HENRY ERGAS
Anthony Albanese holds a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke behind. Picture: Martin Ollman
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/co...ory/b03e2bf8a6f06b75d4286bc5bfe551e1#comments
“All human beings,” Aristotle declares in the opening sentence of the Metaphysics, “by their nature desire to know.” He clearly never encountered the Albanese government. What it fears is not, as Tony Burke has claimed, that a royal commission would “provide a public platform for some of the worst statements and worst voices”, forcing Jewish Australians to “relive” their trauma. It is that an inquiry would bring into the open truths the government is desperate to bury.
One fact, in effect, decisively distinguishes the terrorist attack at Bondi from both Port Arthurand the hostage seizure at the Lindt Cafe. Those atrocities were isolated acts. The murderous onslaught on a beachside Hanukkah celebration was not. It formed part of an extended pattern of anti-Semitic intimidation, harassment and violence that began immediately after October 7, 2023, and broadened in scope while intensifying in ferocity over the months that followed.
Now, with the mourning period for the victims of the Bondi massacre under way, a clear-eyed, independent and authoritative inquiry is needed into the factors that produced the deadliest terrorist incident in Australian history. Unless the causes of that escalation in violence are properly understood, the pathology cannot be addressed at its root – let alone prevented from recurring.
Much is already apparent. The savagery at Bondi confirms, yet again, the overwhelming danger posed – and role played – by Islamist organisations, networks and individuals, both in the surge of anti-Semitic attacks and, more broadly, in the incitement, preparation and commission of terrorist acts.
A hostage runs from the Lindt cafe in Martin Place in December 2014. Picture: AAP
The empirical record is striking. Of the 83 sentencing decisions and appeals for terrorism offences under section 80.2C and Divisions 101–103 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code between 2002 and 2024, 95 per cent involved offenders motivated by Islamist extremism. Moreover, as both ASIO and the AFP stress in their submissions to the current review of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws, Islamism continues to dominate the national threat landscape, accounting for a clear majority of active investigations.
Nor have perpetrators been reticent about their motivations. In the widely cited case of R v Lodhi (2006), Justice Anthony Whealy found that the offender was “informed by the concept of violent jihad and the glorification of Muslim heroes who have fought and died for jihad”.
His Honour further concluded that these convictions were held with “great vigour and firmness”, describing them as the product of a “sincerely held religious worldview based on fundamentalist Islamic propositions”, including the belief that Muslims are obligated “to pursue violent jihad for the purpose of overthrowing liberal democratic societies”. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held that those findings were supported by “ample evidence” – and they have since recurred in the case law time and again.
Loaded: 43.50%
00:00 / 00:00
ISIS Praises the Bondi Beach massacre as source of pride
ISIS has expressed admiration for the Bondi Beach shooting, calling the attackers 'lions' and...
more
Dismissing these beliefs as mere distortions of Islam is simplistic. They are, after all, actively promulgated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has, with the endorsement of its Guardian Council, long sponsored and directed acts of terror – particularly against Jews – both in Australia and elsewhere. That Council is dominated by senior Shia clerics who can scarcely be accused of ignorance of their faith, still less of heresy.
The same endorsement of violent anti-Semitism was echoed just two days before the Bondi massacre in an officially approved sermon calling on Muslims to “punish the Jews”, delivered from the pulpit in Mecca by one of the only five Sunni clerics authorised to preach at Islam’s holiest site.
These acts and beliefs have deep historical antecedents. To acknowledge that fact is not to ignore the many Muslims who are appalled by terrorism committed in their name. But it must also be recognised that Islam’s distinctive features have made it especially susceptible to mobilisation for religiously motivated violence.
Scenes from the Bondi Pavilion memorial. Picture: John Appleyard
Those features include the exaltation of armed struggle, with Mohammed mounting 65 expeditions against unbelievers during his decade-long rule in Medina, and personally commanding nearly half of them; the duty to wage jihad and to “terrify the enemies of God”, fighting unbelievers until “the religion is God’s entirely”; the aspiration to impose sharia law and restore the caliphate – an Islamic concept without parallel in the other Abrahamic religions; and the cult of martyrdom in combat, with Mohammed himself quoted as longing to be killed in jihad, resurrected, and then killed fighting again.
There are, of course, elements in other religions that are far from irenic. However, as Princeton scholar Michael Cook observes, “such thinking bulks larger in Islam” and, unlike in the other major faiths, “did not fall into oblivion with the passing of the centuries”. Instead, for a large and complex set of reasons, it “remained vivid and retained its authority into modern times”, with its “unambiguous endorsement of warfare against outsiders” leaving “a heritage that lends itself so easily to fundamentalisation that it could almost be said to invite it”.
