The Psychology of Radicalization: From Hamas to America’s Activist Left

During my time in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, I focused on international terrorism cases involving Palestinian groups hostile to Israel. Among them, Hamas stood out as the most active and determined — particularly in the United States, where its presence took the form of aggressive fundraising efforts. The FBI’s investigations were predicated on information and evidence of material support to terrorism, often funneled through a web of front organizations (e.g., The Holy Land Foundation), designed to obscure the true destination of the money: Hamas operatives bent on attacking Israel.

Hamas and other groups began launching rockets from Gaza into southern Israel around 2001, escalating significantly after Hamas took full control of the territory in 2007. Beyond the rockets, Israel has endured a steady toll of suicide bombings — particularly in the early 2000s — carried out by individuals deliberately groomed and radicalized by Hamas through ideological and religious indoctrination, often beginning at a young age

To support the FBI’s domestic counterterrorism efforts, I established an official liaison relationship with a representative of Israel’s internal security service called Shin Bet, but officially known as the Israel Security Agency (ISA). That relationship proved invaluable. Through it, I gained deeper insight into how Hamas identifies, recruits, and deploys suicide bombers — and the process is as calculated as it is cruel.

Hamas deliberately targets society’s most damaged and vulnerable — young men whose lives have been marred by poverty, humiliation, or personal failure. These are not hardened ideologues; they are often desperate, isolated individuals offered a final, perverse form of redemption. Hamas promises them an escape from obscurity: instead of dying in shame or insignificance, they can die as revered martyrs. Their deaths are reframed as acts of courage and purpose — sacrifices in service of the Palestinian cause.

But martyrdom isn’t just about personal transformation. It’s also transactional. The family left behind is often rewarded with monthly stipends or financial support measures intended to compensate for the loss of a male breadwinner and to elevate the family’s social standing. The suicide bomber may die, but the family rises — at least in the narrative constructed by Hamas.

There are striking psychological parallels between the recruitment tactics used by Hamas to groom suicide bombers and the methods employed by some radical groups — including elements of the progressive left — to draw in followers willing to justify or even engage in violence.

Like many radical movements, Hamas thrives by cultivating a powerful sense of group identity. Recruits are embedded within tightly knit communities where loyalty to the group overrides personal doubts or outside influence. Conformity isn’t merely encouraged — it’s demanded. Absolute adherence to the group’s beliefs becomes the price of acceptance.

Over time, the fear of disappointing one’s comrades can outweigh even the fear of death — or, in the case of Western progressives, the fear of public shaming, legal consequences, or professional ruin. The intense pressure to prove one’s loyalty to the collective can drive individuals to embrace increasingly extreme views and engage in actions they might never have considered on their own.

The recruitment process often involves intensive indoctrination — spiritual, ideological, or political. For Hamas, this means a combination of religious instruction, military training, and spiritual conditioning, all reinforced through isolation from outside influences. The goal is to deepen commitment to the cause and legitimize violence as a form of righteous action.

Similarly, radical progressive movements in the West rely on their own mechanisms of reinforcement. Instead of militant camps, they employ digital echo chambers, ideological training, and tightly controlled discourse on social media platforms. While the content and framing differ, the underlying strategy is familiar: surround individuals with affirming voices, suppress dissent, and reframe extreme behavior as morally justified resistance.

This dynamic is no longer confined to foreign theaters. It is playing out domestically, including in Minnesota, where the mechanisms of grievance amplification, ideological reinforcement, and moral reframing have become increasingly visible. That trend accelerated following the Jan. 7, 2026, shooting in Minneapolis in which a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good during an enforcement operation. (RELATED: The Death of Renee Nicole Good: Why the Democrats Will Fail Step Three in the George Floyd Script)

The incident has sparked widespread controversy and protests, with local officials and community members questioning the federal narrative and the use of force. (RELATED: Who’s Paying for the Minneapolis Protesters?)

Prior to the shooting and escalating in its aftermath, activist groups such as ICE Watch — informal networks that share information about ICE activity and sometimes mobilize volunteers to monitor or interfere with enforcement operations — have stepped up their tactics and visibility. (RELATED: Who Gets Canonized — And Who Gets Condemned?)

Recruitment and indoctrination tactics within these networks often mirror those used by other ideologically driven movements. Participation in ICE Watch training and activities can function as a socialization mechanism that reinforces a shared worldview and strengthens group identity. Volunteers are often given labels such as “constitutional observers,” “legal observers,” or “Community Defense and ICE Watch training,” framing opposition to ICE operations as civic-minded rather than confrontational.

Recruitment materials and discussions circulating on encrypted social media tend to use charged language and reinforce a singular narrative that demonizes ICE as a “white supremacist police force” lacking oversight.

Like the gravitational force of a black hole, no light of rational thought can escape; reality is compressed, distorted, and reshaped into an illusion presented as irrefutable truth.

These efforts include instruction in disruptive methods aimed at frustrating ICE operations, particularly those focused on apprehending undocumented immigrants. While supporters frame such involvement as community defense or solidarity with immigrant communities, critics argue that the rhetoric and tactics can escalate confrontations and blur the line between peaceful monitoring and active interference.

Adding fuel to an increasingly volatile situation, Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, injected incendiary rhetoric into the debate by equating anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis with popular uprisings against the violently repressive regime in Iran.

In a post on X, Martin wrote, “From Tehran to my birthplace of Minneapolis, people are rising up against systems that wield violence without accountability” — a comparison that implicitly equated U.S. federal law enforcement to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The analogy was not merely overwrought; it trivialized the brutality of an authoritarian security apparatus while lending moral legitimacy to domestic activism that increasingly seeks to obstruct lawful immigration enforcement.

Further parallels emerge in how both Hamas and radical ideological groups exploit grievance and alienation. Their recruitment strategies often target individuals grappling with frustration, disconnection, or identity crises. By offering a sense of purpose and belonging, recruiters can redirect those personal struggles into a deep commitment to the cause — sometimes to the point of justifying violence.

Within these group frameworks, violence is not only accepted; it is normalized and even glorified. For Hamas, martyrdom is elevated as a sacred duty, richly rewarded and revered. In other radical groups — particularly some factions within the progressive left — violence may be framed as necessary resistance or a righteous means to force social or political change.

That said, key differences remain. Hamas’s methods are deeply rooted in religious, ethnic, and nationalist narratives, often beginning in early childhood through systematic indoctrination in schools, religious institutions, and state-controlled media. In contrast, radical progressive groups in Western societies generally lack comparable lifelong cultural indoctrination. Their tendency to resort to violence, while increasingly visible, remains less organized and less frequent — at least for now.

Still, the psychological machinery is strikingly similar: the formation of group identity, emotional indoctrination, exploitation of grievance, and the moral reframing of violence. These patterns reveal clear parallels between Hamas’s recruitment of suicide bombers and the tactics used by some radical groups — even within the Western progressive left — to attract and radicalize followers prepared to act in the name of the cause.

While Hamas openly seeks the destruction of Israel and rejects Western democracy, it is increasingly elements of the far-left at home that appear to be dehumanizing their opponents and justifying violence as a legitimate means of effecting change — where calls for confrontation are celebrated, and violence is increasingly framed as not only justified — but necessary.

READ MORE from Mark D. Ferbrache:

Arctic Frost and the Constitutional Risks of Secret Subpoenas Against Lawmakers

Why the Democrats Lost in 2024 and the Road to Recovery

Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.