Terrorism and political violence (TPV), especially the indiscriminant kind targeting unarmed civilians, is one of the most severe challenges facing human societies. Direct ramifications are heavy, and can include loss of life and limb and a disproportional emotional reaction, particularly emotional distress. TPV also creates a considerable challenge for democratic societies. Often, there is a difficult tension between the essential need to feel secure and the aspiration to sustain democratic values and preserve democratic culture. More specifically, in times of terrorist threat and severe losses, when direct confrontation with the perpetrators of terrorism is either impossible or does not guarantee public safety, emotional distress is frequently aimed at minority groups. Alongside ideology, emotional reactions—which are generally overlooked in political conflict research (Costalli and Roggeri 2015)—can be easily translated into support for radicalization and nondemocratic practices.

This article examines the effects of individual-level exposure to TPV on radicalization via mechanisms of conflict ideologies and emotional distress. It first provides the political-psychological context of exposure to TPV. Next, it looks at the core elements of the argument, outlining the definitions of emotional distress and conflict ideology. The third section disentangles the ways in which exposure to TPV feeds into the process of radicalization. In tackling this subject in the Israeli-Palestinian context, I contribute to the burgeoning, if largely unreconciled, debate within political science over TPV and radicalization—that is, whether individual-level exposure of unarmed civilians to TPV prompts subject groups to pacify or radicalize. Some scholars find that TPV diminishes trends of radicalization, whereas most others posit the opposite. In concluding, I show how my research contributes both to debates within political science, as well as policy circles interested in the reactions of civilians exposed to TPV or threat thereof.

TPV includes violence waged between countries, protracted conflicts within countries, and terrorist attacks. Daily exposure to war-related events, including resurgences of TPV, cause civilian casualties. Civilians in societies suffering from conflict violence endure human and material loss, exhaustion, misery, uncertainty, grief, danger, demands for resources, and other grievances (Lyall, Blair, and Imai Reference Kocher, Pepinsky and Kalyvas2013; Zeitzoff Reference Schuster, Stein, Jaycox, Collins, Marshall, Elliott, Zhou, Kanouse, Morrison and Berry2014). Exposure to violence entails situations in which people experience direct or indirect harm. TPV is the harm inflicted on individuals amid war, terrorism, or general political violence—that is, loss of life and other grievances amid conflict such as the threat of loss or knowing someone who might be harmed (Hobfoll, Canetti-Nisim, and Johnson Reference Hayes and McAllister2006) with physical, spatial, and emotional aspects (Canetti et al. Reference Canetti, Russ, Luborsky, Gerhart and Hobfoll2014). This is true for both relatively circumscribed and acute incidents of TPV (e.g., NYC September 11, 2001; Madrid March 11, 2004; London July 7, 2005; or Oslo July 22, 2005), and cases of protracted violence.

Exposure to TPV can elicit severe emotional distress, impaired mental health, and eventually support for further political violence. Post-traumatic stress (PSS) is one such debilitating emotional injury; symptoms include a re-experiencing of the traumatic event, avoidance of reminders of the trauma, emotional numbing, and hyperarousal (Spitzer et al. Reference Pham, Weinstein and Longman1994). The appraisal of danger that the “other side,” or out-group, poses to the life or well-being of the individual or in-group, is inherent to PSS (Canetti-Nisim et al. Reference Canetti-Nisim, Halperin, Sharvit and Hobfoll2009). Studies of the psychological implications of terrorist attacks in the United States (Schuster et al. Reference Miguel-Tobal, Cano-Videl, Gonzalez-Ordi, Iruarrizaga, Rudenstine, Vlahov and Galea2001), Spain (Miguel-Tobal et al. Reference Laor, Yanay-Shani, Wolmer and Khoury2006), and the UK (Rubin et al. Reference Lyall, Blair and Imai2007), have also pointed to PSS as a major emotional reaction to TPV exposure. Further, the more individuals are exposed to TPV, the more likely they are to fall into a trajectory of chronic poor mental health (Hobfoll, Canetti-Nisim, and Johnson Reference Hayes and McAllister2006). If the actions of others have been threatening, and if that threat has had emotional consequences, then counter-aggression may be one coping response (Chemtob et al. Reference Canetti, Galea, Hall, Johnson, Palmieri and Hobfoll1994). Stress symptoms resulting from exposure to TPV can lead to aggression, militancy, ethnic exclusion, and other forms of radicalization for defense and protection (Hobfoll, Canetti-Nisim, and Johnson Reference Hayes and McAllister2006; Canetti et al. 2009).

Conflict ideology constitutes a coherent worldview often prevalent in one’s culture, which can provide a sense of meaning in the face of threats. Ethos is a specific case of political ideology of conflict that is prevalent among societies involved in intense violent conflicts. It is a set of shared conflict-supporting narratives, with an ideological structure, that decrease support for the peaceful resolution of intractable conflicts. It can serve as a system-justifying ideology, and thus may play an important role in the effects of exposure on coping with adversity created by political conflict. Ethos of conflict is likely to decrease support for the peaceful resolution of protracted conflicts. It serves as a useful coping mechanism for societies exposed to waves of TPV, yet impedes conflict resolution (Bar-Tal Reference Bar-Tal2013).

This conflict-supporting ethos comprises beliefs related to justness of goals, victimization, security, positive collective self-image, de-legitimization of the opponent, patriotism, unity, and peace. By adopting this ethos, in-group members are portrayed as patriotic, peace-loving victims of the adversary’s violence—out-group members are portrayed as untrustworthy and inhumane. On the personal level, the conflict-supporting ethos provides meaning for reality and a sense of control. It plays an important role in helping members of society cope with psychological and emotional distress. On the collective level, it provides a dominant orientation to conflict, creates a positive collective identity, binds members of society together, and gives meaning to societal life. Its orientation strives to preserve the existing order, continuing the conflict without the risk of dealing with the uncertainty that peacemaking requires. These conflict-supporting beliefs become the prism through which society interprets reality, accumulates information, and creates its political attitudes (Bar-Tal Reference Bar-Tal2013). Society exerts great efforts to ensure that its members adhere to the dominant ethos by disseminating it through educational and cultural institutions. Meanwhile, alternative knowledge about possibilities of peacemaking is rejected or prevented from penetrating the social sphere.