On Sunday evening, 14 December 2025, Bondi Beach, one of Australia’s most public, most symbolically “open” places, became the scene of a terrorist attack targeting a Jewish Hanukkah gathering, the “Chanukah by the Sea” event. NSW Police declared it a terrorist incident; the Prime Minister described it as a targeted attack on Jewish Australians.
For many Australians, the shock comes in layers – the violence itself; the violation of a civic space associated with ordinary life; and the recognition that the target was not abstract. It was a community, visible, local, woven into the fabric of Sydney’s eastern suburbs, and present in Bondi in a way that is both ordinary and, now, newly vulnerable. Waverley, the local government area that contains Bondi, has the largest Jewish population of any LGA in NSW, with over 10,000 Jewish residents.
So, we should speak carefully.
We should be precise about what happened, and cautious about what we claim we already know. We should not sensationalise the violence, or make the suffering of Jewish Australians a rhetorical device. We should resist the opportunism that always arrives in the wake of blood – the people who want to recruit tragedy for their preferred argument, or expand a crime into a license to suspect entire communities.
But careful does not mean quiet. It means responsible.
And responsible public speech begins with one distinction that modern societies are increasingly forgetting: stability is the capacity to endure shock without political distortion, without losing proportion, without abandoning standards, without rewriting the rules in a moment of fear.
A stable society is not one in which nothing happens.
It is one in which events do not rewrite the rules.
It is impossible to write about this moment without recognising something that many Australians only intermittently understand – for Jewish people, public life often carries a background question of safety, even in countries that are otherwise tolerant and law-governed.
That question is historical memory, reinforced by present facts.
In the week before Bondi, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry reported 1,654 anti-Jewish incidents recorded in the 12 months to 1 October, and described levels of incident reporting that remain near record highs. And in July 2025, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism delivered a plan to government that explicitly frames antisemitism as a democratic corrosion requiring coordinated response, not merely private sympathy.
So, when a Jewish celebration at Bondi is attacked, it is not received as “a random tragedy that happened to Jews.” It lands as an assault on the premise that Jewish Australians can live openly, religiously, communally, visibly, without the public sphere turning hostile.
That is why the most urgent moral task in the aftermath is not performative unity but rather credible protection, and the restoration of civic confidence that Jewish life can be lived in public without being punished for being public.
But here is where the broader society must also be honest about itself – our political culture has been drifting toward a dangerous misunderstanding of stability.
A mature polity assumes three unromantic truths:
- Shocks will occur.
- Disorder is intermittent.
- Violence is never fully preventable.
This is realism. And realism is the beginning of public discourse, because it prevents us from demanding impossible guarantees, and then panicking when reality refuses them.
An immature polity treats each shock differently:
- each shock is taken as evidence of systemic failure;
- each rupture is treated as proof of fragility;
- each tragedy becomes a referendum on the legitimacy of the order itself.
When that happens, grief is quickly converted into political demand – rewrite the rules, tighten everything, treat everyone as suspect, suspend constraints, widen the net. It feels like seriousness. It often isn’t.
Because a society that cannot absorb shock without distorting itself is not stable. It is brittle.
And brittleness is precisely what violent actors, especially those who target minorities, are trying to expose.
1. The first ethical duty after violence – preserve proportion
Proportion is not indifference. Proportion is judgment.
It means we can hold multiple truths at once:
- That a targeted attack on Jewish Australians is a profound violation of our civic life.
- That Jewish Australians have good reason to demand protection and solidarity grounded in action, not slogans.
- That the country must respond with strength without expanding suspicion to whole communities, because collective blame is itself a form of civic collapse.
- That institutions must be allowed to investigate and prosecute with evidentiary discipline, not media-driven certainty.
Proportion is the ability to resist what I would call narrative inflation – the urge to turn every shocking event into a total story about “what Australia has become,” or a permission slip for whatever agenda we already wanted.
A polity that loses proportion begins to treat fear as an argument. And once fear becomes an argument, argument itself becomes optional.
2. The second duty – do not turn Jewish grief into a political instrument
There are two symmetrical moral failures that often appear after antisemitic violence.
The first is minimisation – euphemism, deflection, a refusal to name antisemitism as antisemitism, and a tendency to treat Jewish fear as merely one grievance among many. That posture is not “balance.” It is abandonment.
The second is instrumentalisation – the attempt to convert Jewish grief into permission for indiscriminate suspicion, for communal retaliation, or for domestic culture war. That posture is not solidarity. It is exploitation.
This was an attack on Jewish Australians; and the response must make Jewish Australians safer, without making anyone else less safe through scapegoating.
3. The third duty – resist the politics of permanent exception
In the wake of Bondi, there will be calls for reform, some justified, some opportunistic. There will be arguments about security, licensing, radicalisation, policing, intelligence, and public events. Government leaders are already signalling changes, including around firearms and security.
