Netanyahu and Stephens Exploit Bondi Beach Massacre to Justify Palestinian Oppression
The tragic shooting at a Hanukkah celebration in Bondi Beach, Australia, which left 15 victims dead, has been swiftly exploited by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin netanyahu and commentators like Bret Stephens to deflect criticism of Israel’s policies and justify the continued oppression of Palestinians.
The total number of casualties remained unclear in the immediate aftermath of the November 10, 2022, attack, yet Netanyahu seized the opportunity to blame Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state, framing it as fueling antisemitism. two gunmen, identified as father and son Sajid and Naveed akram, carried out the assault, sparking widespread condemnation and expressions of solidarity with Jewish communities.
However, critics argue that Netanyahu and his allies are weaponizing antisemitism to legitimize Palestinian suffering and maintain a free hand in violating Palestinian rights. The core argument, as presented in the source material, is that any advocacy for Palestinian rights is inherently linked to violence against Jews.
Netanyahu’s response is not surprising, according to the analysis, but rather a continuation of a pattern of using threats to Jewish safety to justify denying Palestinians their own rights. The source material emphasizes that the Bondi shooters specifically targeted Jews during a Jewish holiday – a clear act of antisemitism – but cautions against drawing premature conclusions about their motivations or using the attack to justify broader oppression.
This sentiment was echoed in the wake of the massacre by New York times columnist Bret Stephens, described as an “Israel apologist,” whose article, “Bondi Beach is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks like,” linked the shooting to chants supporting Palestinian resistance. stephens argued the attack was a “real-world consequence” of calls to “globalize the intifada,” “resistance is justified,” and “by any means necessary.”
The author contends that stephens’s argument, mirroring Netanyahu’s, aims to ensure Palestinians remain in a state of subjugation and to grant Israel unchecked authority, even to the point of committing what is described as a genocide unfolding in Gaza.This is achieved, the analysis states, by conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with violent antisemitism, effectively silencing any advocacy for Palestinian human rights.
A profound irony is highlighted: many Jewish individuals feel less safe precisely because of the Israeli government’s actions, which associate Jewish identity with “ethno-nationalist brutality.” The text asserts that it is antisemitic to hold all Jews responsible for Israel’s policies, and therefore equally antisemitic for Israel to claim to represent all Jews.
The author argues that fostering “Jewish fear, directed into anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim animus,” is more valuable to the Israeli government’s agenda of ethnic cleansing than actual Jewish safety. Netanyahu reportedly told Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state “pours fuel on the antisemitic fire.”
Albanese swiftly rejected this assertion on Monday, calling it “an unfounded and perilous shortcut.” Despite this rebuke, Stephens’s column began by praising the bravery of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a local shopkeeper who disarmed one of the attackers, before pivoting to blame the Palestinian solidarity movement for “Jewish blood.”
The analysis concludes that Stephens’s argument, despite lacking evidence regarding the shooters’ motivations, perpetuates a dangerous narrative: that advocating for Palestinian liberation equates to calling for the killing of Jews. this logic, the author argues, demands silence in the face of Palestinian oppression and represents a “disgusting zero sum logic” that disrespe
