When people say Israel treats Palestinians as badly as Jews were treated in the Second World War, are they simply voicing a political opinion? New research from Norway suggests the answer may be more complicated, with the belief closely tied to a willingness to excuse harassment and violence against Jews.
The study, published in American Psychologist, was led by Johannes Due Enstad of the Institute for Social Research in Oslo. It examined a idea known as Holocaust inversion, which casts Israelis as the new Nazis and reverses the roles of victim and perpetrator. Enstad wanted to know whether endorsing this view is linked to attitudes that make anti-Jewish aggression easier to tolerate.
He analysed two nationally representative surveys of the Norwegian population, carried out five years apart. The first, from 2017, included 1,575 people, while the second, from 2022, involved 1,653 and was preregistered, meaning the analysis plan was publicly lodged before the data were examined. Respondents were asked how well they felt the Holocaust comparison matched their views, and whether harassment and violence against Jews could be defended given how Israel treats Palestinians.
Around a third of respondents agreed with the Holocaust comparison. About 12% said anti-Jewish harassment and violence could be defended, while roughly a quarter declined to answer the question at all.
The link between the two views was striking. Among people who completely rejected the comparison, only 2–3% thought such aggression was justifiable. Among those who fully agreed with it, the figure rose to between 24 and 27%, a ninefold to twelvefold increase. The pattern held after accounting for pro-Palestinian sympathies, education, gender and openly antisemitic attitudes.
Those who endorsed the comparison were also more likely to refuse to take a stance against such aggression. Follow-up analysis found they were more likely to avoid answering questions designed to measure blatant antisemitic prejudice, such as whether Jews are to blame for their own persecution.
Enstad argues the findings fit a long-established idea in psychology that prejudice does not vanish when it becomes socially unacceptable, but can find quieter outlets. Open hostility towards Jews is strongly frowned upon in liberal democracies, yet equating Israel with Nazi Germany has become widely accepted in parts of Norwegian society. That, he suggests, may make it a socially acceptable vehicle for expressing hostility that would otherwise be suppressed.
The author is careful to stress that criticism of Israeli policy, even when strongly worded, is not in itself antisemitic. He also notes that most people in the study did not justify aggression, and that the research cannot prove one belief causes the other. The surveys relied on single questions, and the small number justifying aggression limits precision.
Interestingly, the pattern did not appear among Muslim respondents with an immigrant background, where the belief was not linked to justifying aggression. Enstad describes possible explanations as speculative and calls for further research.
Norwegian police recorded a threefold rise in antisemitic hate crimes in 2023 compared with the previous five years. Enstad suggests that educational programmes helping people recognise when criticism of Israel can function as subtle prejudice could be a sensible starting point for policymakers.
