in individual extremists who believe simultaneously that 1) the Jewish people are the enemies of their in-group, 2) their extremist group is the only entity that is carrying out “the righteous struggle” against Jews, and 3) that hostile action, including violence, is the only acceptable response to perceived grievances against the Jewish community. This ideological mixture is frequently cited as justification for violent attacks conducted against U.S. Jewish communities. 

Young’s case shows a clear example of the role of antisemitism as a least common denominator amongst a variety of seemingly-opposed violent extremist movements. Young’s apparently oxymoronic, simultaneous belief in the tenets of neo-Nazism and jihadism stemmed from the central theses of antisemitism. Bowers and Joseph instrumentalized antisemitism for the benefit of two disparate violent extremist movements—Bowers in furtherance of the violent white supremacist movement and Joseph for ISIS and its jihadist ideology. Despite their differing motives, the two violent extremists converged on plots targeting Jewish religious institutions, and Joseph was inspired to act on behalf of his own movement by Bowers’ attack.

Based on this report’s findings, counter-extremism practitioners and scholars may consider incorporating antisemitism as a diagnostic factor for extremist radicalization.

Disclaimers: (A) Antisemitism is not claimed to be inherent to extremist ideologies, as there are multiple extremist groups that do not profess, or are not inexorably linked to antisemitism; (B) In the U.S., no single extremist group can claim a monopoly on the perpetuation of antisemitic narratives, nor on the overall “attack on the Jewish community”; (C) Antisemitism as a phenomenon should not be viewed solely as a function of extremism. To do so would ignore its existence within wider Western history, thought, and culture.