But reforms need a framework. Otherwise, the country drifts into a politics where each shock triggers an “exception” that never quite expires. Over time:
- the exceptional becomes normal;
- emergency language becomes default;
- restraints are treated as naïve;
- and minority communities end up living inside a permanent securitised mood.
This is a bitter paradox – the more we govern by exception, the more anxious we become, because the very act of treating life as emergency trains the public to experience life as emergency.
A stable society does not deny danger. It refuses to let danger rewrite its identity.
Bondi is a civic symbol – a place marketed as Australia’s informal commons, a postcard for “togetherness,” a stage on which the nation performs itself.
That is precisely why the attack lands with such force. It feels like a message – not only “you are unsafe,” but “there is no truly public place for you.”
And it is exactly here that the rest of Australia faces a decision.
Because there is a cheap way to respond to symbolic attack – symbolic response. Loud statements, maximal language, a week of flags and speeches, followed by a return to drift.
And there is a serious way – restore the conditions of ordinary Jewish public life. Not only by mourning, but by making it possible for the next Jewish gathering to occur without being shadowed by dread.
That requires practical security measures, yes. But it also requires moral clarity about what must not happen next.
What must not happen next
1) The spread of communal suspicion
After Islamist-inspired violence, some will try to convert grief into suspicion of Muslim Australians as a whole. That is morally wrong and politically self-destructive. It punishes innocents and produces exactly the fractured civic environment violent extremists want.
The Australian public has already seen gestures of solidarity that point in the opposite direction – stories of bystanders acting with courage, including Muslims, and faith leaders urging calm and unity.
A mature polity does not outsource moral judgment to rage. It refuses the false comfort of scapegoats.
2) The laundering of antisemitism into “complexity”
Equally, antisemitism must not be dissolved into vague language about “tensions” or “both sides.” Jewish Australians are not a proxy for overseas conflicts. They are citizens, neighbours, communities with a right to live openly.
When the target is a Jewish celebration, the moral responsibility of the country is to say so, clearly, and then act accordingly.
3) The replacement of public reason with moral theatre
A country cannot be governed by vibes. It must be governed by evidence, law, and proportion. It is the discipline that prevents tragedy from being followed by injustice.
What stability requires now
If stability is endurance without distortion, what does endurance look like in practice, right now?
• Credible protection of Jewish institutions and events
This is the minimum standard of a decent state. Increased policing around Jewish schools, synagogues, and community sites as a response to demonstrable risk and recorded incidents.
• Serious implementation of the antisemitism plan
Australia has already produced frameworks to combat antisemitism. The test is whether they become operational, across education, public institutions, law enforcement coordination, and online harms, rather than remaining a document we cite after each tragedy.
• Protection against backlash and retaliatory hate
Stability also requires that Muslim Australians, Arab Australians, and visibly “other” communities are protected from backlash. A state that protects one minority by tolerating violence against another is not stable; it is merely rearranging fear.
• A new standard for public speech
The most underrated element of security is public language. Inflammatory generalisations, opportunistic insinuations, and conspiratorial claims can produce real-world harm as surely as any pamphlet or preacher. Leaders have a duty to lower the temperature, not farm it.
Why do modern societies overreact? Why does every shock produce an urge to redesign the entire social contract?
Because beneath the fear of violence sits a deeper fear – that our order is not durable, that it exists only so long as it is not tested.
That belief is more destabilising than any single incident. It turns each tragedy into an existential referendum. It makes calm look like denial and restraint look like weakness.
A confident polity does not need to narrate its own survival after every shock. It proves its durability by continuing, by protecting its people, enforcing its laws, and refusing to become what violence wants it to become.
A stable society is not one in which nothing happens.
It is one in which events do not rewrite the rules.
And the rules worth preserving after Bondi are not merely procedural. They are moral:
- Jews belong here, openly, safely, permanently.
- No minority community should pay the price for another’s victimhood.
- Fear is real, but fear is not policy.
- Justice must be swift, lawful, and non-theatrical.
- Solidarity must be measured in protection, not performance.
The measure of Australia after Bondi will not be our ability to feel. We will feel.
It will be our ability to remain a society – capable of grief without panic; capable of protection without scapegoating; capable of strength without distortion.
That is what stability is. And right now, it is what the Jewish community most needs the country to demonstrate.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
“The Sydney Opera House was illuminated by a large menorah Monday night, a solemn tribute to the 15 lives lost the previous day in an antisemitic terror attack that rocked Australia’s Jewish community.”
“The projected menorah, displayed on the iconic opera house’s largest sail, was called for by the premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns.”
“Lighting the Opera House is a simple but powerful gesture: a message to the world that we cherish our Jewish community, that we honour their courage, and that we stand with them in solidarity and love,” Minns said in a statement.”
