Father-son gunmen killed 16 people during December 14 Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, prompting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attribute the attack partly to Australia’s September recognition of Palestinian statehood. This framing—connecting legitimate diplomatic positions on Palestinian self-determination with antisemitic terrorism—reveals deeper tensions about how Western governments navigate criticism of Israeli policy while combating genuine anti-Jewish hatred.
Netanyahu’s Causation Claim Faces Immediate Pushback
Netanyahu stated he had written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in August warning that “your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorists. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets.” Following the Bondi attack, Netanyahu added: “Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia. You took no action. You let the disease spread.”
Albanese rejected any connection, stating his government would pursue “national unity” while emphasizing that Australia joined Ireland, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Belgium and Oman in recognizing Palestinian statehood—a position consistent with international consensus favoring two-state solutions. UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul characterized Netanyahu’s linking as “disgusting,” noting Australia has “taken extensive measures to prevent antisemitism.”
Australian authorities identified attackers as Sajid Akram (50) and his son Naveed (24), with Albanese stating they were motivated by Islamic State ideology. Police investigated Naveed in 2019 regarding connections to Sydney-based Islamic State cell, though Australian Security Intelligence Organization focused on associates rather than Naveed himself. The attackers’ extremist motivations appear rooted in jihadist ideology rather than diplomatic positions on Palestinian statehood.
IHRA Definition Expands Antisemitism to Include Israel Criticism
Netanyahu’s framing gains traction through redefined antisemitism concepts. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition adopted by numerous Western governments includes 11 examples—seven relating to Israel criticism rather than anti-Jewish hatred specifically. This reformulation enables characterizing opposition to Israeli policies as inherently antisemitic, conflating legitimate political disagreement with ethnic/religious prejudice.
Australia’s Executive Council of Australian Jewry recorded 1,654 incidents between October 2024-September 2025 using this expanded definition—five times the pre-October 7, 2023 decade average. The organization noted 2,062 incidents during the year immediately following Hamas’s attack. However, these statistics increasingly capture Israel-related criticism alongside genuine anti-Jewish bigotry—obscuring distinctions between political opposition and ethnic hatred.
Similar patterns emerge globally. American Anti-Defamation League identified record 9,354 “antisemitic” incidents in 2024, with majority “containing elements related to Israel or Zionism” for first time. UK’s Community Security Trust found 52% of 3,528 recorded incidents involved “rhetoric directly referenced or linked to Israel, Gaza, Hamas terror attack or subsequent Middle East war”—compared to just 246 such incidents in 2022.
The statistical increases reflect definitional expansion rather than necessarily indicating rising ethnic hatred toward Jews as distinct religious/cultural group. When criticism of military operations becomes classified as antisemitism, increases become inevitable during conflicts generating humanitarian concern.
Legitimate Palestinian Advocacy Conflated With Extremist Violence
British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis told BBC the Bondi attack resulted from Israel being “demonized,” calling for crackdowns on anti-Israel protests. He characterized “globalizing the intifada” as equivalent to terrorism, stating: “What is the meaning of ‘globalise the intifada’? I’ll tell you the meaning… it’s what happened on Bondi Beach yesterday.”
Yet “intifada” simply denotes Palestinian uprising against occupation—terminology Palestinians have used for decades describing resistance to what the International Court of Justice ruled constitutes unlawful occupation. Calls to “globalize” this struggle seek replicating international solidarity movements that contributed to ending South African apartheid—not endorsing terrorism.
Australia Palestine Advocacy Network condemned the attack, stating perpetrators “did not represent their movement or their values.” Albanese specifically noted that Ahmed al-Ahmed, a local Muslim man, tackled one gunman and disarmed him—an action authorities credit with saving lives. Albanese described Ahmed as “true Australian hero” during hospital visit, challenging narratives attempting to portray Muslim communities as collectively threatening.
The conflation serves strategic purposes: delegitimizing peaceful advocacy through association with extremist violence while avoiding engagement with substantive Palestinian grievances under international law.
Western Response Asymmetries Reveal Selective Concern
Western leaders’ reactions to Bondi attack contrast sharply with responses to Gaza casualties. King Charles III called the Sydney violence “most dreadful antisemitic terrorist attack,” while New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stated Australia and New Zealand are “closer than friends, we’re family” in expressing solidarity. These immediate, emotionally resonant statements reflect appropriate responses to terrorism targeting civilians.
Yet comparable rhetorical urgency rarely accompanies discussion of Palestinian civilian deaths during Israeli military operations. Over 70,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza since October 2023 receive muted Western condemnation, with leaders emphasizing Israel’s “right to defend itself” while downplaying humanitarian consequences. International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu regarding crimes against humanity, including using starvation as warfare weapon—yet Western governments continue diplomatic and military cooperation.
This asymmetry suggests deeper issues beyond antisemitism concerns. Rapid, forceful condemnation of anti-Jewish violence alongside reluctance acknowledging Palestinian suffering indicates selective application of humanitarian principles rather than consistent opposition to civilian targeting regardless of victim identity.
Causation Claims Serve Political Rather Than Analytical Functions
Netanyahu’s attribution of Bondi attack to Palestinian statehood recognition serves multiple strategic purposes. First, it delegitimizes diplomatic positions supporting Palestinian self-determination by associating them with terrorism. Second, it deflects attention from his government’s actions generating international criticism. Third, it frames any concession to Palestinian rights as endangering Jewish safety globally—creating impossible bind where supporting international law becomes characterized as enabling violence.
The logic collapses under scrutiny. Most of the world’s countries recognize Palestinian statehood, including numerous nations experiencing minimal antisemitic violence. Key holdouts include United States, Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea—suggesting recognition patterns reflect geopolitical alignment rather than antisemitism prevalence. If Palestinian statehood recognition fueled anti-Jewish violence, we would expect correlation between recognition timing and incident increases across diverse contexts—evidence that does not materialize.
Explaining violence does not justify it. Understanding that jihadist extremism motivated Bondi attackers rather than Australian diplomatic positions enables addressing actual radicalization pathways. Misdiagnosing causation ensures problems persist while legitimate Palestinian advocacy becomes unjustly stigmatized.
Original analysis inspired by Jonathan Cook from Middle East Eye. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
