Trends of Radicalisation in Israel

3.2 Research Report July 2021

Abstract

This report will identify and review general trends in radicalization through an inductive analysis of “hotspots” that epitomize them. Typically, specific events that qualify as hotspots are (1) premeditated, (2) potentially scalable acts of (3) extremist violence, within (4) a larger series or pattern of similar acts that are committed by radicalized individuals (5) clearly linked to or influenced by a radicalized group, network or organization. The analysis will identify, contextualize and then quantify distinct occurrences of physical or emotional violence that are characteristic of and central to the trends. The report’s main task is to scrutinize specific, pivotal moments – “hotspots” of radicalization – that represent a culmination of general radicalization trends and provide meaningful insights into their growth and expansion.
The report’s findings rely primarily on secondary sources: official statistics, state reports, academic research, publicly available datasets, published interviews and legal materials. The hotspots identified in Israel that are presented in this report focus on ethno-nationalist, right-wing, religious extremism and Palestinian jihadist terrorism. The cases showcased here focus on the most relevant aspects radicalisation in Israel, presenting its most vivid and consequential manifestations and linking them to the general trends that led to specific situations.
The first chapter opens with a short introduction. The second offers contextual and historical background by overviewing the three chosen hotspots (section a): 1. A Palestinian terror attack against Israeli Jews: the murder of the youths from Gush Etzion (2014). 2. A Jewish terror attack against Israeli Arabs: the murder of teenager Abu Khdeir (2014). 3. A homophobic hate crime: Young Shira Banki’s last parade (2015). This part will ground the analysis in the wider connections between the chosen hotspots, influenced by the radicalisation processes of socio-political extremism occurring within Israeli society over the past decades. Section b provides reasoning for the method and chosen hotspots, focusing on three main themes that accompany the hotspots: disputed territory, religious xenophobia, and ethno-nationalist racism, connected directly or circuitously to Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem.
This part will be followed by a multilevel analysis of the forces of radicalization that are most intimately linked to the chosen hotspots (section c), providing a closer look at the micro, meso and macro levels. The micro level will focus on the personal background of the individuals responsible for planning, organizing and carrying out the violent acts. The meso level will point to the wider radical milieu – the supportive or even complicit social surroundings – which serve as a rallying point and may be the “missing link” to wider radicalized networks. This level includes political cells, religious leaders and other groups encouraging violence in various ways. The macro level identifies the role of the government and society in processes of radicalization, including systemic and structural factors such as a lack of socio-economic opportunities, the atomization of political and religious tensions, traditional structures and more. The next section (d) will present our identification and analysis of “facilitating factors”, meaning specific elements in the political and socio-cultural environment of the individuals responsible for the hotspots that facilitated the violent acts – circumstances that made the violent acts possible.
The next section (e) will present the motivational causes for the hotspots, and quantify them by placing them on the I-GAP spectrum, a constructivist method of multifaceted assessment that allows us to trace the motives driving radicalization, by examining four aspects that motivate individuals to engage in violent extremism (Injustice, which lead to Grievance, Alienation and Polarization). The motives are identified from the point of view of the individuals involved in the hotspot and should reflect these individuals’ own sentiments and impressions rather than external or “neutral” perspectives, with answers ranging from 1 to 5. Low and high scores indicate lower and higher degree of radicalization, respectively (quantified in electronic form).
The third chapter briefly summarises the findings of the report. The conclusions sum up, finalizing the critical interactions between the three hotspots and their socio-political environment, on the basis of micro-, meso- and macro-scale elements, facilitating factors and motivational I-GAP coding. This shows that the chosen hotspots share several links to each other, as with the fact that the hotspots all had some relation to greater notions regarding Jerusalem’s contemporary issues: the acceptance of the LGBTQ community despite its religious identity; sustaining the relations between its western neighborhoods and eastern ones populated by Israeli-Arabs and/or Palestinians; and finally, using the political centrality of the national conflict as a tool for gaining individual profit in the name of radical ideologies. This might lead to the notion that the incitement behind retribution acts, whether planned or not, never leads to the desired outcome but actually creates long-term damage to the next generation that sometimes interprets state and/or anarchistic violence as an invitation for retaliation.