The tragic shooting at Bondi Beach, which resulted in the deaths of 16 individuals and left many more injured, marks a distressing episode in recent history. This event has been utilized to further a specific agenda: that opponents of Israel’s actions in Gaza bear responsibility for such violence.
Caitlin Johnstone has emphatically disputed this narrative, stating: “Massacring civilians is wrong. It’s wrong in Bondi Beach, and it’s wrong in Gaza. Today the worst people in the world are trying to claim that because the former happened, everyone needs to stop protesting the latter. This is pure, cynical manipulation designed to protect a genocidal apartheid state from criticism. It deserves nothing but a scoff and a dismissal.”
Although the argument put forth may seem too simplistic to warrant much consideration, it exemplifies how media narratives are often shaped through emotional manipulation.
A prevalent strategy involves emotionally charging information to hinder objective analysis. This starts with a deliberate choice of words that short-circuit a reader’s critical thinking. Key terms are frequently repeated, leading them to be accepted as undeniable truths.
Various media outlets have repeatedly emphasized a singular talking point: that the Bondi Beach shooting is part of a global intifada. The Wall Street Journal, the Telegraph, The Free Press, The New York Times, and The Atlantic, among others, used nearly identical phrases. Such a similarity invites skepticism, but that is a separate avenue of inquiry.
Let’s consider two headlines that surfaced immediately following the shooting. The New York Times published “Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like,” while The Atlantic declared “The Intifada Comes to Bondi Beach.”
The emotional weight of these headlines hinges on two terms: “intifada” and “Bondi Beach.” Readers are presumed to be familiar with the attack itself, redirecting the focus onto a pre-loaded concept. Thus, the incident is framed as an act of antisemitism intrinsically linked to ongoing events in Palestine.
The word ‘intifada’, which translates to ‘uprising’ or ‘resistance’ in Arabic, has been subsequently distorted by the media since the 1980s, resembling how the term jihad has been used. Under Zionist narratives, ‘intifada’ denotes irrational hatred towards Jews, characterized as a murderous inclination devoid of justification. Conversely, for Palestinians, ‘intifada’ denotes genuine resistance against the unlawful occupation of their land by the Zionist state.
Another tactic employed is the conflation of Zionism with Judaism, a narrative perpetuated by official Israeli propaganda (Hasbara) and echoed by several media outlets. This conflation limits any critical discourse regarding the Israeli state’s political agenda. The Anti-Defamation League, a notable pro-Israeli organization, states: “Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect.”
If one equates Zionism with Judaism, any critique of Israel can be framed as antisemitism. Given the historical context of antisemitism resulting in the Holocaust, this reasoning suggests that critics of Israel align themselves with Holocaust proponents.
The authors of the earlier headlines are aware of this oversimplified reasoning; thus, it is employed purposefully. Their framing insinuates that the Bondi Beach shooting is part of a historical continuum leading to the Holocaust, portraying Israel as a bulwark against such threats. As David Frum writes in The Atlantic: “The more dangerous the anti-Israel movement makes the Diaspora for Jews, the more Jews will leave the Diaspora for the state that exists to protect them.”
This message was further amplified by Israeli officials and staunch pro-Israel advocates, including Israel’s foreign minister, the UK Health Secretary, and editors at Newsweek who echoed identical statements condemning the horrific mass shooting. This alignment of phrasing creates an illusion of spontaneous consensus rather than orchestrated messaging, lending it an air of legitimacy.
Emotion perceived as “genuine” is especially compelling. By saturating coverage with charged language and reinforcing it through repetition, media and political figures constrict space for critical assessment. Timeliness is crucial here; facts that may surface later to contradict initial emotional narratives often struggle to alter public perception. Once an emotional resonance is made, it tends to remain despite later rational arguments.
Another technique that strengthens this emotional framing is a heightened focus on the victims while dehumanizing the perpetrators. This is not to undermine the suffering of victims or to excuse violence, but rather to highlight how such portrayals distort analytical perspective.
For instance, The Guardian reported with the headline: “Holocaust survivor, London-born rabbi and 10-year-old girl among victims of Bondi Beach terror attack.” Such imagery makes rational discussion morally contentious. Another stark illustration is Arsen Ostrovky, shown bloodied and bandaged. He was reportedly a survivor of the Nova Festival attack on October 7, 2023, which links Bondi Beach directly to the assault by Hamas.
Concurrently, the assailants are branded as terrorists, a classification that bears significant legal and political connotations, and they were denoted as supporters of the Islamic State—here, echoing a previously charged narrative. This portrayal underscores an emotional connection to a term already laden with implications.
This connection, albeit to a largely disbanded entity and initially unconfirmed by law enforcement, serves to broaden the implications of their actions, suggesting that others from Muslim backgrounds may pose similar threats. Notably, the Islamic State has not targeted Israel since October 7, nor was it ever a primary goal, earning widespread condemnation from Muslim communities around the globe.
However, this connection is timely and advantageous. A recent study, commissioned by the Israeli foreign ministry from Stagwell Global—a PR firm with ties to prominent pro-Israel figures—concluded that instilling fear regarding Muslims engaging in global jihad was an effective method to combat the negative perception of Israel in the West. The narrative of a “global intifada” associated with the Islamic State fits this strategic goal precisely.
Netanyahu swiftly leveraged this narrative, issuing an unmistakable message not just to Australia but to the global community. “Your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorists. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and fosters the rising tide of antisemitism in your streets,” he wrote to Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister.
This missive targeted not only Australia but also aimed squarely at the American political right, where divisions over Israel’s actions in Gaza have emerged. Figures like Tucker Carlson have raised questions surrounding U.S. support for Israel. In this landscape, the Bondi Beach tragedy transformed into a powerful instrument for advocating for Israel.
The intention behind this media manipulation is to link support for Palestinians with jihadist terrorism and label criticism of the Israeli state as antisemitism. This approach aims to shield Israel from accountability while attempting to shift public perceptions, which have increasingly turned negative. The method, though straightforward, is effective and echoes classic propaganda strategies described by Edward Bernays.
This use of emotional loading is not exclusive to this incident or to supporters of Israel. It has become a standard technique in contemporary journalism, amplified by social media platforms that prioritize sensationalism. Journalism education often emphasizes emotional proximity and impactful storytelling. Nonetheless, there are ways to approach this discourse critically, allowing for some protection against its manipulation.
The motives behind the acts of violence in Bondi Beach remain uncertain; there is a possibility that they were a misguided protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza. However, regardless of the victims’ suffering, such actions ultimately serve to bolster Israel’s narratives more than they assist the Palestinian cause. Ultimately, senseless violence tends to harm the very causes it is meant to support, a fact that Israel is likely all too aware of.
