Over the past decade, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in antisemitism. Within the past year alone, synagogue shootings, stabbings, and verbal and physical abuse have stricken Jewish communities across the country. This disturbing trend can only be understood through the increased popularity of antisemitic conspiracy theories, which have fueled recent manifestations of antisemitism. Such conspiracies describe Jews as minorities, yet they also paradoxically assert that Jews wield tremendous power over worldly affairs. The contradictory nature of these theories can be explained using feminist scholar Eve Sedgwick’s concept of the double bind: the “idea that discourses gain power over their productions using the rhetoric of incoherence.” Antisemitic conspiracy theorists use the double bind to characterize Jews as weak in number, but strong in terms of the global influence and power they possess over gentiles. This antisemitic double bind not only portrays Jews as “other” from gentiles, but it also portrays gentiles as otherized and persecuted by “powerful” Jews. By making gentiles the “other,” antisemitic conspiracy theories encourage gentiles to rise against and destroy their supposed Jewish oppressors.

The concept of the persecution of gentiles at the hands of powerful, conspiratorial Jews has an extensive history, stretching from antiquity into the modern world. One of the first instances of this trope occurs in the writings of Apion, a first-century CE Greco-Egyptian scholar. Apion writes that the Jews would annually abduct a Greek foreigner, feed him, and then sacrifice him to the Jewish God. He claims that the Jews would cannibalize the person’s body and swear “an oath of hostility against the Greeks.” Apion’s antisemitic rhetoric carried immense weight in the Hellenistic world. It not only characterized the Jews as hostile to Greeks, but it also portrayed the Greeks as being victimized and murdered by the Jews and their priests. Thus, Apion’s fabricated story about Jewish human sacrifice painted ancient Greeks as the “other” in the face of a shadowy Jewish menace and inspired outrage among gentiles. The logic behind Apion’s antisemitic conspiracy theory lived on in medieval accusations of Jewish blood libel, such as Thomas of Monmouth’s 12th-century CE account of the ritual murder of William, an English child who lived in the town of Norwich. Thomas’s hagiography of William’s life outlined a Jewish conspiracy that encompassed all of Christian Europe. Jewish leaders throughout Europe would convene in modern-day France to select the town in which a young Christian boy would be abducted and sacrificed during Passover. Thomas’ story neatly adheres to the notion of gentile victimhood, as it portrays a sinister cabal of Jews murdering Christians, thereby othering gentiles as victims of Jewish oppression.

This antisemitic idea of gentiles suffering at the hands of Jews persisted into the 20th and 21st centuries. For instance, the manifesto of John Earnest, the Chabad Poway synagogue shooter, claimed that the Jews are “responsible for the meticulously planned genocide of the European race” and the subjugation of all other gentile races. Additionally, American politician Rudy Giuliani implied in a 2019 interview that Jewish billionaire George Soros controls the American left and seeks to undermine American conservatism. Even Bernie Sanders and the coronavirus weren’t safe from the concept of gentile persecution. A 4chan user accused Sanders and Karl Marx of being communistic, “messianic Jews” who wanted to increase their power by stealing gentile money, and an Iraqi political commentator posited that the coronavirus is a Jewish biological weapon designed to depopulate the world of non-Jews and establish a global Jewish homeland. In all of the instances mentioned above, gentiles are portrayed as the victims of Jewish oppression, condemned to the status of “other” in Jewish eyes.