It is therefore unsurprising that the “fundamentalisation” of faith has proceeded further, and secured a far wider base, in Islam than in any other major religion. So too have its associated calls to intimidation, harassment and violence against alleged enemies, especially – but not solely – Jews. And it is beyond question that those calls have resonated in some of the most highly mobilised parts of Australia’s Muslim communities.
The spread of those beliefs has, together with other contributing factors, provoked a proliferation of hatred whose scale and intensity are unprecedented in Australia’s history. There were undoubtedly periods of fierce sectarian tension, fuelled by the bitter divisions between Catholics and Protestants over Ireland’s long and bloody struggle for independence.
But not even Archbishop Mannix, taken at his most vituperative, ever suggested that non-Catholics were vermin; one cannot imagine him entertaining the idea that Protestants should be exterminated. Nor did he ever argue that adversaries should be silenced, harassed or intimidated.
Prime minister in the early 1930s, Jim Scullin.
Catholic archbishop Daniel Mannix.
Rather, the dominant attitude among Irish Catholics was a genuine sense of common Australianness, accompanied by a sustained commitment to social, cultural and political integration. Those sentiments – repeatedly emphasised by the Catholic clergy and by prominent politicians such as Jim Scullin, who were closely associated with Irish Catholicism in the public mind – deliberately and effectively suppressed extremists. The contrast with sections of today’s Muslim community could scarcely be sharper.
Ignoring these realities will not make them disappear. The Prime Minister cites unnamed“experts” who assure him wilful blindness is the best policy – as if there were truths ordinary Australians cannot bear and should not hear.
However, decades of experience, sustained analysis and plain common sense suggest the opposite: running away from the facts will only allow hatred to become more deeply entrenched, provoking further outrages and inflaming the very social divisions the government claims it wishes to avoid.
Moreover, unless these realities are brought into the open and subjected to serious examination, it will be impossible to devise targeted responses – responses that are far preferable to the broadbrush, potentially overreaching measures the government, in its determination to avoid confronting the real problem, now appears intent on pursuing.
A royal commission is not a panacea. Much depends on its terms of reference, its leadership, and the seriousness with which it is conducted. But endangering the lives and safety of Australians in order to evade politically damaging truths is far worse. Everything else might be a mistake. That is a deliberate dereliction of duty – and an unforgivable disgrace.
PM can’t run from truths of Islamist terrorism
Anthony Albanese holds a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke behind. Picture: Martin Ollman
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/co...ory/b03e2bf8a6f06b75d4286bc5bfe551e1#comments
“All human beings,” Aristotle declares in the opening sentence of the Metaphysics, “by their nature desire to know.” He clearly never encountered the Albanese government. What it fears is not, as Tony Burke has claimed, that a royal commission would “provide a public platform for some of the worst statements and worst voices”, forcing Jewish Australians to “relive” their trauma. It is that an inquiry would bring into the open truths the government is desperate to bury.
One fact, in effect, decisively distinguishes the terrorist attack at Bondi from both Port Arthurand the hostage seizure at the Lindt Cafe. Those atrocities were isolated acts. The murderous onslaught on a beachside Hanukkah celebration was not. It formed part of an extended pattern of anti-Semitic intimidation, harassment and violence that began immediately after October 7, 2023, and broadened in scope while intensifying in ferocity over the months that followed.
Now, with the mourning period for the victims of the Bondi massacre under way, a clear-eyed, independent and authoritative inquiry is needed into the factors that produced the deadliest terrorist incident in Australian history. Unless the causes of that escalation in violence are properly understood, the pathology cannot be addressed at its root – let alone prevented from recurring.
Much is already apparent. The savagery at Bondi confirms, yet again, the overwhelming danger posed – and role played – by Islamist organisations, networks and individuals, both in the surge of anti-Semitic attacks and, more broadly, in the incitement, preparation and commission of terrorist acts.
A hostage runs from the Lindt cafe in Martin Place in December 2014. Picture: AAP
The empirical record is striking. Of the 83 sentencing decisions and appeals for terrorism offences under section 80.2C and Divisions 101–103 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code between 2002 and 2024, 95 per cent involved offenders motivated by Islamist extremism. Moreover, as both ASIO and the AFP stress in their submissions to the current review of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws, Islamism continues to dominate the national threat landscape, accounting for a clear majority of active investigations.
Nor have perpetrators been reticent about their motivations. In the widely cited case of R v Lodhi (2006), Justice Anthony Whealy found that the offender was “informed by the concept of violent jihad and the glorification of Muslim heroes who have fought and died for jihad”.
