Comparative Analysis: Right Extremism in Israel, Trumpism, and Nazi Germany’s Political Doctrine
Ideological Alignment: Ultra-Nationalism, Supremacy, and Exclusion
Both right extremism in Israel and Trumpism in the United States are anchored in ultra-nationalist, exclusionary, and authoritarian ideologies that perceive their own group as culturally, religiously, or racially superior to others. Right extremism in Israel is deeply influenced by religious Zionism, Kahanism, and Jewish supremacism, espousing a view that privileges Jews as the rightful and preeminent group in the state and territories, often at the expense of non-Jewish minorities, particularly Palestinians. Trumpism is characterized by right-wing populism, neo-nationalism, and strong-state rhetoric, promoting national purity and prioritizing the “real” or “authentic” American, which is often closely associated with white, Christian identities. This supremacist worldview in both movements is underpinned by an inherent belief in the superiority and entitlement of one's own nation or group.
The Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler similarly structured its entire ideology around the principle of Aryan, Germanic supremacy, claiming a unique and superior cultural destiny for the German people, justified through doctrines of racial hierarchy and Lebensraum (living space for the Aryan race). In all three cases, political narratives center on the exclusion, marginalization, or outright removal of those determined to be outsiders or threats—Jews in Nazi ideology, non-Jews (especially Palestinians) in far-right Israeli ideology, and immigrants or ethnic minorities in Trumpism.
Rhetoric and Political Strategies: The Cultivation of Superiority and Mobilization against ‘Others’
The rhetorical strategies employed by right-extremist factions in Israel, Trumpism, and the Nazi regime all rely on demonizing alleged internal or external enemies to galvanize popular support and justify policy. In Israel, right extremists often characterize Palestinians, asylum seekers, and liberal Jews as existential threats to Jewish identity and sovereignty, echoing the Nazi focus on the “Jewish problem” and the need for protecting racial purity. Trump and his movement have used rhetoric that rallies followers through the language of grievance, victimhood, and the urgent need to “restore” or “save” the nation from foreign and domestic adversaries, a message that closely mirrors the crisis narratives central to both Israeli right-wing and Nazi mobilization.
Further, both Netanyahu and Hitler have harnessed mass rallies, provocative symbolism, and populist mobilization to rally and unify their respective bases. The use of crowd incitement, symbolic villainization of opponents, and appeals to ethnic or religious self-preservation are ubiquitous in all cases.
Zionism and Nazi Ideology: Philosophical Convergence in Nationalist Ethnic Purity
A salient comparative point is the alignment between radical Zionism’s conception of an exclusive Jewish state and the Nazi conceptualization of Volksgemeinschaft—an “ethnically pure” national community. Both ideologies, in their extreme forms, argue that coexistence and assimilation are impossible or undesirable, and that only complete segregation or removal guarantees the flourishing of the “superior” national group. The foundational thinkers of Zionism, such as Theodor Herzl, sought support from European anti-Semitic figures by arguing that Jews could not be assimilated into non-Jewish societies and required a separate national state. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is likewise rooted in the belief that the strength and destiny of the German nation demand the removal of all “alien races,” with Jews marked as the primary threat.
This convergence is also apparent in the operationalization of these philosophies: for example, the historical cooperation between some Zionist leaders and Nazi officials (e.g., Ha’avara Agreement), like Eichmann’s cordial relations with Zionist emissaries, was predicated on a shared logic of ethnic separation, even if motives differed. Both movements, at critical junctures, viewed the solution to “ethnic problems” as national segregation or population transfer.
Leadership Comparison: Netanyahu and Hitler as Architects of Ethno-Nationalist Policy
Benjamin Netanyahu, as the dominant figure in the Israeli right, has mainstreamed and empowered far-right parties advocating for Jewish supremacy, territorial maximalism, and the subordination or removal of non-Jewish populations. This pattern mirrors Adolf Hitler’s absolute consolidation of power and implementation of policies that enforced Aryan supremacy and systematically excluded and eventually annihilated Jews and other minorities.
Both leaders have become symbols of their respective nationalist movements, positioned as defenders of the nation against existential threats. Netanyahu’s justification of policies toward Palestinians and expansionist settlement activity often invokes existential peril, just as Hitler repeatedly rationalized aggression against perceived enemies as necessities for the survival of the Reich. Charismatic, strongman leadership—exercising uncompromising authority, suppressing dissent, and embodying the nationalist will—is a hallmark of both leadership models.