While antisemitic conspiracy theories depict gentiles as suffering from the actions of malevolent, powerful Jews, such theories urge gentiles to cast off their otherized status through hatred for and retaliation against Jews. For example, a YouTube comment on a video about antisemitism claims that “Anti-semitism endures for one reason, and one reason alone- Anti-gentilism. The oldest hatred in the world.” This comment’s argument lies at the heart of the antisemitic notion of gentile otherness: it claims that antisemitism is the Jews’ fault. Since Jews despise gentiles and view them as inferior, gentiles have no choice but to hate the Jews. This claim resonates strongly in John Earnest’s manifesto, which states that to end the Jewish genocide of the white race, the Jews must be destroyed. If left unchecked, they will gain control over the world, and gentiles will remain enslaved to Jewish rulers. A similar rationale to Earnest’s was used by the Nazis during the Holocaust in the Ukrainian town of Zhytomyr. Two Jewish judges, Wolf Kieper and Moishe Kogan, were accused of helping the Soviet secret police execute thousands of Ukrainians and ethnic Germans. By associating Kieper and Kogan with the Soviet secret police, and thereby portraying the police as “Jewish,” the Nazis implicated Zhytomyr’s Jews as murderers and encouraged Ukrainian and German gentiles to exterminate them. Therefore, antisemitic conspiracy theories encourage gentiles to rebel against perceived Jewish oppression by abhorring Jews and committing acts of violence against them.

From antiquity to the 21st century, antisemites have created conspiracy theories in which they otherize themselves as the victims of Jewish oppression to justify their hatred of and violence towards Jews. Whether these theories focus on human sacrifice, a war on conservative politics, communism, white genocide, or coronavirus, they all depict Jews as powerful, shadowy creatures who torment and subjugate gentiles. Hence, such conspiracy theories are meant to generate outrage among gentiles and rally them against a common Jewish enemy. The enmity generated by these theories has clear implications. While antisemitic conspiracies focus on the actions of “imaginary Jews,” or the antisemite’s concept of “the Jew,” they lead gentiles to commit atrocities against “real Jews.” Thus, while they might sound outrageous, antisemitic conspiracy theories must not be taken lightly. They have destroyed the lives of actual Jews in the past and continue to do so in the present through verbal, physical, or genocidal acts of violence.

Last Wednesday, the world was shocked when an audio message from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph (religious and political leader) of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, was published on the internet. The terror group’s elusive leader has been presumed dead on multiple occasions ranging from 2015 to 2017. However, reports of al-Baghdadi’s death have been dispelled with the release of audio recordings, the penultimate of which was published by ISIS’ al-Furqan media wing on September 28, 2017. Although last Wednesday’s recording was undated, it was likely made within the past three weeks, according to the SITE Intelligence Group. This is because it references current events, like the United States’ August 1 sanctions against Turkey for the imprisonment of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor.

In his 55-minute speech, which was entitled “Give Glad Tidings to the Present,” al-Baghdadi urged his followers to keep fighting in Iraq and Syria despite heavy losses. He exclaimed,

“For the believer Mujahideen, the scale of victory or defeat is not counting on a city or town being stolen or subject to those who have aerial superiority, or intercontinental missiles or smart bombs, and not how many followers they have, the scale depends on how much faith the worshipper has.”

Al-Baghdadi’s tone was markedly desperate, as he pleaded with ISIS militants to continue fighting against Russia, Syria, and the West in the Middle East. He said, “Oh Caliphate soldiers…. trust in God’s promise and His victory… for with hardship comes relief and a way out.”

In his audio recording, al-Baghdadi’s rhetoric against the US was much harsher than usual. He claimed that “America is going through the worst time in its entire existence,” boasting that the US and Russia are fighting for power in the Middle East. Additionally, he condemned US sanctions against Turkey for its imprisonment of pastor Andrew Brunson. Perhaps his harshest critique of the US was that it had failed to eradicate ISIS, claiming, “The mujahedeen have the credit in breaking the halo of [the United States’] power… [the US] boasted of its so-called victory in expelling the state from the cities and countrysides in Iraq and Syria, but the land of Allah is wide and the tides of war change.”

In addition to urging his troops to continue fighting the US, al-Baghdadi also encouraged his soldiers to continue the terror group’s religious campaign against Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria, as well as “apostate” Sunni Muslims who oppose ISIS. He also declared that supporters in Western countries should continue their attacks on innocent civilians, proclaiming,

“The supporters of the Caliphate should follow in their path, and trust in Allah, and carry out an attack that breaks [the West’s] heart, and rip them apart, either with gunfire or a stab to their bodies, or a bombing in their countries.”