Has there been an Opera House projection in solidarity with the long-suffering people of Palestine?
We are losing perspective here.
Incidents like the very recent Bodi slayings will continue, until the core issue is addressed. What is it about the Jewish community through the centuries and across national boundaries that arouses such animosity?
In the week before Bondi, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry reported 1,654 anti-Jewish incidents recorded in the 12 months to 1 October
I would like more detail about this. Are they including pro-Palestinian rhetoric and events as “anti-Jewish”, the way that certain sections of the community conflate such with antisemitism, or were these all genuinely actions and threats that targeted Jewish people and/or institutions purely for being Jewish?
It is of great regret that the peaceful Jewish Australian citizens celebrating Hanukah at Bondi Beach were indirectly victims of the Zionist extremists whose actions provoke outrage amongst extremist Moslems. It is important to distinguish between Judaism and political Zionism, which many Jews reject, as well as Salafism and political ISIS, which many Moslems reject.
I concur, there has been some lazy throwing around of headline data, but little on actual details or deep dives….allows any narrative…..for our media to jump any conclusion they want….
Not unrelated the NYT reported earlier in the year; not unrelated to our own RW MSM and influencers led by News desperate to blame Palestinians, or anyone (un)related for anti-semitism …..with whiff of Atlas Koch* in the background…..
From the New York Times:
‘The Group Behind Project 2025 Has a Plan to Crush the Pro-Palestinian Movement
Even before President Trump was re-elected, the Heritage Foundation*, best known for Project 2025, set out to destroy pro-Palestinian activism in the United States.
In late April, the Heritage Foundation dispatched a team to Israel to meet with power players in Israeli politics, including the country’s foreign and defense secretaries and the U.S. ambassador, Mike Huckabee…’
The slaughter of Australians peacefully celebrating a cultural event on a Sunday afternoon warrants recognition and solace.
There should be no debate about that, no “what about…” no “look over there “
I wonder who pulled Biden’s strings also.
A dirty story and shame on the Zionists and US for provoking it…how many hundreds of thousands slaughtered?
“I would like to see more detail on this. Are they including pro-Palestinian rheteoric…” Read Leefe’s post for the rest.
I would ask “people” liKe A commentor, consider that a repugnance for child murder, rape, torture and genocide does NOT conflate to “antisemitism”
Haven’t people like Trump and Netantanyahu stirred up enough racist grief and hate against dispossed Palestinians yet!??
I don’t “get” that A Commentator can talk about Bondi after having said nothing for years about the slaughter in GAZA.
Excellent piece, thanks.
It seems to me that we need to separate those of Jewish faith from Israeli Jews as a whole. In the same way people of Islamic faith cannot be blamed holus bolus for anything antisemitic.We have enough of our own homegrown Aussie ratbags who love to stir this up – PHON.
Violence against a faith, an ethnic group, our own indigenous Australians – all of these things are simply hate manifested in violence. The argument is the same dor “domestic” violence.
There should be no adjectives included – it’s hate, violence, bigotry.
Penalties MUST be increased for all of these events. And we must all recognise those who have chosen this country as their home deserve the same protection and freedom from violence as any other Australia.
Teach it to children right from the start, they are the hope for the future
I don’t “get” that A Commentator can talk about Bondi after having said nothing for years about the slaughter in GAZA.
I don’t get why you would go to the trouble of inventing/misrepresenting my position.
It is a pathetic reply.
Paul Walter is correct to call out the highly selective “recognition and solace” called for by some.
Recognition is pointless unless it includes recognition of root causes.
There is no recognition by Netanyahu of root causes, in his turning the killings into a political weapon to justify his far worse killings.
There is no recognition of root causes by John Howard, who has turned the killings into a weapon to attack his political adversaries.
The violence will continue until the world deals with root causes.
Can someone clearly articulate “the root cause” of the shooting of dozens of Australians peacefully celebrating a cultural event on an Australian beach on a Sunday afternoon?
As I’ve said, I’m entirety of the view there is no cause, no rationale, no context that is capable of legitimately explaining this disgraceful terrorism in Australia.
You are correct, “there is no cause, no rationals (and) no context” that can give any legitimacy to the slaughter of men, women and children. But we do it every day, claiming they are the supporters of terrorism or importers of drugs, say no more.
Didn’t the son (of the shooter father & son) attend an Islamic centre in Sydney where the teacher was known to be notoriously antisemitic? Isn’t that one of the principal circumstances for this young man becoming indoctrinated with hatred towards Jews? Wouldn’t this indoctrination have also influenced the father? Or is it the case that the father introduced the son to this Islamic teaching centre?
