Don’t assume that all students who occupied Barnard University’s Milbank Hall or staged encampments at university campuses in Europe and America were solely motivated by support for Hamas.
These protests had a broad spectrum of participants, from the ringleaders to those simply joining their friends in a trendy protest over the latest hot issue. What unites them is a mindset shaped by frameworks that prevent critical thought, encouraging mob-like conformity.
The shock of Hamas’s brutal attacks on Israel on October 7 was met with disbelief, especially in Western academic circles. Student protests not only glorified Hamas’s actions, but some professors used progressive and aggressive feminist, colonial, and political frameworks to justify and encourage this support. In doing so, they amplified anti-Israel sentiment, fueling division and antisemitic misconduct on campuses and city streets.
Dangerous ideologies
To understand how such support for terrorism and antisemitism can gain traction, we must look deeper at the philosophical currents influencing contemporary culture. Many Western progressive ideas, though seemingly virtuous and innocent, are often twisted into dangerous ideologies during times of polarization, becoming fertile ground for extremism.
This polarization is not only manifesting in right-wing extremist ideologies like the “great replacement theory” but also in left-wing dogma that promotes “resistance by any means necessary.” It is no accident that neo-Nazis and anti-Israel activists often appear together at protests. This behavior aligns with the Horseshoe theory of political science, whereby the extreme right and left mirror each other.
Despite not initially mentioning Jews, these extremists find common ground in their hatred for them. Unfortunately, much of the West remains unaware of how seemingly benign ideas can feed into dangerous ideologies — ideologies that, historically, mobilized support for the Nazis and, more recently, for Hamas.
In my recent essay, “The Seeds of Campus Antisemitism: Similarities between Heideggerian Philosophy and Identity Synthesis Ideology,” published in the Institute for the Global Study on Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) Occasional Paper Series, I examine how Heideggerian philosophy and Identity Synthesis ideology contribute to the rise of antisemitic ideas. This essay draws from my studies at George Washington University, where I explored the works of Martin Heidegger, a 20th-century philosopher.
Heidegger, who popularized Mein Kampf and other Nazi scholarship and also mentored Jewish political philosopher Hannah Arendt and critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, became entangled with Nazi politics in the 1930s. He developed a foundational philosophy in "Being and Time" that did not explicitly mention Jews but, as scholars like Richard Wolin argue, was subtly suffused with antisemitic ideas.
His philosophy promoted German exceptionalism and a reductionist view of oppressor-oppressed dynamics, emphasizing a need for revolutionary redemption through the destruction of modernity and its Jewish elements.
Heidegger’s concept of “authentic being” (or Dasein) applied only to Germans. His vision of a united German Volk and a return to Greco-German roots justified his antisemitic rhetoric. He believed that Germany’s redemption depended on the annihilation of Jews, whom he blamed for the degeneracy of modernity.
The “Identity Synthesis”
Similarly, the “Identity Synthesis” ideology, as described in Yascha Mounk’s The Identity Trap, promises to resolve contemporary social issues by promoting a political revolution rooted in identity. This ideology emphasizes group identity, where those with more “oppressed” identities are seen as more virtuous and powerful.
In academia, this has led to the promotion of identity-based thinking. Mounk writes that American progressives in schools are encouraging young students to define themselves based on race and other aspects of their identity as opposed to character, which is developed through means of self-agency.
The tenets of “Identity Synthesis,” such as identity exceptionalism and the victim-oppressor dichotomy, echo Heidegger’s exclusionary ideas. Like Heidegger, modern identity synthesizers fabricate internal enemies — groups like Zionists or Jews — whom they claim must be destroyed in order to achieve liberation.
This mentality is embedded in critical race theory and other academic disciplines that foster enmity toward designated out-groups, such as “whites” and Zionists, rather than encouraging constructive dialogue and learning from successful initiatives that rose from the ashes of oppression — like the establishment of the State of Israel.
For identity synthesizers, power belongs only to the oppressed, and Israel — along with Zionism — becomes a primary enemy. Power thus becomes a mechanism for destruction rather than construction. Like Heidegger’s views on Jews, these ideologies falsely portray Zionism as an obstacle to justice and equality, targeting 80% of world Jewry and the world’s only Jewish state.
This dangerous ideology is legitimized within academia, leading to academic malpractice and the second, or continued, “betrayal of the humanities.” Heidegger decried traditional concepts of validity, claiming they were “entangled” in confusion.
Today, many professors embrace relativistic theories that distort objective reality, teaching students to shape the world they wish to see rather than confronting the world as it is with evidence and truth. At the same time, they distort the history of the Jewish people and Israel, spreading spurious anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric that echoes Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda.
These ideologies, rooted in victimhood, power politics, and identity exceptionalism, create fertile ground for antisemitic views and fuel hateful behaviors threatening our communities. The persistence of such ideas, especially when endorsed by academic institutions, poses a grave danger to society’s understanding of truth, morality, and the meaning of peace.
We must critically examine these intellectual movements that pervade our societal cultures and scrutinize their foundations. Those who understand these philosophies and how they can be used for constructive aims can push back at this tumultuous academic tide, causing wreckage to today’s youth and generations to come.
The writer works with the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism & Policy (ISGAP) and will graduate from George Washington University this spring.