Despite the ferocity of his words, al-Baghdadi’s audio message is meant to distract his followers from a simple, sobering truth: ISIS is losing. The terror group controls only 2% of the territory it formerly possessed in Iraq and Syria, which, at its peak in October 2014, was roughly the size of Great Britain. Furthermore, ISIS has suffered a string of losses in recent months, especially in Afghanistan. On August 1, ISIS’ Afghan affiliate, Wilayat Khorasan, was defeated by the Taliban during a two-battle in the northern province of Jawzjan. 200 to 250 ISIS fighters surrendered to the Afghan government, and 128 surrendered to the Taliban. Eight Taliban and six ISIS fighters were killed in the fighting.

The battle of Jawzjan holds immense significance for ISIS’ future, as the group lost all of its possessions in northern Afghanistan. Now, ISIS only has territory in the country’s southern Nangarhar province. Furthermore, Wilayat Khorasan was dealt an even bigger blow on August 25, when its leader, Abu Sayeed Orakzai, was killed in an airstrike along with ten other militants. While it’s inevitable that another leader will replace Orakzai, his death will stymie the group’s plans for some time. However, ISIS still has 3,500–4,000 troops in Afghanistan, so regardless of its current incapacitated status, it will remain a threat.

Having been defeated militarily in Iraq and Syria in 2017, according to a July 27 report by the United Nations Security Council, ISIS is transitioning from a proto-state structure into an underground terrorist network. The latter was the status the group had before it formed a government in Iraq and Syria in 2014. Since ISIS is turning into a smaller, more covert organization, it will become a more challenging adversary to defeat. The group’s tactics will become more guerilla-based, as its use of suicide bombers, small, rapid attacks, and improvised weapons will become more common. Furthermore, the UN report estimates that 20,000 to 30,000 ISIS fighters remain in Iraq and Syria combined, with many hiding in Iraq’s Anbar desert, the Ghadaf valley and Husseiniya, as well as the eastern Syrian province of Deir al-Zour.

Additionally, the UN report states that “Despite the damage to bureaucratic structures of the so-called ‘caliphate,’ the collective discipline of ISIL is intact. The general security and finance bureaus of ISIL are intact.” This is dangerous because if ISIS’ infrastructure remains intact, it can still coordinate attacks in foreign countries, the Middle East, Asia, Africa. It also means that its genocide of the Yazidis is still ongoing, as not all Yazidi sex slaves have been recovered and are still in transit. Thus, if the financial and business aspects of ISIS are intact, it means Yazidi women and children are still being sold. According to the head of the Yazidi advocacy group Yazda, around 3,000 Yazidi sex slaves are unaccounted for and are likely still in the hands of their ISIS captors. Furthermore, ISIS’ “caliphate” outside of the Middle East remains a threat, especially in West Africa, Afghanistan, and East Asia. Therefore, while ISIS has suffered debilitating setbacks within the past year, it has not been defeated and aims to continue jihad against its enemies.

In addition to showing its willingness to fight, al-Baghdadi’s message also shows that ISIS has not abandoned its Salafi-Jihadi interpretation of Islam. Salafi-Jihadism forms the core of the group’s religious ideology: it advocates for a return to the form of Islam practiced during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Sharia law, and the constant fighting of nonbelievers. In the recording, al-Baghdadi perfectly encapsulates Salafi-Jihadism when he orders his Syrian followers to keep fighting, exclaiming,

“You have no choice. If you want to live in dignity, then you return to your religion and fighting your enemy. It is not only about carrying weapons, but also… do not accept anything but Sharia law and die in order to achieve this.”

Since ISIS is as much of a religious movement as it is a political one, al-Baghdadi cleverly intertwines his message with Islamic theological concepts to galvanize his followers. Aside from the more obvious references to faith in al-Baghdadi’s recording, its title, “Give Glad Tidings to the Present,” has far deeper religious significance. The title is an excerpt from the 155th verse of the second chapter of the Qur’an, which states, “And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient.” Essentially, the verse reassures believers that even though they might endure great pain, they will prevail if they have faith in God.

