Jihad Chic

Trivializing Terror

“It’s just that these people want to care in a way that makes them look gorgeous.”
― Tom Wolfe, Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers

Hannah Einbinder is another case of what might be called “Jihad Chic.” It is the phenomenon of people who latch onto radical slogans and causes without understanding what they actually mean or what they actually support. They do not grapple with the violence or the consequences behind the movements they cheer. What they crave is the thrill of transgression. They get high on it.

By posturing against Israel or the West, they try to turn borrowed outrage into a kind of cultural currency. It supplies them with a persona and "personality flavor" in industries that demand constant conformity to gatekeepers and entertainment agendas. Their professions (actors, singers, etc) reward obedience, repetition, and image maintenance, which leaves many desperate for a marker of individuality. Anti-West and anti-Israel signaling fills that void. It appears to be rebellion, but it actually functions as branding that gives them a sense of authenticity without requiring knowledge, consistency, or responsibility.

Jihad Chic of course, is an old phenomenon, takes different forms depending on the context and circumstances, when your bourgeois beliefs, tastes, and income are shared at a wide range of social circles, you want to "stand out," you want to "be something," there are different ways to do it, but the fastest and easiest way is to take a radical position. Elites perform distinction through consumption and symbolic gestures. “Jihad Chic” functions in the same way.

It offers immediate status by signaling moral defiance against an established order, even if the position is shallow. Within artistic, academic, or media milieus, radicalism becomes a form of cultural capital, certifying that one belongs to the vanguard and sees more profound truths hidden from the mainstream.

But here is the paradox: In industries like acting, music, and fashion, taking anti-Israel positions is framed as rebellious, but in reality it reflects a lack of perception about where the cultural consensus actually lies. Israel is not a protected or popular cause in these milieus. Quite the opposite: mainstream media coverage, academic discourse, and celebrity activism consistently cast Israel as the villain. That posture has always been the easier path, precisely because it resonates with entrenched narratives, some very antisemitic ones. The paradox is that Israel’s very success—its stability, prosperity, and military strength—has made it a target of resentment. Within elite circles, attacking Israel signals radical authenticity when in fact it is simply conformity dressed up as rebellion.

What keeps “Jihad Chic” alive is the fact that no one demands accountability. Actors, singers, and influencers can repeat the slogans endlessly, and nobody in their world ever asks them to explain Hamas’s charter, Iran’s proxy network, or the real meaning of “river to the sea.” Their peers applaud, the journalists flatter, and the talk-show hosts treat these postures as if they were insights. Tom Wolfe described the same charade in his account of “Radical Chic,” where New York’s elite discovered that revolutionary violence could be passed around like a canapé at a cocktail party. The same dynamic plays out today.

The performance gives the appearance of risk while actually guaranteeing comfort, since nothing will be challenged and nothing will be tested. The pose endures because it confers prestige without ever requiring knowledge, courage, or the willingness to face what the movements being glamorized actually stand for.

There is a reason why revolutions in the hands of the bourgeois so often collapse or turn monstrous. In France, the drama of virtue gave way to purges and guillotines, while in the Soviet Union, the intellectual vanguard built a system more ruthless than the aristocracy it overthrew. “Jihad Chic” belongs to the same lineage. It is a rebellion staged by people who confuse slogans with courage and who do not realize that the groups they champion would see them as enemies. Hamas would outlaw their art and police their private lives, Iran’s proxies would decapitate them, and the Islamic Revolution itself would put them to death.

The pose feels radical in Los Angeles or Paris, but in Gaza, Tehran, or Beirut, it would mean execution. Like the failed bourgeois revolutions before it, “Jihad Chic” carries within it the seeds of its own absurdity, celebrating forces that would gladly destroy the very people who treat them as chic.