After Bondi Massacre, A Time for Unity. Then, Fierce Partisanship.
In the wake of the tragedy at a Hanukkah gathering at Bondi Beach in Sydney last week, it appeared that Australia’s leaders had united to provide a bipartisan reaction, reminiscent of their responses to numerous past crises. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called for solidarity, characterizing the attack on the Jewish community as an assault on all Australians. Sussan Ley, who leads the conservative opposition, extended her party’s “full and unconditional” backing to the government. However, that sense of unity shattered quickly. Opposition figures capitalized on the rising frustration within the Jewish community, many of whom argue that Mr. Albanese’s center-left administration has not adequately responded to their alerts regarding the troubling increase in antisemitism over the last two years. Days after the shooting, several of Mr. Albanese’s rivals blamed him and his administration for the mass shooting. Others criticized members of his government for their absence at the funerals of the 15 victims and dismissed his efforts to tighten Australia’s gun regulations as a sidestep from addressing antisemitism directly. Mr. Albanese countered, asserting that his government had appointed Australia’s initial antisemitism envoy and enacted laws to make hate speech a criminal offense. Moreover, he highlighted that he had denounced the seemingly antisemitic motivations spurring the attack. These scenes could easily be found in the highly charged political environment of the United States. Nonetheless, the rapid transition from a tragic occurrence to harsh partisanship has been unexpected in Australia, where politics usually leans towards the center, and lawmakers generally lack incentives to intensify emotional responses, tending to seek consensus during crises. “I haven’t witnessed a national calamity being manipulated for partisan political gain as quickly as what has occurred here,” stated Mark Kenny, the director of the Australian Studies Institute at the Australian National University.
The massacre and its aftermath unfolded along existing political divisions in Australia. Many Jews in Australia — constituting less than 1 percent of the nation’s 27 million populace — viewed it as a culmination of a persistent sense of danger that has emerged following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led assaults and the subsequent Israeli military action in Gaza, which has conflated resentment towards the Israeli government with antisemitism. Even prior to the Bondi incident, Mr. Albanese’s administration faced backlash for not promptly implementing various recommendations from his antisemitism envoy — which suggested establishing a national database for antisemitic incidents and permitting the government to restrict funds to universities that fail to combat antisemitism — though some civil rights organizations criticized these ideas as excessive. The conservative opposition, which aligns more closely with Israel compared to Mr. Albanese’s center-left Labor Party, also condemned Australia’s decision in September to recognize Palestine as a state. Mere hours after the December 14 incident, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly associated it with that choice. “You allowed the disease to proliferate, and the outcome is the horrifying assaults on Jews we witnessed today,” he remarked.
While Ms. Ley has not drawn parallels to Mr. Netanyahu’s statements, she has accused Mr. Albanese and his administration of permitting antisemitism to thrive. On Monday, Ms. Ley claimed the government had not sufficiently engaged with those in mourning and launched a fierce attack against one minister, asserting that she had not seen him “shed a single tear.” In the aftermath of the assault, Mr. Albanese has struggled to alleviate the sorrow and anger within the Jewish community. “I believe the Prime Minister, who isn’t a skilled communicator, found it particularly challenging to step forward during that moment,” Mr. Kenny remarked. “To Jewish Australians, his remarks seemed unpersuasive.” The backlash aimed at Mr. Albanese has been so pronounced that he did not attend the funerals of the victims, unlike other leaders, including Ms. Ley. On Sunday, during a memorial service at Bondi Beach commemorating a week since the tragedy, some attendees booed Mr. Albanese, who chose not to speak. This situation represents the most significant political hurdle Mr. Albanese has faced since his decisive reelection victory in May. It has also reinvigorated the conservative faction, which has recently been troubled by internal conflicts. The Bondi Beach massacre marks Australia’s deadliest mass shooting since 1996, when a gunman claimed the lives of 35 individuals in Tasmania. At that time, John Howard, a conservative Prime Minister, received bipartisan support as he promptly instituted strict gun control measures still praised today. However, last week, as Mr. Albanese aimed to further refine those laws, Mr. Howard was among the first to criticize the initiative, arguing that the emphasis on firearms was a diversion from addressing antisemitism. Other proposals unveiled by Mr. Albanese, such as a crackdown on hate speech, have faced accusations of being insufficient and delayed. Additionally, a review of Australia’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies has come under scrutiny as questions arise about how the two gunmen, with one having come to authorities’ notice as early as 2019 but deemed not a threat, avoided detection.
The opposition has demanded more stringent measures, including stripping citizenship from individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses and initiating a royal commission, which is Australia’s highest form of inquiry, regarding the attack. Additionally, certain far-right politicians have advocated reevaluating Australia’s immigration policies. One of the gunmen was Indian, while the other, his son, was born in Australia. Among the strongest critiques directed at Mr. Albanese was voiced by Josh Frydenberg, a former Liberal Party politician of Jewish descent. During a passionate address at the victims’ memorial last week, he urged Mr. Albanese to “accept personal responsibility for the deaths of 15 innocent individuals.” The trauma, sorrow, and fury within the Jewish community runs deep, stated Julianne Schultz, a professor at Griffith University and author of “The Idea of Australia.” However, rather than working towards healing, parts of the conservative opposition have exacerbated that anger in a fashion that is “beyond what we have experienced here in the past,” she noted, drawing comparisons to how President Trump has stimulated divisive politics in the United States. Nevertheless, there exists a risk for Australian politicians being perceived as exploiting the tragedy in a nation where citizens anticipate consistent governance and stability, remarked Kos Samaras, a former Labor Party strategist and director of Redbridge Consultancy, a polling firm. “The Australian populace does not desire a political football match here,” he asserted. “They seek a national response to what they consider a serious incident and fear regarding the potential collapse of social cohesion.” The opposition has denied any allegations of politicizing the tragedy. The Liberal Party is merely “reflecting the sentiments we are hearing from an understandably upset Jewish community that believes they have been neglected,” Julian Leeser, an opposition lawmaker, told the Australian Broadcasting Corp., the nation’s public broadcaster. Ms. Schultz emphasized that how Australia reacts to the attack will test its capability to function as a pluralistic society where individuals respect and strive to understand diverse backgrounds, religions, and perspectives. “If the perceived threat feels existential, pluralism can fracture unless you diligently work at it,” she stated. “This is the situation we are currently confronting — and it’s quite challenging to recover from that.”
Published: 2025-12-23 05:00:00
source: www.nytimes.com