With the Qur’anic verse, al-Baghdadi connects his message to the Islamic concept of al-Qadar, which means “predestination.” Al-Qadar posits that God has a plan for all of creation, which spans from the beginning of time to the end of time. Thus, al-Baghdadi tries to link his group’s recent setbacks to God’s plan, saying that Allah is testing ISIS through hardship. Al-Baghdadi encourages his soldiers to have faith in God, interpreting the verse to mean that, thanks to God’s plan, ISIS will persevere through His tests and achieve victory.

While ISIS hasn’t been defeated physically or ideologically, it is undoubtedly in a much more precarious position than in previous years. The group’s recent defeats in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan have caused it to slink back into the shadows and lick its wounds. It is doubtful that ISIS will ever regain its former strength, and it is safe to say that its global influence will continue to decline as a result. However, that does not mean the world should let down its guard. ISIS remains a formidable foe, one that has caused immeasurable death and suffering. The international community must continue to attack ISIS at every turn, destroying its leadership, bureaucracies, financial resources, and soldiers. When ISIS is unable to communicate and coordinate attacks effectively, it will finally be erased from the face of the Earth.

On February 21st, 2018, the most influential figure in Evangelical Christianity passed away. Billy Graham converted over 3 million people during his 60-plus years as a preacher, cementing himself as arguably the most famous and influential Christian leader in the United States of America. While Graham influenced the lives of millions of people in the US and around the world, he also changed the American ethos, helping to establish the myth that the United States is founded on Christian ideals. While the Constitution never mentions God or Jesus Christ, Graham and a cohort of conservative businessmen, politicians and clergymen made it their mission to destroy the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution. Eventually, their movement infused Christianity with the American government, something which the Founding Fathers never intended.

Billy Graham first stepped into the consciousness of the American public during the early 1950s. A firm believer in conservatism, Capitalism, and Christianity, Graham believed that America was in dire need of a religious revival. Thus, he set out to Christianize the nation, starting with a “crusade” (Graham’s term for an evangelical Christian revival) in Boston in 1950. In early 1951, Graham continued on his mission, traveling to Fort Worth, Texas to hold a four-week revival there. It was an instant success: 336,000 people attended the event, making it the largest evangelical gathering in the Southwestern United States. Soon after the revival, Texas oilman and billionaire Sid Richardson lent his support to Graham’s cause. Richardson’s financial backing would prove invaluable to Graham’s effort to Christianize the United States.

In 1950, Graham tried to spread his influence in Washington D.C., organizing a meeting with President Harry Truman in 1950. Truman was reluctant to display his Baptist religious beliefs publicly or to Graham and their meeting was awkward, an abject failure. Graham, however, was undeterred. He believed that Christianity was the solution to America’s ills, saying, “[The Poor’s] greatest need is not more money, food, or even medicine; it is Christ. Give them the Gospel of love and grace and they will clean themselves up, educate themselves, and better their economic conditions.”

In January 1952, Graham launched a five-week crusade in Washington D.C. His goal was to influence national politics and continue to foment religious revival throughout the nation. Politicians in Washington were enthusiastic to join Graham’s movement. Graham said to a reporter, “As near as I can tell, we averaged between 25 and 40 Congressmen and about 5 senators a night.” Graham did not hide his intention to Christianize America, saying, “If I would run for President of the United States today on a platform of calling people back to God, back to Christ, back to the Bible, I’d be elected. There is a hunger for God today.” In order to fulfill his dream of transforming America into a Christian nation, Graham supported Dwight Eisenhower in the 1952 Presidential Election, a devout Christian who proclaimed himself in 1948 to be “the most intensely religious man I know.” During Eisenhower’s campaign, Graham vehemently condemned “Communists and left-wingers,” yearning for a conservative president in office. Graham’s endorsement of Eisenhower helped attract more Christian support to his campaign, and Eisenhower won the election in a landslide, winning 55% of the popular vote. With Eisenhower elected, Graham’s goal of infusing Christianity with the United States was assured. Historian Kevin Kruse states:

“Working with Graham…, and countless others inside and outside his administration, the new president endeavored to lead the nation back to what he understood to be its religious roots. In doing so, however, he would actually transform America into something altogether new.”

