The very thought that anyone, in the name of whatever distorted ideology or religion they claim to follow, should believe that shooting innocent and defenseless people who are complete strangers to them is the right thing to do is shocking and terrifying. I do not know if it is possible to eradicate this phenomenon from our societies completely, but I firmly believe that we have not done enough to achieve this goal.
It is not enough, although it is inevitable, to be shocked in the face of this month’s mass shooting at Bondi Beach, where two gunmen, father and son in this case, targeted hundreds of people who were attending the first evening of the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah. It is what we learn from these killings that must make us determined to prevent the next atrocity, and the one after.
There are two aspects of this horrific incident that require immediate, urgent, determined and conviction-driven action. The first is the need for all of us, whether in the private or public eye, to become cognizant of the implications of what we say, how we say it and to whom we are saying it. The second issue that we cannot continue to be forgiving about is the unbearable ease with which people can acquire lethal weapons. How was Sajid Akram, who allegedly carried out the Bondi Beach attack along with his son Naveed, legally allowed to own six rifles and shotguns?
In recent times, the deterioration in the public discourse, which has also entered the private domain, has created a permissible environment for violence, both verbal and physical, including in the political sphere but not restricted to it. The too-easy, get-out-of-jail card is to blame social media, using it to distance the people behind it, proprietors and users, from the platforms themselves.
All evidence confirms that the proliferation of arms among civilians results in many more deaths than lives saved. Yossi Mekelberg
Social media is an enabler that increasingly reveals and releases the worst of too many of us. Over the last two years, since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, and the war that followed in Gaza, antisemitism and Islamophobia have reached unprecedented levels, in the streets as well as through the comfort and relative anonymity of the keyboard. One also cannot ignore that the other side of the coin is that, because of the expression of hate speech and the physical attacks that target people or institutions of specific minorities, there is also a cynical attempt to silence entirely legitimate debate and criticism. Such debates should be fenced off.
The pain and anger caused by Oct. 7 and what has happened since in Gaza and the West Bank are understandable. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the ills of occupation — and the litany of these ills is long and extremely disturbing — could not justify the atrocities of that day, nor those committed by Israel in response. What is also intolerable is to associate all Palestinians with Hamas, to claim that “there are no innocent people in Gaza,” or to blame all Israelis or even Jews abroad for the behavior of the Israeli government and its military.
Protesting the killing of more than 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza, the widespread devastation and the unbearable and inexcusable humanitarian disaster for millions of people there is not only legitimate, but a very necessary show of the strength of civil societies across the globe. However, there has also been a dog-whistle incitement against Jews that goes beyond constructive criticism and calls to stop the war and ensure accountability.
At times deliberately, in other cases out of ignorance — including by keynote speakers at mass rallies — the criticism has gone beyond questioning the behavior of Israel in Gaza and as far as questioning the legitimacy of the existence of Israel and of Zionism in all its shades. At times, it has morphed into antisemitic slurs. Some placards and slogans have been clearly antisemitic, including “Jews control America” or one in which the Star of David on an improvised Israeli flag was replaced by a swastika.
At the same time, for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to lash out at Australian PM Anthony Albanese following the attack in Sydney and claim that “your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire” is a complete falsehood that should be rejected outright. It was no more than another cynical attempt by Netanyahu to score cheap points with his base by exploiting this tragedy.
Whenever such a deadly attack takes place, there is little doubt that a security failure has happened and must be investigated. A mistaken belief that such an incident simply could not happen in Australia might have led to misplaced complacency, resulting in a possible connection between the shooters and Daesh being missed by the security forces. Nevertheless, these killings bring back to the center of public attention the obsession of some countries with the so-called right to bear arms — in some cases it is considered to be a divine right and in others it is central to the right to self-defense.
All evidence confirms that the proliferation of arms among civilians results in many more deaths than lives saved. In a world that is becoming dangerously polarized and where incitement is rife, to allow civilians — with little to no knowledge of their mental state or when they are susceptible to radicalization — to carry weapons constitutes criminal neglect by the state. Security should be provided by the state and not by individuals carrying lethal weapons. Furthermore, permitting one person to amass six lethal weapons defies common sense.
Unfortunately, mass shootings and political killings are phenomena that repeat themselves frequently and their tragic results cannot and should not be ignored, let alone tolerated. To at least considerably reduce, if not eliminate, such acts, there is a need for a change in the societal discourse on how disagreements within society do not end and to shift the conversation about the right to own weapons. There is no divine right to own guns and there is definitely no divine right to hate other people murderously in the name of any set of beliefs.
BY: Writer Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
