On Sunday, gunmen massacred Jews at a Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach. It was known relatively quickly that the Jewish community was the target of the attack. It was also known that the number of dead would make this one of the largest mass murders in Australia’s history and one of the largest massacres of Jews since the Holocaust.
One would think that, in the aftermath of a massacre of a minority community celebrating its holiday, that political leaders might have something to say to the community, something unique and special. Instead many leaders in Australia, the UK, New Zealand and some other countries appear to have reached for the same playbook in speaking about the attack.
Yvette Cooper, the UK Foreign Secretary, put out a statement on X saying, “the scenes from Bondi Beach are deeply shocking and distressing.” She said her “thoughts are with everyone affected and Australia’s emergency services.” She also said that British nationals “should follow local people and authorities advice.”
The Prime Minister of Australia’s first reaction was to issue a statement that used the same language as Cooper’s: “The scenes in Bondi are shocking and distressing. Police and emergency responders are on the ground working to save lives. My thoughts are with every person affected.” He also urged people to follow instructions from the local police.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand Christopher Luxon employed similar language. “I am shocked by the distressing scenes in Bondi, a place that Kiwis visit every day.” He also added that “my thoughts, and the thoughts of all New Zealanders, are with those affected.”
Generic, identical language, instead of clear condemnation
Chronologically, it seems the Australian leader’s statement was first, followed by New Zealand and then the UK Foreign Secretary.
The statements made by these countries are in contrast to other countries. Estonia, for instance, put out a statement saying, “as we mark the Festival of Lights, our hearts are heavy following the ghastly terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, Australia, where people gathering peacefully to celebrate the first day of Hanukkah were targeted.” Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, said, “Horrified by the antisemitic terror attack that has stolen the lives of 11 people at a Hanukkah event on Bondi Beach today in Australia. Canada stands with the people of
Australia and Jewish people everywhere in sorrow, and determination never to bow to terrorism, violence, hatred and intimidation. Hanukkah is a time of light amidst the darkness, and a remembrance of the resilience of the Jewish people.”
Why, then, were the Australian, New Zealand and UK statements so similar? Let’s look at them together. The UK said, “The scenes from Bondi Beach are deeply shocking and distressing”; Australia’s Prime Minister said, “The scenes in Bondi are shocking and distressing” and New Zealand’s leader said, “shocked by the distressing scenes at Bondi.” These three are essentially the same statement.
One could argue that the UK and New Zealand followed Australia’s lead in using the same language. After all, these countries are close allies and share similar histories linked to the British Empire. However, is that a good enough reason for them to use the same generalized language to describe such a major attack?
What do the words “scenes from Bondi beach” mean? It could be a tidal wave. It could be a shark attack or a mudslide.
“Scenes” is a vague word that could describe any kind of natural disaster. If one were to write “the scenes from California,” what might one assume? Scenes from a movie? Beautiful weather? This word, paired with“shock and distress,” fails to convey that this is a mass murder. “Shock and distress” are also words that may apply to a natural disaster or a large accident.
The Bondi Beach attack was not confusing. It was absolutely clear that gunmen were shooting at people. And it was absolutely clear that the target was a Jewish Hanukkah event. Even if these countries held off on mentioning Jews until it was clear this was an antisemitic attack, they could still reference that this was a murderous rampage or massacre.
Murder was clearly what was taking place. Words such as “shooting,” “murder” and “attack” would all be more descriptive than “scenes” and “shock.”
Many countries are reluctant to address these types of attacks head-on. They have a preference for well-crafted public relations statements that are vague and will satisfy everyone. It’s common in such discussions that if someone asks, “should we mention Jewish victims?” that someone will say that mentioning Jews might make the statement less “inclusive” and that “if you mention Jews, you should mention other minorities.” For instance, it’s common to see “antisemitism and Islamophobia” as if every time there is a targeted murder of Jews, it’s important to also mention Muslims to “balance” the statement. This usually doesn’t go the other way. When other minorities are targeted, public relations consultants rarely suggest including Jews in a statement.
We don’t know the motive or reasons that led to the word “scenes” being used to describe mass murder, or why “distress and shock” were the main reactions, as opposed to “we condemn mass murder.” What is clear is that the language was almost identical in three key countries. This leads to the generalization and downplaying of the seriousness of the attack. On the second day after the attack, major media outlets have now moved to report that the main agenda in Australia appears to be about addressing “gun laws” according to the BBC, CNN and NBC. Thus, the narrative has quickly moved from “scenes” to “gun laws” while seeming to skip over the Jewish victims.