Eisenhower fulfilled Graham’s hopes more than the preacher could have possibly imagined. After his election, the president established the National Prayer Breakfast, the official theme of which was “Government Under God.” Eisenhower even instituted prayers at the start of every Cabinet meeting, beginning in 1953, and declared Independence Day to be a National Day of Prayer. Finally, in 1954, the government adopted the religious mottos “In God We Trust” and “one nation under God,” as if to signal that America had returned to its Christian roots.

However, the United States of America never had Christian roots in the first place.

When they drafted the United States Constitution in 1787 and 1788, and later created the Bill of Rights in 1789, the Founding Fathers made it clear that the United States of America, by no means, would be a Christian nation. Several Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, were skeptical about the teachings of “revealed religion,” such as Christianity. In the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams stated that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Furthermore, in 1785, James Madison wrote: “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” Essentially, the Founding Fathers aimed to create an America in which religion would not influence governmental policies, arguing that laws passed by a certain religious group could be used to persecute other faiths and destroy democracy. John Dickinson, a Continental Congressman and Founding Father from Delaware and Philadelphia, echoed these sentiments, saying:

“Religion and Government are certainly very different Things, instituted for different Ends; the design of one being to promote our temporal Happiness; the design of the other to procure the Favour of God, and thereby the Salvation of our Souls. While these are kept distinct and apart, the Peace and welfare of Society is preserved, and the Ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature.”

Ultimately, the Founding Fathers created a country in which religion could be practiced freely but could not be used to make one religious group more powerful than another religious group. This doctrine is enshrined within the Constitution as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Billy Graham, however, led a movement which aimed to undermine the separation of church and state, falsely claiming that America was a Christian nation. While he claimed to be bringing America back to its roots, Graham’s campaign to Christianize America stood against the values of the nation’s founders. Thanks to his disregard for the First Amendment, Graham spun a false origin story about the United States, which many right-wingers and Conservatives still believe to this day.

On an ordinary summer day in 1941, a large number of Polish villagers gathered in the town of Jedwabne and its Jewish inhabitants were called to meet in the town square. Suddenly, the air was pierced with screaming, shouting, crying, and gunfire, as the Poles mercilessly attacked and tortured the Jews. People were stoned to death, slashed with knives, and some had their eyes and tongues cut out. The surviving Jews were then forced into a barn, locked inside, and burned alive. In just one day, all 1,600 members of Jedwabne’s Jewish community were exterminated by their Polish neighbors.

This atrocity was one of many carried out by Eastern European collaborators during the Holocaust. Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian auxiliary forces participated in the killing of millions of Eastern European Jews during World War II. While the majority of Poles did not collaborate with the Nazi regime, the tragedy that occurred in Jedwabne proves that some did.

However, according to a law signed by Polish President Andrzej Duda on Tuesday, the very act of talking about Poland’s involvement in the Holocaust has become a punishable offense.

Poland’s new Holocaust law, according to a Reuters report, imposes “prison sentences of up to three years for using the phrase ‘Polish death camps’ and for suggesting ‘publicly and against the facts’ that the Polish nation or state was complicit in Nazi Germany’s crimes.”

Thankfully, the international community condemned this authoritarian law, which promotes historical revisionism and Holocaust denial. Unsurprisingly, the law was poorly received in Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated: “The law is baseless; I strongly oppose it. One cannot change history, and the Holocaust cannot be denied.” In the United States, the law was harshly criticized by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who exclaimed, “Enactment of this law adversely affects freedom of speech and academic inquiry . . . We believe that open debate, scholarship, and education are the best means of countering misleading speech.”