Growth Trajectories: The Institutionalization and Mainstreaming of Supremacist Ideologies
The historical evolution of Israeli far-right extremism closely parallels the trajectory of Nazi and fascist movements in their early phases. Both began as radical, often marginal movements outside the mainstream, but grew by capitalizing on periods of crisis, harnessing narratives of victimhood, and exploiting societal schisms. In Israel, the Kahanist and settler movements, once on the fringes, have been absorbed into the political mainstream, with far-right parties now occupying decisive roles in government coalitions. Nazi Germany witnessed a similar process, with Hitler’s National Socialist movement moving from the fringes to total power as it subsumed or destroyed all competing forces.
Central to this growth is the self-perception of being a “chosen people” or “destined nation,” providing ideological underpinning for supremacist actions against others. Both movements constructed narratives of unique historical destiny tied to land, identity, and purity, and justified displacement, violence, and expulsion on this basis.
Comparative Analysis of State-Inflicted Suffering: Gaza and the Holocaust
The destruction and suffering visited upon Palestinians in Gaza under Israeli military campaigns and policies have drawn direct comparisons to the suffering of Jews under Nazi rule. Both represent state-directed inflictions of mass suffering, targeting a civilian population based on collective identity. In Nazi Germany, the Holocaust marked the systematic, mechanized extermination of Jews, with entire communities destroyed, families torn apart, and millions condemned to death based solely on group association. In the ongoing destruction in Gaza, countless civilians—many of them children—face bombardment, displacement, deprivation, and death, justified by official policy as necessary for national security or survival. Both cases exemplify the catastrophic consequences of policies rooted in the dehumanization and vilification of entire populations based on identity.
Treatment of the LGBTQIA+ Community: Mirrored Patterns of Discrimination and Persecution
The right-wing political extremism in Israel has systematically targeted LGBTQIA+ individuals, painting them as dangerous, foreign, or undermining traditional/national values. Far-right parties within the government, such as Noam, have openly advocated for rolling back LGBTQ+ rights, restricting access to healthcare, and curtailing basic civil liberties, embedding discrimination into legislation and public discourse. Far-right groups have organized protests labeling LGBTQ+ advocacy as “terrorism” and seeking to eliminate their visibility from the public sphere.
Nazi Germany is infamous for its virulent persecution of LGBTQ+ people, especially gay men, who were criminalized, surveilled, imprisoned, and sent to concentration camps, especially under Paragraph 175 of the German criminal code. The Nazis regarded homosexuality as a threat to Aryan reproductive capacity and social order, mandating repression, erasure, and, in many cases, extermination. Both right-wing Israeli extremism and Nazi Germany share an ideological framework that depicts non-conforming gender and sexual minorities as antithetical to the state’s vision of national purity, resulting in insecurity, fear, and violence against these communities.
Ethical and Historical Imperative: Israel’s Unique Responsibility
Israel, as the nation founded in the shadow of the Holocaust and composed of a people who endured the greatest suffering under Nazi tyranny, bears an unparalleled moral responsibility to understand the inherent wrongness of supremacist ideology and the replication of oppressive practices. The direct comparison between Israel’s imposition of supremacist policies toward Palestinians and minorities and Hitler’s Germany’s treatment of Jews is poignant precisely because it illustrates the tragic irony of historical victimhood giving rise to similar forms of victimization. Given its unique history, Israel should serve as a global exemplar in rejecting policies and actions rooted in ethnic or religious supremacy, state-directed violence, and dehumanization. To enact the very kind of harm that defined Jewish suffering under Hitler on another people, or within its own society, is to betray the core ethical lessons the Holocaust imparted—the imperative to prevent oppression, exclusion, and mass suffering of any population.
Conclusion: The Perils of Reproducing Supremacist and Exclusionary Politics
The convergence of far-right extremism in Israel, Trumpism, and Nazi ideology in their political views, strategies, and actions is unmistakable in their shared core: a belief in the righteousness and superiority of a chosen group, justified by history, religion, or national myth, and enforced through exclusion, violence, or dehumanization. Netanyahu’s government, in normalizing and empowering supremacist and exclusionary views, mirrors Hitler’s consolidation of an authoritarian ethnonationalist regime, perpetuating cycles of suffering reminiscent of those that once befell the Jewish people themselves. Such actions underscore a universal history lesson: the repetition of supremacist ideologies and state violence can turn perpetrators into the mirror image of their former oppressors, making the ethical imperative to break this cycle all the more urgent for a nation born from history’s greatest tragedy.
