By Nilofar Suhrawardy
Whether it is killing/injuring of one person or more, be it in Bondi Beach (Sydney, Australia) or elsewhere, whatever be the ethnic background of victims and/or of suspect criminals, the crime doesn’t stand justified in retaliation of any activity in any part of the world. It is not simply because victims remain innocent of whatever they may have been targeted for. Their murder doesn’t resolve whatever the issue/design/plan the suspects may have considered. Instead, chances of it having the reverse impact seem greater. Ironically, the manner in which these incidents are projected may have the same impact. In addition, perhaps, some consideration also needs to be given to role that reaction to these crimes plays. Give a thought. As soon as religious identity of suspects of killings in Bondi killings became clear, it took little time for them to be linked with extremist Islamist, in other words- “Islamic” terrorism. Around the same time, Brown University in USA was targeted by a suspect Benjamin Erickson. He was not described as a terrorist but as someone suffering from mental illness. Later, he was released from custody and search for alleged “shooter” resumed. Of course, it is a little puzzling as it why was he was viewed as suffering from some mental illness at the time when he was regarded as a suspect. Nothing seems to be said about his “mental illness” when this allegation was dropped.
In case, Benjamin was identified as a Muslim, he would have probably been instantly labelled as a terrorist and may still have been held as a suspect. Soon after Benjamin’s name was dropped, possibility of Brown shooting being linked with Palestine began being floated. What an irony. Without any investigation having been completed, the ease with which certain labels are linked with shooting cases cannot be ignored. There is nothing surprising about this. Nowadays, anti-Semitism and that too because of extremist Islamists appears to be given quite a lot of coverage at various levels, including diplomatic, political and of course media. It is possible, it is linked with, despite the so-called ceasefire, Israel’s war strikes against Palestinians. Undeniably, Israel’s offense against Palestinians does not justify any criminal or terrorist action in any part of the world, which can only be condemned. What demands attention is the alacrity with which with certain sections are instantly labelled as “terrorists” and substantial restraint is exercised in not using the same strategy for others. The division is fairly obvious. Christians, Jews and Whites in general are not described as terrorists, however horrendous their activities may be. But Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Browns and Blacks are usually instantly labelled as “terrorists” even if they remain only suspects and not guilty. Who should be blamed for continuation of such labelling? After all, in the case of Bondi-case, true the religious identity of alleged criminals was Islam, who apparently targeted primarily a Jewish celebration. However, criminals/terrorists do not represent even a percentage of world’s Muslim population. So, why should their religion- Islam be linked with terrorism? But sadly, when it is, it amounts to encouraging more criminals to resort to the same strategy to promote their moves. When leaders/power-holders choose to criticize them on ground of their identity (whether religious, nationality or any other) and sympathize with victims on basis of theirs, it tends to exploitation of “religious” card leading to polarization along communal lines. This does not contribute to decline of terrorism but tends to enhance it, by those criticizing it along religious as well as from the few choosing to justify for religious reasons.
It is strange, but the manner in which religious-cards tend to be used in contrary manners cannot be ignored. This refers to greater importance probably being given to economic worth of those being elevated and/or targeted. The religious identity of majority of oil-rich Arab rulers bears a different meaning diplomatically and of course- economically- for leaders of other countries where Muslims constitute economically weak minority. Where money acts as a magnetic force, religious identity despite being displayed prominently by rulers tends to be refrained from being linked with terrorism by leaders of most non-Muslim countries. And yet, those hailing from the same religion, but with little/no economic power, are easily/instantly linked with terrorism by the same leaders. This stands true in the East, the West and also in countries boasting of secularism, including United States and India.
Now, with respect to incidents being linked with anti-Semitism and Palestine, what does this really suggest? When leaders indulge in such language, it primarily amounts to their promoting/spreading/advertising what they’d prefer greater part of the world to believe in. It also amounts to justifying their war-games. It may be noted, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not take long to indulge in such language after the Bondi-killings. That is apparently is his way of “justifying” Israel’s war-exercises against Palestinians, which also amount to repeated violations of the so-called ceasefire.
The tragedy is the alacrity with which these “justifications” are given importance diplomatically as well as in the media. The saving grace is that nowadays common people have begun giving little importance to such attempts being made to spread and enhance communal polarization, particularly along religious lines. The majority have understood that leaders who have little else to boast about tend to exploit/use/abuse religious-cards in a bid to advertise their own power/strength and win support for their war-games/communal activities. As suggested, sections of people have risen above these moves. This is marked by recent victory of Zohran Mamdani (a Muslim) as Mayor-elect of New York City. In Australia, Ahmed Al-Ahmed, Australian Muslim of Syrian-origin, succeeded in disarming one of the attackers at Bondi Beach. He has been hailed as a hero of heroes by Australians and has also been complimented by several leaders, including US President Donald Trump. What needs to be noted is not just Mamdani’s religion or that of Ahmed but that people voting for the former and those hailing the latter have not let any leaders’ communal polarization decide their moves. But people still have a long way to go in defeating communal leaders spreading terrorism with “religious” labels!
Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. She has come out with several books.
20 December 2025
Source: countercurrents.org