For all of the Trump administration’s wrongdoings and promotion of “alternative facts,” its response to Poland’s Holocaust law is praiseworthy. The law doesn’t, in the words of President Duda, “defend [Poland from]… an evident falsification of historical truth.” In fact, it does the opposite. By criminalizing the act of recounting the Holocaust as it truly happened, Poland has legalized Holocaust denial. By preventing historians and other academics from debating whether or not Poland shares culpability in the Holocaust, the law neuters all forms of intellectual discourse on the subject, thus enabling the Polish state to censor the ideas it dislikes.

This law is an unacceptable display of ignorance on the part of the Polish government and it must be repealed as soon as possible. Condemnation from Israel, the United States, and other countries have drawn more attention to the law’s malicious implications. Hopefully, Poland will recognize the stupidity of its decision and do away with the law before its reputation is irreparably damaged. Until then, however, the Polish government deserves nothing but scorn for trying to erase one of the darkest episodes of human history.

For the Rohingya people, a Muslim minority ethnic group which resides primarily in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, 2017 proved to be a horrific year. In August 2017, the Burmese military began carrying out raids, executions, and other acts of violence against the Rohingya. The top human rights official for the United Nations, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, deemed such violence as “textbook ethnic cleansing.” Some have even considered the Burmese government’s actions against the Rohingya as genocide.

And now, a year later, the violence still hasn’t abated.

For over three decades, the Rohingya people of Myanmar have found themselves relentlessly persecuted by the Burmese government. The Rohingya are a Muslim minority ethnic group that resides primarily within Myanmar’s Rakhine State. The Burmese government sees them as “illegal immigrants” from Bangladesh. Severe anti-Muslim sentiment exists in the majority-Buddhist country, as the government views the Rohingya as a threat to Buddhist and Burmese nationalism. In 1982, the government passed a law that revoked Burmese citizenship from the Rohingya, effectively making them stateless persons, and they have faced violence from Myanmar’s ruling military junta ever since.

In 2016, however, the worst wave of violence hit the Rohingya when a Rohingya revolutionary group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, killed 9 Burmese border guards. Burmese forces began pouring into the Rakhine State, burning entire villages, carrying out summary executions, and raping women and girls. In September 2017, the United Nations deemed the actions of the Burmese government to constitute ethnic cleansing. It is estimated that over 10,000 Rohingya have been killed since 2017 and nearly 700,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar as refugees.

Historically, Myanmar’s government has denied foreign accusations that it is committing acts of violence against the Rohingya. Journalists reporting on the issue have been arrested, and countries have been barred from accessing zones in which the Rohingya have been targeted.

However, on January 10th, 2018, the Burmese military admitted for the first time that it had killed Rohingya people. Government troops and Burmese collaborators executed and buried ten Rohingya in a mass grave, calling them “Bengali terrorists.”

This admission from the Burmese military is significant because it breaks with the narrative offered by Myanmar’s government that it is not responsible for committing acts of violence against the Rohingya. However, the government has not claimed responsibility for any further acts of ethnic cleansing, which limits the degree to which human rights activists and organizations can form a case against the Burmese government’s persecution of the Rohingya. It is the duty of these individuals, organizations, the international press, and foreign governments, to continue to hold the Burmese government accountable, to ensure that the plight of the Rohingya is publicized. If these groups fail to continue the struggle of uncovering the Burmese government’s bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing, the suffering of the Rohingya will increase tenfold.

It is not only executions and mass graves that have caused the Rohingya unbearable anguish, however. The January 16th agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh to repatriate the approximately 655,000 Rohingya refugees living in the latter country has caused tensions to skyrocket within refugee camps. Six Rohingya elders, who represent 40 villages in Rakhine State, drafted a list of demands that they want the Burmese government to accept before any Rohingya are sent back to Myanmar. Their demands include the restoration of “long-denied citizenship and inclusion on a list of the country’s recognized ethnic groups…, that land once occupied by the refugees be returned to them and their homes, mosques, and schools rebuilt,” and “the military [to be] held accountable for alleged killings,” according to an article written by the Christian Science Monitor. Unless these demands are met, the elders said, the Rohingya people will not leave Bangladesh.