And isn’t it the case that there exist hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of Muslims in the world who hold extremely negative views towards Jews? And isn’t it the case that those Muslims who inhabit Middle-Eastern regions – Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt – are most likely to hold the most extreme antithetical attitudes, indeed, hatred, towards Israel & Israelis for the direct suffering they’ve experienced at the hands of that Jewish community? And isn’t it also the case that it’s very likely that others in the world will empathise with this and seek to find ways to avenge the suffering of those most directly affected?
I think ‘root cause’ is the elephant in the room; Israel’s actions compounded over many decades of oppression provided just cause for revenge in the minds of many.
The fact of the construction of a complex nation comprised of migrants from all over the world, and by virtue thereof putting Islamic peoples shoulder to shoulder with the antagonistic Jewish community is a bit like flicking lit matches at a petrol-soaked pyre. Root cause? Look no further.
I think international issues, wars, atrocities are legitimate reasons for peaceful protest in Australia.
Anyone who considers them to be “the root cause” of slaughter of Australians peacefully celebrating a cultural event on a Sunday afternoon, has seriously lost the plot
As I’ve said, extremist religious ideology provides psychopaths and violent misfits with a cause, an ideology to justify their actions. Without this they wouldn’t be able to have any justification.
The notion of a “root cause” that allows importation of this violence to Australia is simply unacceptable
“Anyone who considers them (international issues, wars, atrocities) to be “the root cause” of slaughter of Australians peacefully celebrating a cultural event on a Sunday afternoon, has seriously lost the plot.”
Actually, those who cannot connect dots are lacking the imagination needed to even look for causes.
They see no need for causes.
Causes might be troubling.
Causes might be uncomfortable.
Causes might force a re-think as to how the world operates.
The killings did not occur spontaneously, for no reason.
The killers did not wake up that morning and say “Let’s go to Bondi and kill a few Jews.”
The killings were done for a reason.
The killings were caused.
“The notion of a “root cause” that allows importation of this violence to Australia is simply unacceptable.”
That statement is totally lacking in logic.
Root causes do not “allow” the importing of violence — they cause the emergence of violence.
They plant the seeds of violence.
They foster violence.
Causes are not “permits”, they are reasons.
Kanga shone a torch on several root causes.
The examples given are factual.
To state that facts constitute a “notion”is most revealing.
Almost Trumpian, in fact.
If the world does not address the root causes, the violence will continue.
Root causes’. Just how far back does one go, and how does one discern through the tangle of linguistic circuses, the misinformation, disinformation, myths and legends propagated by the innumerable players, so one can sweep those paths clean?
Surely for those invested in a story it would entail interminable, ‘Yeah, buts’, ‘What abouts’ and ‘What ifs’.
Prima facie the history is mind-blowingly complex, so many opt for clinging to ‘belief’ and its attachments as sufficient for cause and effect.
Roger thank you, there is so much to agree with, but there a couple of points I have to take issue with.
Before I do, I cannot agree more with speaking carefully and looking at this through a lens of stable government. Also, “stability is the capacity to endure shock without political distortion, without losing proportion, without abandoning standards, without rewriting the rules in a moment of fear” appeals as sensible.
First, my problem is with “An immature polity treats each shock differently:
each shock is taken as evidence of systemic failure;”
How could the Global Financial Crisis not be seen as systemic failure? if shaking things up after the shock of the GFC would have been immature polity then may we have more of that. Instead, despite what politicians at the time said, what we got was basically ‘yeah, well shocks will happen’ and the same systems that created the problem continue.
How could the lack of preparation exposed by the Covid pandemic not be seen a systemic failure? yet here we again with no meaningful movement towards insuring supply chains in the case of a shock of the likes of a global shutdown or war. I don’t agree that reacting to that kind of shock would be immature polity.
Was Kevin Rudd’s reaction to the GFC through his government spending programs including the insulation batts program immature polity?
Was Roosevelt’s The Green New Deal in reaction to the Great Depression immature polity?
I suspect the problem here is I am struggling to see this as a dichotomy.
Second, in the duty 3 it says “- resist the politics of permanent exception”, but in “What stability requires now” the first dot point is blatant exceptionalism. Is that meant to be a temporary action, which would be sensible, or permanent, which would contradictory.
Third, “Serious implementation of the antisemitism plan”, this plan was introduced earlier as a fact to reinforce historic memory of a question of public safety, which in that context was fair enough. But it was also said “stability is the capacity to endure shocks without political distortion..”
Segal’s plan is an egregious political distortion. It conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It may well be a source of antisemitism in itself. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry report may also be a political distortion – what were these incidents that were recorded as anti-Jewish?
It is political distortion to not consider all the facts. A section of the pro-Israel lobby here in Australia has persecuted Australians in an effort to extinguish any recognition of Palestinians and any solidarity with Palestinians. That I believe is an indisputable fact and to leave that out of discussion is to distort the politics.