His Honour further concluded that these convictions were held with “great vigour and firmness”, describing them as the product of a “sincerely held religious worldview based on fundamentalist Islamic propositions”, including the belief that Muslims are obligated “to pursue violent jihad for the purpose of overthrowing liberal democratic societies”. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held that those findings were supported by “ample evidence” – and they have since recurred in the case law time and again.
Loaded: 43.50%
00:00 / 00:00
ISIS Praises the Bondi Beach massacre as source of pride
ISIS has expressed admiration for the Bondi Beach shooting, calling the attackers 'lions' and...
more
Dismissing these beliefs as mere distortions of Islam is simplistic. They are, after all, actively promulgated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has, with the endorsement of its Guardian Council, long sponsored and directed acts of terror – particularly against Jews – both in Australia and elsewhere. That Council is dominated by senior Shia clerics who can scarcely be accused of ignorance of their faith, still less of heresy.
The same endorsement of violent anti-Semitism was echoed just two days before the Bondi massacre in an officially approved sermon calling on Muslims to “punish the Jews”, delivered from the pulpit in Mecca by one of the only five Sunni clerics authorised to preach at Islam’s holiest site.
These acts and beliefs have deep historical antecedents. To acknowledge that fact is not to ignore the many Muslims who are appalled by terrorism committed in their name. But it must also be recognised that Islam’s distinctive features have made it especially susceptible to mobilisation for religiously motivated violence.
Scenes from the Bondi Pavilion memorial. Picture: John Appleyard
Those features include the exaltation of armed struggle, with Mohammed mounting 65 expeditions against unbelievers during his decade-long rule in Medina, and personally commanding nearly half of them; the duty to wage jihad and to “terrify the enemies of God”, fighting unbelievers until “the religion is God’s entirely”; the aspiration to impose sharia law and restore the caliphate – an Islamic concept without parallel in the other Abrahamic religions; and the cult of martyrdom in combat, with Mohammed himself quoted as longing to be killed in jihad, resurrected, and then killed fighting again.
There are, of course, elements in other religions that are far from irenic. However, as Princeton scholar Michael Cook observes, “such thinking bulks larger in Islam” and, unlike in the other major faiths, “did not fall into oblivion with the passing of the centuries”. Instead, for a large and complex set of reasons, it “remained vivid and retained its authority into modern times”, with its “unambiguous endorsement of warfare against outsiders” leaving “a heritage that lends itself so easily to fundamentalisation that it could almost be said to invite it”.
It is therefore unsurprising that the “fundamentalisation” of faith has proceeded further, and secured a far wider base, in Islam than in any other major religion. So too have its associated calls to intimidation, harassment and violence against alleged enemies, especially – but not solely – Jews. And it is beyond question that those calls have resonated in some of the most highly mobilised parts of Australia’s Muslim communities.
The spread of those beliefs has, together with other contributing factors, provoked a proliferation of hatred whose scale and intensity are unprecedented in Australia’s history. There were undoubtedly periods of fierce sectarian tension, fuelled by the bitter divisions between Catholics and Protestants over Ireland’s long and bloody struggle for independence.
But not even Archbishop Mannix, taken at his most vituperative, ever suggested that non-Catholics were vermin; one cannot imagine him entertaining the idea that Protestants should be exterminated. Nor did he ever argue that adversaries should be silenced, harassed or intimidated.
Prime minister in the early 1930s, Jim Scullin.
Catholic archbishop Daniel Mannix.
Rather, the dominant attitude among Irish Catholics was a genuine sense of common Australianness, accompanied by a sustained commitment to social, cultural and political integration. Those sentiments – repeatedly emphasised by the Catholic clergy and by prominent politicians such as Jim Scullin, who were closely associated with Irish Catholicism in the public mind – deliberately and effectively suppressed extremists. The contrast with sections of today’s Muslim community could scarcely be sharper.
Ignoring these realities will not make them disappear. The Prime Minister cites unnamed“experts” who assure him wilful blindness is the best policy – as if there were truths ordinary Australians cannot bear and should not hear.
However, decades of experience, sustained analysis and plain common sense suggest the opposite: running away from the facts will only allow hatred to become more deeply entrenched, provoking further outrages and inflaming the very social divisions the government claims it wishes to avoid.
Moreover, unless these realities are brought into the open and subjected to serious examination, it will be impossible to devise targeted responses – responses that are far preferable to the broadbrush, potentially overreaching measures the government, in its determination to avoid confronting the real problem, now appears intent on pursuing.
A royal commission is not a panacea. Much depends on its terms of reference, its leadership, and the seriousness with which it is conducted. But endangering the lives and safety of Australians in order to evade politically damaging truths is far worse. Everything else might be a mistake. That is a deliberate dereliction of duty – and an unforgivable disgrace.
