Why Are Pro-Israel Authors Dominating Western Media Analysis After the Sydney Attack?

In the wake of the bloody attack that shook Sydney, wide sectors of the Western media quickly rushed to publish articles and analyses about the attack before investigations were complete or facts and motives crystallized. Some even promoted analytical narratives within just a few hours, directly linking the crime to solidarity campaigns with the Palestinian people and their struggle against Israeli occupation. This hasty connection, lacking evidence, falls within a broader disinformation effort that employs individual violent incidents to serve the Israeli narrative, which for years has sought to merge anti-Zionism with protests against Israeli policies within the framework of "anti-Semitism," criminalizing Palestinians, Muslims, and those who stand in solidarity with them.

A prominent example of this was published by the New York Times just a few hours after the attack, in an article titled “Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like” by writer Peter Stevens, known for his persistent defense of Israel. In his article, Stevens claims that the attack is a practical embodiment of the slogan "Globalizing the Intifada," raised by Palestine solidarity activists in demonstrations around the world, asserting that the perpetrator "implemented the slogan with the blood of Jews." The danger of this argument lies not only in its apparent political bias but also in its timing and context; it is an accusatory article published in the early hours following a massacre, at a sensitive moment when public opinion is being formed, blaming a global grassroots movement involving millions who protested against the massacre in Gaza. The swiftness of Stevens writing the piece, as a former editor of the Jerusalem Post, and the speed with which it was edited and published by the New York Times with its accusatory content is truly astonishing and raises questions.

This pattern also repeated itself in The Atlantic, which published an article titled “The Intifada Comes to Bondi Beach” by David Frum, a prominent defender of the Israeli settlement project and a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Frum goes even further, defining the slogan “Globalizing the Intifada” as a direct call to shoot or bomb civilians in major Western cities, holding "well-meaning Western liberals" indirectly responsible for the massacre. Here, goodwill and sympathy for a people under occupation are transformed into a moral crime, simply because these positions begin to expose the colonial and violent nature of the Israeli state.

This rhetoric was not limited to traditionally conservative or liberal newspapers but extended to The Guardian, which is considered center-left. On the same day, it published an analysis by Jason Burke, a regular columnist for the pro-Israel Jewish Chronicle, who relied on data from Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to discuss the rise of "anti-Semitism" worldwide, without a clear distinction between religion-based hate crimes against Jews and protests or political discourse critical of Israel and Zionism. This prevailing confusion ignores a broad discussion within Jewish communities themselves about the definition of anti-Semitism and its use as a weapon to silence political criticism.

Ironically, reputable journalistic reports, including investigations published by Jewish Currents, have questioned the accuracy of the ADL's data, showing that a significant proportion of incidents classified as "anti-Semitic" actually relate to criticism of Israel or Zionism. In fact, The Guardian itself previously reported concerns from current and former staff at the ADL about how its pro-Israel bias undermines its core work against the far-right. The organization Jewish Voice for Peace has also questioned the credibility of the ADL's work.

Conversely, these analyses ignore a fundamental fact: Jews around the world form a central part of the solidarity movement with Palestine, especially in Western countries. In London alone, British Jews, individuals and groups, participated in dozens of major national demonstrations for Gaza over the past two years, as well as in New York and other cities, alongside student sit-ins demanding an academic boycott of Israel, a presence rarely highlighted in media coverage compared to the wide space given to pro-Israel Jewish voices.

The same rhetoric has appeared in conservative newspapers like The Times and The Telegraph, where former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer wrote an article for each paper linking the attack in Sydney to the slogan "Globalizing the Intifada," going as far as to describe it as a call for the extermination of Jews while ignoring the historical and political meaning of the term "Intifada" as a grassroots movement against occupation that began in 1987 in the context of peaceful resistance met with brutal repressive policies by the occupation. At the same time, Downer resorted to conspiracy rhetoric, speaking of “Chinese and Russian funding” for anti-Israel movements, clearly ignoring the reality that the shift in Western public opinion is primarily rooted in Israeli practices and the daily scenes of killing in Gaza, including the largest massacre of children in modern history.

Similarly, the Spectator magazine, known for its leniency towards Israeli military practices that contradict international law, dedicated several articles and analyses to frame the attack as a result of "the increase in incidents of anti-Semitism since October 7, 2023" and also as a result of the slogan "Globalizing the Intifada."

The slogan "Globalizing the Intifada" is, by the way, not the central slogan raised in solidarity demonstrations with Palestine, which are championed by groups believing in the necessity of addressing Israel's actions against Palestinians on an international scale and not remaining silent about human rights violations, international law, and genocide in Palestine.

Ultimately, this coverage reveals a repetitive media pattern and a unified symphony in the messages from writers who oppose the recognition of Palestinian states: exploiting collective shocks to demonize a broad political movement and holding it responsible for individual extremist acts unrelated to Palestine or the just Palestinian cause (as happened after the attack on the synagogue in Manchester), while absolving the organized violence perpetrated by the occupying state or settler groups from any terrorist designation in their discourse.

The existence of individuals identifying with the ideas of the "Islamic State" (ISIS) – which has not carried out any attack against Israel in its history – and linking them with the solidarity movement for Palestine and the slogan "Globalizing the Intifada" is clear Israeli propaganda, an approach that does not serve truth nor vindicate the victims of Bondi Beach, and turns the legitimate discussion about Palestinian rights into a moral and political battleground at a global moment when calls for accountability and justice are increasing.

It is also noteworthy that the positions of most of these analysts whose articles dominated Western media in the early hours align with the political tendencies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for committing war crimes in Gaza, and who held Australian authorities accountable while linking the horrific massacre to Australia’s recognition of the Palestinian state, to which Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded by calling such claims "baseless and dangerous."

How can we trust those who use the innocent victims of the Bondi Beach attack to defend those who commit daily crimes against tens of thousands of Palestinians?