Wouldn’t implementation of the Segal report be abandoning the standard of freedom to criticize governments for all Australians?
The Segal report has widely been criticized for overreach, wouldn’t implementing the Segal report be losing proportionality?
Wouldn’t implementation of the Segal report be rewriting the rules in a moment of fear?
What happened to “stability is the capacity to endure shock without political distortion, without losing proportion, without abandoning standards, without rewriting the rules in a moment of fear”?
Blaming foreign atrocities for terrorism in Australia is disingenuous.
No one has yet addressed the core issue- extreme religious or political ideology gives psychopaths and violent misfits a cause and justification. Their violence and murder becomes righteous.
Without this they would be unable to rationalise their actions. They would be more likely to suppress it, and perhaps seek treatment.
In any event, the terrorism will lead to a more divided Australia, less freedom of expression and protest, more ASIO and security surveillance particularly on the basis of ethnicity and country of origin, more background, character and social media scrutiny for those seeking citizenship and residence, we will see cancellation of citizenship
That’s the result. Get used to it.
“We should be precise about what happened, and cautious about what we claim we already know. We should not sensationalise the violence, or make the suffering of Jewish Australians a rhetorical device. We should resist the opportunism that always arrives in the wake of blood – the people who want to recruit tragedy for their preferred argument, or expand a crime into a license to suspect entire communities.”
Indeed, and it seems to me that John Howard is looking for a second Tampa moment, be careful what you wish for John Howard, as you’re the worst of the worst when it comes to hypocrisy and driving division for the sake of division.
Albo may not be my favourite person as PM, however he has a level of decency that you lack.
The following article speaks to matters that became your raison detre under your watch….
https://michaelwest.com.au/bondi-attacks-asios-sovereignty-failure/
“No one has yet addressed the core issue…”
Oh, what a turnaround!
It seems “root causes” ARE significant now!
Who wooda thort. 🙂
“… extreme religious or political ideology gives psychopaths and violent misfits a cause and justification.Their violence and murder becomes righteous. Without this they would be unable to rationalise their actions.”
A perfect description of the government of Israel!
Hallelujah!
Now we’re really getting our teeth into root causes.
BTW, agree with Gonggongche when he says that the Segal’s report is antisemitic. When throwing around such language, you have to be careful of blowback.
https://michaelwest.com.au/segal-secrets-docs-reveal-antisemitism-envoys-big-pay-day/
Blink the wrong way and you are antisemitic.
So, why have we written a blank cheque for highly redacted documents?
This ‘secrecy’ crap all round in every aspect of politics stinks to high heaven.
“The core issue” goes back many, very many years and the reasons are unclear, however, history suggests the Jewish community has been unwelcome in many countries/nations.
Russia, Germany, Poland, Britain and America who turned a boatload back in the 1930’s.
The animosity towards the Jewish community has increased or wained over the years and as a result of political speak and the current Gazan conflict it is on the increase again.
As I have poste before tinkering with gun legislation or introducing antisemitism laws will not fix the problem. This is a cultural issue, mishandling will only make matters worse.
“Blaming foreign atrocities for terrorism in Australia is disingenuous.”
There may be lots of clues leading to what seems an obvious conclusion, but in truth we don’t know the exact reasons for this mass murder yet. I fear if Mossad is now doing the investigation unless the second murderer lives, we might never know the real reason.
It is best not to blame anything or anyone other than the two murderers for the motives yet. Do we yet know the full story behind ASIO’s assessment of the son? It would be wise to call for an open inquiry into that before coming to conclusions.
The fact that they had an arsenal of weapons is a different matter, there were clearly too many guns floating about before and that action hadn’t been taken earlier is a failure of government. We know sufficient and necessary facts.
“No one has yet addressed the core issue- extreme religious or political ideology gives psychopaths and violent misfits a cause and justification.”
So, you want to rule out any influence of foreign atrocities as disingenuous, without any evidence, but want to pin the blame on religion and political ideology as a cause and justification for mass murders, again without definitive evidence. What’s worse this blaming religion and political ideology isn’t even supported by historical evidence in Australia.
How were religion and political ideology the cause and justification of the Port Arthur massacre? They weren’t.
How were religion and political ideology the cause and justification of the Hoddle Street massacre? They weren’t.
How were religion and political ideology the cause of the Lindt Café massacre? It wasn’t. It may have been the justification, but an examination of the killer’s Wikipedia entry shows an evil charlatan wanted overseas for violent crimes gaining entry into Australia espousing liberal views on Islam and then committing sexual assaults on women in the guise of a spiritual healer – a grave sin in Islam. He was about to go to jail for rape in Australia then be deported and face punishment overseas, when he linked himself to ISIS; I would argue to be seen as a martyr, which our media was only too happy to oblige, rather than be seen as a vile, evil criminal languishing in jail.
