I’ve been meaning to write this for awhile, and unfortunately it hasn’t gone out of date.

On April 29th, a man stabbed two Jewish people in London. Shortly before that someone threw a Molotov cocktail through the window of a synagogue. A string of attack preceded that, including the arson near the former offices of a Jewish charity, bricks being thrown at a synagogue, and the destruction of ambulances belonging to a Jewish organization.

These attacks are obviously antisemitic, but I think they also constitute terrorism. What we need to figure out, however, is what type of terrorism we’re dealing with. The attacks called to mind my visit to York during my sabbatical a few years ago, in which I visited Clifford’s Tower (pictured), the site of a horrific antisemitic massacre in the Middle Ages. There is a long history of antisemitism in the UK, as elsewhere in Europe and the United States. I am not conflating what is happening now with that tragedy, but it is a worthwhile reminder of what can happen when antisemitism, or any hatred, goes unchecked.

Antisemitic terrorism

Of course, I first have to define terrorism. Despite the many issues with the term and the study of it, it holds some value. I’ve been defending terrorism studies here for over a decade. More recently, I pointed out that the academic study of terrorism serves a public purpose, by allowing us to push back on politically-motivated abuses of the term, such as when the Trump Administration brands US citizens it has killed “terrorists.”

Definitions vary, but I think Hoffman’s is the most useful (and probably most widely used): terrorism is violence or the threat of violence that is political, meant to have broader repercussions, and conducted by non-state actors.

We can usually determine whether something is terrorism by looking at the stated motivations of the group or individual behind it. Al-Qaeda released statements declaring war on the United States; lone wolves like the right-wing extremist who attacked a Charleston church post manifestos online. We can then say that they had a political motivation and meant to affect people beyond the immediate target, so it’s terrorism.

Lone wolf or clandestine terrorism can be harder to figure out. Not all lone wolves leave manifestos behind, and some are suffering from mental illness. Not all terrorism attacks are claimed.

Does it matter if this is terrorism? Yes, for both normative and descriptive reasons

That doesn’t mean they aren’t terrorism, however. We can infer from the targets and statements made by the attacker whether they are terrorism. And there is a whole literature exploring how to make sense of unclaimed seemingly-terrorism attacks. Much of this focuses on when groups claim an attack, looking at things like religious ideology and strategic calculations. But they note that most terrorist attacks are unclaimed. The deciding factor for whether it is terrorism often comes down to whether civilians are being targeted in connection with a political struggle and in a way that seems intended to influence audiences beyond the immediate target.

One could argue this is a broader issue for terrorism studies, and that may be a topic for a different post. But I think it’s important to count these seemingly-terrorist attacks as terrorism. Partly because many of them obviously are just unclaimed terrorist attacks. But also because it allows us to properly categorize and take seriously acts of right-wing violence, like the January 6th attack on the US Capitol or the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Given all this, what can we say about the antisemitic attacks in Britain? Well, some of them have been claimed. Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia is a self-described Khomeinist group that says they are behind several of the attacks. And even attacks that we think are unconnected to that group—like the latest stabbing—can be inferred to be terrorism, based on similarity to other attacks in this recent wave. Moreover, there are signs of extremist attitudes among some attackers.

Does it matters if it’s terrorism?

That, of course, is the next question. The answer is yes, for both normative and descriptive purposes.

Normatively, this flips the critical terrorism claim on its head. Critical terrorism studies dislikes the term “terrorism” because it carries a normative weight that allows governments to demonize groups. These are often marginalized communities not directly connected to the violence, such as Muslims in the United States and Europe. It also allows states to disregard legitimate struggles when they involve attacks on civilians.

And I agree the term terrorism has power. But that’s why it’s important. As I’ve said before, the best way to deal with bad applications of “terrorism” is with good applications of “terrorism.” Point out why we can’t blame entire communities for small groups’ actions, why the definition a policymaker using is faulty. And then be sure to call out acts that should count as terrorism, again, like January 6th or Tulsa.

The mostly likely situation is a combination of Iran-sponsored terrorism and growing domestic antisemitism

There is a well-founded fear that these antisemitic attacks in Britain are fading from the headlines. People worry antisemitism has been normalized, seen as something that “just happens.” There are many ways to combat this trend, but one is to call it out as something that can’t be normalized: terrorism.

Descriptively, it matters what is going on. The divide between hate crimes and terrorism is tricky, but generally the former is more spontaneous and directed at a specific target. The attacks we’re seeing are clearly organized, are not attacks of convenience, and—taken together—constitute an attempt to intimidate an entire community. They should be treated on the same level as other terrorist threats.

So what do we do about it?

That, of course, is the most important point. There are two explanations for what’s happening.

One is that this is a coordinated campaign with ties to Iran. Terrorism experts believe the aforementioned group not only supports Iran, but is funded by the IRGC. There has been documented evidence of Iran hiring local criminals to conduct terrorist attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets. It is very possible that is happening in the UK.

State-sponsored terrorism raises particular issues for counterterrorism operations, but also provides opportunities. The groups have the resources of a state at their disposal, and can easily replenish their ranks if they are made up of operatives the sponsor recruits. At the same time, policymakers have a target to focus on when cutting off this support.

The other alternative is that this is an organic movement, either directed by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia or involving disconnected lone wolves motivated by antisemitism. These attacks may be less severe than state-sponsored actions, but harder to combat. One option is increased security at potential targets, but Jewish communities should not have to live in fear forever. The UK tends to rely on speech restrictions to combat threats, but that raises normative free speech concerns and also doesn’t really work. Another option is to encourage small-scale peacebuilding efforts across communities, which can be effective at isolating hatred.

But while I don’t agree with speech restrictions, anti-Israel activists may need to reflect on their actions. A term has become popular among US progressives, “stochastic terrorism;” the idea that rhetoric that falls short of inciting violence can still inspire extremist actors to commit terrorism. This is usually applied to right-wing political figures’ rhetoric, but—if it is to be consistent—should apply across the board.

The Economist has noted strains of conspiracy-theorizing in criticism of Israel that reflect earlier antisemitism. There have been reports of Jewish public figures being harassed over Israeli policies, and the Edinburgh Fringe Festival canceled shows by Jewish performers (this occurred due to safety concerns, which—when my University cancelled a talk by a Palestinian activist for similar reasons—was treated as targeting the content of the speech by local critics). A conservative UK MP was challenged by a protester for attending a vigil in support of the victims of the latest attack.

Debates over the nature of Zionism and its connection to Jewish communities outside of Israel are incredibly complicated. We are in a situation, however, where the current wave of anti-Israel activism is leading to harassment of Jewish people. Moreover, there are violent attacks on Jewish communities seemingly driven by criticism of Israel. That should prompt self-reflection.

The most likely conclusion is that a little of both are going on. Iran is likely sponsoring attacks on Jewish targets for some twisted strategic reason. And growing antisemitism is leading some to engage in terrorism against Jewish communities. This suggests an incredibly serious situation that needs to be addressed.