While it is highly likely that Myanmar will not agree to these terms, the demands promulgated by the Rohingya show that they are a people who are unafraid to stand up to the barbarity of their oppressors. The courage of the Rohingya is admirable, and the international community must learn from it if any progress is to be made in halting the Burmese government’s campaign of terror.

Yesterday, terrorism charges were filed against Everitt Aaron Jameson, a former US Marine who planned to carry out a terrorist attack in San Francisco, California, on Christmas Day. Jameson planned to carry out an attack on Pier 39, one of San Francisco’s busiest areas for shopping and tourism, with a truck, explosives, and weapons. Jameson “wanted to use explosives to ‘funnel’ people into a location where he could inflict casualties,” according to a CNN report.

Fortunately, Jameson’s plans were foiled by the FBI, which started monitoring his behavior in late September on account of his frequent liking of pro-ISIS and terrorism posts on Facebook. FBI agents then began posing as ISIS sympathizers, communicating with him until December 20th, when agents raided his Modesto home and arrested Jameson. There, they seized handguns, rifles, and a letter that read:

“I Abdallah adu Everitt ibn Gordon have committed these acts upon the Kuffar [infidels], in the name of Dar al Islam [the Muslim world], Allahu Akbar! You have brought this upon yourselves. There are no innocent Kuffar! Each and every Kuffar in this Nationalistic, Godless society has a hand in this. You’ve Allowed Donald J Trump to give away Al Quds to the Jews. Both You and he are wrong, it belongs to the Muslemeen. We have penetrated and infiltrated your disgusting country. These Acts will continue until the Lions of Islam overtake you. Turn to Allah, make tawbah and fight with us, the soldiers who fight in the day and the night. Allah SWT is most forgiving, I am not. Long live Isil, Long Live Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Allahu Akbar!”

According to an affidavit filed in the US District Court yesterday, Jameson converted to Islam two years ago, and was motivated in part to carry out a terror attack because of Donald Trump’s decision to move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. While we don’t fully know what drove Jameson to convert to Islam and become radicalized, what drives such a process? What led a Marine to adopt perhaps the most unforgiving, radical, and brutal interpretation of Islam possible?

Radicalization, according to an article published by Vox, is a process that can occur to anyone at any time, regardless of one’s ethnicity or religious beliefs. As such, radicalization isn’t easy to predict, but there are indicators or triggers that can cause a person to become radicalized. There are two main risk factors in this regard: societal and individual. The societal risk factors are as follows:

- The presence of a large minority population that is socially, politically, and economically marginalized

- Treatment of certain groups as “suspect communities” that are subjected to invasive and overbearing counter-terrorism efforts

- A cultural or political hostility toward religion in general or Islam in particular

- Unpopular foreign policies, such as support for repressive regimes or involvement in a military campaign, especially in a predominantly Muslim country (or several of them)

- The presence of preexisting recruitment networks

Individual risk factors are often influenced by societal risk factors, but ultimately depend on the background of a person. For example:

- Personal ties to an already radicalized individual

- A sense of personal failure, often tied with a yearning to do something important and meaningful with one’s life

- A desire for adventure, rebellion, and life experience

- The need to belong

- Feelings of compassion and concern for the suffering of others with whom one feels some kind of personal connection, such as one’s co-religionists

While we cannot say for certain what risk factors motivated Jameson to become radicalized and plan to carry out a terrorist attack, there are signs of certain societal and individual risk factors in his behavior prior to his arrest. First, Jameson definitely viewed Donald Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem as an attack on all Muslims. This fits in well with the social risk factor of “cultural or political hostility toward religion in general or Islam in particular.” Furthermore, this risk factor gave rise to a deeper, more individualized sense of anger within Jameson. Since he viewed Trump’s decision as an attack on all Muslims, Jameson felt motivated to carry out an act of terror because of “feelings of compassion and concern for the suffering of others with whom one feels some kind of personal connection.” In Jameson’s case, this was the greater Muslim community, or the ummah, as the affidavit mentions. Therefore, Jameson clearly saw himself as the avenger of all Muslims, ready to strike back against the United States for all the wrongs it had committed against his people.

