Introduction:
The deadly attack on a Jewish community celebrating Hanukkah in Sydney was, unequivocally, an act of anti-Semitic terrorism. To state otherwise is to dishonor the victims. However, as this analysis argues, our understanding cannot stop at this necessary condemnation. To treat this violence merely as the product of individual extremism is politically convenient but critically inadequate. The attack is a terrifying symptom of a deeper global malaise: the normalization of collective guilt, fueled by systemic impunity and a catastrophic failure of international justice.
The Normalization of Collective Guilt
A critical starting point is the dangerous erosion of individual responsibility in public discourse. When phrases like “there is no innocence in Gaza” or “no innocent Israeli” enter political and media language, guilt is transferred from actors to identities. This logic of collective sin is inherently transferable. Once legitimized against one group, it can be directed at any other.
In this context, the lack of clear, continuous, and collective distancing from Israeli state crimes by large, established Jewish institutions worldwide holds particular political weight. Regardless of intention, this silence is rarely read as neutrality. In the face of systematic violence, perceived moral ambiguity is often interpreted as passive complicity. This blurring of lines between state policy, collective identity, and individual responsibility creates a perilous ideological fog.
The Engine of Impunity and Political Despair
Simultaneously, the international community has proven itself unwilling or unable to act. Israeli actions have, in practice, been met with impunity. Palestinians are killed daily without effective political or legal response from the institutions created to uphold international law. The result is not merely a legal collapse, but a profound and growing political despair.
This despair rarely finds coherent political mobilization. When channels for accountability and justice are blocked, anger tends to erupt in diffuse and misdirected forms. From this perspective, it is tragically unsurprising that violence erupts in places like Australia, targeting the wrong people in a distorted expression of rage. We consistently underestimate how long-term, unpunished brutality poisons communities far beyond the conflict’s geographical epicenter.
The Vicious Cycle: How Misdirected Violence Fuels the Very System It Opposes
Anti-Semitic attacks achieve no legitimate political goal. They do not aid Palestinians nor challenge the structures enabling Israeli abuses. Their primary impact is to reinforce pre-existing racialized threat narratives, particularly Islamophobic ones.
This leads to a vital, often overlooked consequence: Rising Islamophobia in the West fosters more reflexive, unconditional support for Israel. As Muslim communities are portrayed as civilizational threats, Israeli state violence is framed as necessary “self-defense”—even when it meets the legal criteria for war crimes. Thus, a coherent, vicious pattern emerges:
-
Impunity for state violence breeds despair.
-
Despair fuels misdirected violence.
-
This misdirected violence reinforces racist frameworks (Islamophobia, anti-Semitism).
-
These frameworks are then used to justify the original impunity.
Conclusion: Breaking the Spiral Requires Clear Distinctions
Breaking this spiral demands more than condemning individual attacks. It requires steadfast moral and analytical clarity. We must insist on the distinctions that nihilistic violence and cynical politics seek to erase:
-
Between a government and its people.
-
Between political responsibility and ethnic or religious identity.
-
Between legitimate criticism of a state and racial or religious hatred.
Without these distinctions, violence does not subside; it metastasizes. Honoring the victims in Sydney—and in Gaza—requires us to confront this toxic ecosystem of guilt and impunity with unflinching courage and precision. The path to safety for all lies not in tribal consolidation, but in the rigorous defense of universal justice and individual humanity.
The organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has been to ensure that every nation in the world stays within a security structure managed and controlled by Washington. Nations, regardless of their ideological orientation, that refuse to follow U.S. wishes find themselves demonized and pressured to conform, while nations whose states are not centralized enough to control their territory are called “failed states” and are subjected to often counterproductive “nation building.