If we go back as far as the Frontier Wars and the massacres of First Nations people by white settlers, it wasn’t religion or political ideology it was dispossession of land.
“Oh, what a turnaround!”
On a number of pervious occasions I’ve posted my views about violent psychopaths using religious and political extremism an outlet for their murderous intentions.
It isn’t a new or revised position I’m expressing.
Righteous slaughter of innocents by psychopathic political or religious extremists is more acceptable to some than mass murderer.
“On a number of pervious (sic) occasions I’ve posted my views about violent psychopaths using religious and political extremism an outlet for their murderous intentions.”
“Pervious” ?
I think not.
pervious — adj. (1) able to be penetrated (2) having a mind open to influence, argument, or suggestion
What we’ve seen PREVIOUSLY (at “Pallywood Tactics”) is an impervious mind with a particularly perverted tendency to besmirch the motives of an oppressed people fighting for their very existence, by presenting a slanted account of the Hamas Charter.
As in “And just to provide some perspective…
More people should read the Hamas charter.”
What followed was a personalised summary of the Charter that somehow left out some crucial elements.
Needless to say, that position turned out to be unsustainable.
Nothing excuses what happened at Bondi, but the statement we see above, that “There should be no debate about that,” is the view of a closed mind.
An impervious mind.
Those who avoid discussing explanations of motives, who deliberately present explanations of motives as excuses for violence, are the very ones who will ensure that violence continues.
You’ve lost the best you can come up with is a smart arse reply to an auto correct spelling error that consumes half your reply.
That’s what you say when you have nothing to say
From the ABC today — Former police officer claims he warned of Bondi terror attack a decade ago.
A former NSW Police sergeant claims he repeatedly warned his superiors years ago that local officers would not be equipped to respond to an active-shooter attack in Bondi. Between 2008 and 2016 Steve Buttel was based at Waverley police station, which was responsible for patrolling Bondi Beach as part of the Eastern Suburbs Police Area Command.
Mr Buttel told the ABC he informed his bosses “it was only a matter of time” before there would be a terror attack targeting the local Jewish community. “I had no doubt in my mind this was going to happen. Bondi is the most iconic beach in Australia with a large Jewish community.
“I let [my superiors] know of my concerns that I was almost certain it was going to happen at Bondi, if not at the beach, then it would be at Westfield.”
10 years ago.
Root causes.
When we don’t talk about root causes, and we did not, tragedy follows.
Steve
Re former police officer warnings on Bondi Threats
In the normal course of events a warning such as this would, by responsible management, have called upon the officer in question to prepare a report on his concerns.
Then would come basic risk management training: identifying source of potential threats, analysing/evaluating their severity and likelihood, and then treating (controlling/mitigating) them, followed by continuous monitoring and review to ensure objectives are met.
All senior officers would have been through this training over many years, if they ignored the warnings then there certainly does need to be an open enquiry.
Exactly Terry, it’s all about risk assessment and management.
Years ago I was with VMR, we had to take a police officer and undertaker to retrieve a body from an anchored yacht. They went down into the cabin with no precautions or assessment.
Luckily there was no adverse outcome, but I got VMR to inform the district officer in charge of the need for risk assessment training.
Got a reply back saying in effect, don’t worry about it, we’re all over it, yet it was clear that they had no clue about confined space entry, one of the big killers in the industrial sector.
Risk assessment is not difficult at all.
The process you outlined would take just a few hours.
It’s possible that the follow-up process you outlined did not happen, that there was no formal risk assessment.
How many Australians are aware that there are less than 120,000 Jews in Australia out of 27 million population. So why the priority… its called money, influence, murder and the most sophisticated and powerfull progagnda and lobbyists in the world!!!.
I hate to be the one to state the obvious but the Jewish community bought this on themselves, by not stopping their own extremist terrorists.
Before you react. A high proportion of Jews are Zionists and support Israevils enthic cleansing and the genocide of Palestinans and it has not been going on for 2 years its been going on for 50 years. They also support Israels killing of anybody they dont like in any country. How many Australians know that Mossad have killed people using fake Australian passports. They didnt do it once, they did it twice!!!
And That Rabbi who was the first one shot, was not a peacemaker (lies by the Zionist controlled media), go to his Facebook photos posing with IDF soldiers and holding tank shells and assault rifles.
Why are Jews hated? 1.They think they own and run the world for their benefit!. 2. Israevil. 3. Israevil. 4. Israevil. 5. Their loyalty is not to Australia, its first to Israel.
Half the Jews in Australia a dual Israeli citizens and so are more than half of US Politicians (look it up)… They show their loyalty to Australia by wrapping themselves not in the Australian flag, they wrap themselves in the Israeli flag. If you want to make Australia safer, start by expelling All the extremists, including the Zionists, that are dual citizens. .