Everitt Aaron Jameson’s radicalization should serve as a cautionary tale for the United States. It shows that we can never be too sure of who in our society may harbor terrorist sympathies. More importantly, it shows that anyone, regardless of their background, has the potential to be radicalized and carry out a terrorist attack against innocent people. However, there is still hope to be gleaned from Jameson’s story: his arrest at the hands of the FBI shows that American anti-terrorism strategies are working. If agencies like the FBI can monitor terrorists and establish counter-radicalization frameworks to combat their ideological beliefs, the United States of America will have made a significant step in finally ending the War on Terror.

Last Friday, the world reeled from the second deadliest terrorist attack of 2017. Suspected Islamic State fighters launched a vicious assault on a Sufi mosque in Egypt’s North Sinai province, killing 305 people and injuring at least 128. The assailants detonated a bomb in the midst of the worshipers, killing many, and five vehicles pulled up outside the mosque. Heavily-armed masked gunmen sealed off all avenues of escape, torching cars outside and even firing on ambulances that arrived on the scene. In the end, the heroics of local residents saved the lives of those on the brink of death, and the attackers fled. This was a terrorist act of unseen proportions, the deadliest in Egypt’s history. However, what made this mosque such an important target for Islamic fundamentalists? What made 10–20 people enter a house of worship and kill over 300 innocent people?

The answer, of course, lies within the Islamic State’s austere, intolerant, and belligerent interpretation of Islam, as well as the religious traditions of the worshippers at the al-Rawda mosque. The Islamic State believes in a Salafi-Jihadi and Wahhabi form of Islam, a branch of the faith which holds that it is a “true” Muslim’s religious duty to eradicate non-believers through the act of jihad, interpret the Qur’an literally, and to unerringly believe in Allah’s oneness, or tawhid. If a person violates tawhid, then he or she will become a non-believer worthy of death. According to Salafi-Jihadi or Wahhabi groups, people can commit tawhid by worshipping a holy trinity, having polytheistic religious traditions, or even venerating saints or idols. Salafi-Jihadis and Wahhabis believe such acts of religious devotion to be unacceptable, as they do not regard God as the sole object of one’s worship.

Sufis, in so many ways, believe in the antithesis of the Islamic State’s caustic interpretation of Islam. Sufism is a form of Islamic mysticism that practices “introspection and spiritual closeness with God.” Adherents meditate, embarking on spiritual journeys that will enable them to form a closer relationship with God. Alexander D. Knysh, a professor at the University of Michigan, described the tenets of Sufism as “love, peace, tolerance.” Unfortunately, the Sufi practice of worshipping at the tombs and shrines of saints is considered a form of idolatry and heresy by groups such as the Islamic State. Professor Knysh explains,

“The opponents of Sufism see the shrines and these living saints as idols… Their existence and their worship violates the main principle of Islam, which is the uniqueness of God and the uniqueness of the object of worship.”

Since the Islamic State deems Sufi practices to violate the oneness of God, the organization sees it as a religious duty to exterminate Sufis and “purify” Islam. A New York Times article states:

“In an interview published in an Islamic State magazine last January, a commander in Sinai outlined the group’s hatred for Sufis and their practices, including the veneration of tombs, the sacrificial slaughter of animals and what he termed ‘sorcery and soothsaying.’ The interview, in English, identifies Rawda, the district where Friday’s attack occurred, as one of three areas where Sufis live in Sinai that the group intended to ‘eradicate.’”

The al-Rawda mosque attack highlights the immense religious divide between Salafi-Jihadi and Wahhabi extremist groups and the rest of the Muslim community. Groups such as the Islamic State view their religious traditions as the ultimate, perfect form of Islam, which contradicts the tolerant, peaceful, and spiritual practices of Sufism. While the Egyptian military has carried out airstrikes against militants in North Sinai following the attack, it will take more than that to stamp out the Islamic State’s religious ideology, which has caused the deaths of thousands of men, women, and children in the Middle East.