PNN – Condemnation of the attack on a Jewish ceremony on the coast of Sydney only gains real meaning and credibility when it is applied equally and without discrimination to all victims of violence around the world.
The armed attack on a gathering of civilians on Bondi Beach in Sydney, which resulted in the killing and injury of dozens of people, is unequivocally condemnable. Targeting ordinary people anywhere in the world, regardless of their religion or identity, constitutes a clear violation of humanitarian principles and international law and has no justification. However, condemning this attack should not prevent criticism of the way it has been represented in Western media, nor should it preclude comparing this reaction with the silence or selective responses of the same media toward violence against civilians, especially in Palestine.
Violence is condemnable, without exception and without selectivity
One fundamental point that must be stated clearly is that violence, particularly when it targets civilians, is condemnable in any form and in any geography. No cause, slogan, or claim can legitimize the killing of non-combatants, and this principle must serve as the common foundation of all analyses. In the case of the Sydney incident in Australia, the attack was apparently neither a “protest” nor a “political message,” but rather a blind and destructive act that took the lives of ordinary people. Emphasizing this point is important because subsequent criticisms of Western media and governments in no way imply doubt about the condemnation of this attack and should not be interpreted as such.
Read more:
Why did the perpetrators of the Sydney terrorist attack travel to the Philippines?
Condemning the attack and critiquing the narrative: two parallel paths
Condemning the incident itself does not mean fully accepting the way Western media have constructed its narrative, and these two issues must be kept separate. In the initial hours after the attack on the Jewish ceremony in Sydney, mainstream Western media created a news framework that emphasized a “national shock,” a “threat to society,” and the “need for solidarity,” generating an intense emotional atmosphere. While this framing is understandable from the perspective of sympathy with the victims, it becomes problematic when it turns into a selective pattern. The central question is whether these same media apply the same level of sensitivity, empathy, and extensive coverage to other humanitarian disasters, especially those occurring in Palestine. The answer to this question forms the basis of legitimate media criticism.
Double standards in the representation of victims
One of the most evident contradictions in Western media coverage is the difference between the way victims of the Sydney, Australia incident are portrayed and the way victims of violence in Palestine are represented. In the Bondi Beach incident, media outlets quickly introduced the victims, spoke about their personal lives, and published emotional images and narratives, creating a wave of public sympathy. By contrast, in Gaza, thousands of women and children who have fallen victim to bombardment, siege, and military attacks are often presented merely as dry, lifeless statistics, with their names and faces rarely introduced to Western public opinion. This difference is not accidental; it stems from a discriminatory perspective that assigns value to human lives based on political and geographical considerations rather than on the simple fact of being human.
The role of politics in defining the “worthy victim”
This double standard shows that in Western media discourse, the concept of the “victim worthy of sympathy” has become deeply politicized. Victims who fall within the framework of Western political interests are quickly seen and heard, while those connected to the policies of Western allies, especially Israel, are either ignored or excluded from sympathy through security-based justifications. This approach is not only ethically indefensible but also severely undermines global public trust in mainstream media, a loss of trust that carries long-term consequences.
Ahmad Al-Ahmad: a human act beyond identity boundaries
Amid this tense atmosphere, the action of Ahmad Al-Ahmad, an Australian Muslim citizen who courageously intervened and disarmed one of the attackers, rightly drew attention. This behavior was an example of human action in the face of blind violence and demonstrated that moral responsibility can emerge in the most critical moments. Ahmad Al-Ahmad acted not as a political activist nor as a representative of a particular religion, but as an ordinary human being who chose to save the lives of others, and it is precisely this point that gives his action its value. This narrative preserves its positive message only if it remains free from political and propaganda exploitation and does not become a tool to whitewash policies that simultaneously disregard the lives of civilians in other parts of the world.
The potential misuse of humanitarian narratives
The Western media’s focus on Ahmad Al-Ahmad’s religious identity, while ostensibly aimed at emphasizing coexistence and multiculturalism, can also serve a hidden function. Such narrative construction is sometimes carried out in a way that is used to distinguish a so-called “acceptable Islam” from any political to Western and Israeli policies, marginalizing the voices of Muslims protesting crimes in Gaza. Although this approach appears humane on the surface, at deeper levels it is part of public opinion management and therefore requires conscious criticism.
Critiquing Western policies without justifying violence
Criticizing the double standards of Western media and politics does not in any way mean justifying or downplaying the attack on the Jewish ceremony in Sydney, and this distinction must always be maintained. The principled position is clear: the condemnation of any attack on civilians anywhere in the world. It is precisely from this ethical standpoint that one can ask why governments and media that today speak firmly about terrorism on Bondi Beach remain silent in the face of the widespread killing of Palestinian civilians or justify it with terms such as “legitimate defense.” This contradiction weakens the moral legitimacy of Western counterterrorism discourse and calls it into question in the eyes of global public opinion.
Bondi Beach and Palestine: two reactions, one moral standard
If terrorism is to be condemned, that condemnation must be based on a consistent and universal standard, not on political interests. The attack on people at Bondi Beach is condemnable, just as the bombing of homes, hospitals, and refugee camps in Gaza is condemnable. Differentiating between the two is neither defensible from a humanitarian perspective nor acceptable under international law. This duality is precisely the point on which media and political criticism must focus and which it must challenge.