And it seems there is a substantial disconnect between ASIO, Defense, AFP, DFAT, Home Affairs, licensing authorities & state police. They seem to persist as insular silos, which under legislation / regulation (fed & state) such as for OHSE is not permitted – it’s top-down / bottom-up accountability and responsibility – and it’s under constant review. And I might add that Oz Parliaments excuse themselves from the OHSE legislation / regulation … it seems for govts, exceptions reign supreme – SHAME ON THEM!
In the case of Burgess’ ASIO, rather than ‘silo’ it might better be called an ego-centric, stage-managed, performative ivory tower of hush & fear-mongering.
Thomas Brookes that is hate speech. Both neo-Nazis and Netanyahu would be very happy to see that you are doing their bidding.
Authors on here have gone to great lengths to explain the difference, and I know personally that it has been raised with you previously.
Websites like this will be monitored for hate speech and you risk having this website or the comment section shut down.
Gonggongche. That is NOT “hate speech” it is honesty. The rest of your comment I choose to ignore as just plain untrue, ignorant and grossly insulting.
Thomas Brookes, that was pure, vile neo-Nazi propaganda, it was hate speech, and you put this comment section, the website, and possibly the organizers at risk with your distortions and falsehoods.
When people have nothing constructive to say or cant accept somebody elses viewpoint, they resort to insults. (BTW your starting to look like an Israevil/Zionist applologist)
As I have told you once before recently… “thank for an invitation to a fight but I decline”.
There was nothing constructive in your post, it was just filth built on innuendo and smearing an entire community based on the behavour of a section of that community, as you did in an earlier post, and littered with neo-Nazi tropes.
Your declining to discuss your smearing of an entire community for the actions of a section of that community only came when you couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a question showing that the wording of your statement was misleading, you were willing to discuss before then.
Thomas:
Let’s compromise – it’s honestly hate speech. By the way, calling something “hate speech” isn’t an insult. In this case, it’s an accurate summation of the bile you’ve been spewing.
For anyone still trying to work out in their own minds how the past few days, the reactions, antisemitism and how they fit in with Israel’s genocide, Jillian Segal’s report, and the Albanese government’s handling of the genocide and the media, I would recommend you read:
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/12/a-better-symbol/
it is written by an Australian with first-hand experience of antisemitism in the USA, who is critical of the weaponization of the massacre.
Her last two lines threw me at first: “That said, we’ve come some distance since October 2023, when the New South Wales premier festooned the Sydney Opera House with Israel’s flag.
I much prefer his Hanukkiah.” but I believe she is saying Minns’s splashing the Israeli flag over the Sydney Opera house was deeply wrong, but the image of a Hanukkiah was a reasonable response, and I agree with that, if that was her meaning.
When foreign wars and atrocities are used as the excuse/root cause of the slaughter of innocents (peacefully celebrating a cultural event) , the conclusion is there is about zero domestic control.
The corollary of this position is that addressing the root cause of terrorism in Australia requires a change in the government of another country.
You are accepting that addressing the root cause is beyond our control.
Australia has about zero influence over a change in the foreign government.
On the other hand, recognition that terrorism in Australia is due to murderous psychopaths and violent misfits being attracted to the peverse cause of religious and ideological extremism, allows the possibility of dealing with them/suppressing them.
Outsourcing the “root cause” of terrorism to a foreign government accepts a reduced capacity to control terrorism.
When foreign wars and atrocities are used as the excuse/root cause of the slaughter of innocents (peacefully celebrating a cultural event) , the conclusion is there is about zero domestic control.
Wrong.
The corollary of this position is that control of terrorism in Australia requires a change in the government of another country.
You are accepting that addressing the root cause is beyond our control.
Wrong.
Australia has about zero influence over a change in the foreign government.
Wrong.
On the other hand, recognition that terrorism in Australia is due to murderous psychopaths and violent misfits being attracted to the peverse cause of religious and ideological extremism, allows the possibility of dealing with them/suppressing them.
Wrong.
Outsourcing the “root cause” of terrorism to a foreign government accepts a reduced capacity to control terrorism.
Wrong.
This was all pointless waffle.
From here on, I will not respond to someone who wants to turn a tragedy into a waffle exercise.
AC, would you believe Carol and I have been married twelve years?
Amazing Michael! Congratulations to you and Carol.
Particularly to Carol for her remarkable tolerance, forbearance and restraint!
And I think 2026 will mark 20 years of entertaining exchange and occasionally even informed ones!
And Steve replies- I’m not replying
Hilarious!!
Thank you, AC.
And yes, 2026 will mark our 20th anniversary of willing engagement. Which reminds me, I must hop on over to your site and say hello to the team. It’s been a while.
leefe and Gonggongche. I dont give a damn what you guys think. You are just keyboard warriers who have no idea what your talking about.
Go and watch the hatefull video that Rabbi put up and the IDF terrorst thanking the “Sydney Jewish community for their large donations to the IDF” go and watch it. THATS WHY the hate spewing Rabbi WAS SHOT FIRST! Thats why Sydney Jews were targetted. You reap what you sow!
You know what I care about? Whats happing in Gaza and the WEST Bank and everywhere else these vile Zionists spread THEIR hate and murder around the world. All you pair seem to care about? actually I dont know what you care about? Have either of you attended a pro Palestine rally like I have?? Or are you only interested in protecting Zionist Jews from what you falsely claim is hate speech.
Stating facts is NOT hate speech. For the record I dont hate Jews. I hate Zionists and their complicite supporters. You guys need to decide whos side you are on..
Thomas:
a) you’re
b) Disagreement with you is not evidence of lack of information.
c) One individual posting disturbing content does not make every member of the same demographic subhuman.
d) “I dont hate Jews”. and yet you’re repeatedly making comments about Jewish people rather than Zionists or the IDF and the Israeli government.
e) Cactus. A really big one. Sideways.
Again, you want to smear an entire community because of the actions of some.
Gina Rinehart funds far right organizations and bemoans Australian workers being paid more than $2/hour – do you expect others to label all Australians as far right wannabe slave owners. That you were doing so had been pointed out to you earlier, yet you persisted yesterday, and again today, in doing so.
Your post was pure hate speech littered with innuendo, distortions, malicious conjecture and falsehoods – a litany of neo-Nazi tropes.
You’re trying to paint people as this or that for calling out your hate speech; that says more about you than it does anyone else.
Your post was doing the bidding of neo-Nazis and Netanyahu because they are the ones who would benefit.
Minns is obviously someone who would like to crush all dissent, it ain’t the first time. the quality of politicians in this country is ratshit at best.When a mind boggling atrocity comes out of the blue, they behave like a cut snake, reacting to the muck media, and taking a cue from the Lying Rodent ,and Ruperts propaganda pamphlets.
Step up Chalmers or someone else, because we are in danger of going the way of our fuckwit American ‘friends’
Thomas,
You are doing good work. I didn
t realise that the Rabbi went first but it figures.s quite a different story.For Jews to put on a conspicuous event on a waterfront location mixing with the public would seem like a security headache because these guys do have their own team, and know its an aspect of organization that needs attention. According to their spokesman they saw the risk, but ticked it just the same.
The risk of an incident was there, but the rest of the beachgoers were not now warned.
Now, how you read the days events is very much dependant on the surprise factor, and to learn that the Rabbi was first in the firing line hints at provocation on top of the Jewish being warned already about the day being risky. There were photos on line showing the Sydney rabbi and IDF goons.
As events have panned out no change is required from the zionists, and the genocide is completly ignored, but this minority group are about to considerably change our laws. Mossad would put this down as a win for them.
What is happening now in Gaza is tragic but the Jewish/ Zionist faith are directly responsible, and to any accusations they simply reply "Hamas". What needs to be verified is whether the 7th October was influenced by any provocation from Israel, and there seems to be a lot of data that needs sifting to get the true picture.
Screaming Hamas after each war crime tells us that this is no care as to any form of just outcome.
It is a modus operandi of the cult to claim victim status, and the argument is meant to flow from there. But what if one of the parties sets out to provoke a response? Puts the Rabbi front and centre?
That
Well done Douglas: you’ve managed to outdo Brookes’ in the hate speech department.
Douglas Pritchard,
once again, your ranting against certain Australians is beneath contempt.
Your dehumanizing of Jewish people as “little flowers”, your neo-Nazi apologist interpretation of the sign the Nazi-lovers held up at their NSW protest, your characterization of neo-Nazis as a “bunch of boys”, your deliberate conflation of Israel with the Jewish diaspora at large with your reference to the “Jew flag”, and now your characterization of a murder as he “went first” and of a simple, peaceful get together in a public space as a provocation, your generalization of all Jews as seeking perpetual victimhood just a few days after a mass murder of Jews on Australian soil, does not confront the actions of Israel and its genocide against the Palestinians as you claim as your motivation.
Not one word of any of your posts actually addresses the genocide, instead you hide behind a claim to do so. Your words serve no other purpose than to smear all Jewish people and stir up hatred towards all Jews.
Neo-Nazis and Netanyahu would be fist-pumping and cheering you on if they read that trash you posted.
Comments on this site expose the problems with the proposed “hate speech” legislation. What is “hate speech”?
Nothing I have read here is in my view “hate speech”, if it is ? I’d suggest terms like “certain Australians” could be seen as degrading and so is “hate speech”, if this is the case? I’d suggest our parliamentarians indulge in “hate speech” every day.