This article examines the Bondi Beach attack, the immediate response, the gun-control debate it reopened, and the rising threat of antisemitism as it plays out in liberal democracies.

The attack at Bondi Beach, where a father and son opened fire on a Hanukkah gathering, was a travesty of the first order and a horror for everyone present. A Jewish celebration turned into a slaughter, with people shot while trying to mark a holiday with family and friends. The scene exposed failures in prevention and response that deserve sharp scrutiny.

According to reports, and stop me if you’ve heard this one before, the two gunmen were owners of six legally-owned firearms. “The shooting — which appears to have involved shotguns and a bolt-action rifle — come despite Australia cracking down on firearms following the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting. Semi-automatic rifles were banned and the country enacted strict registration and purchasing restrictions for all weapons.” Those details matter because they show how determined attackers will find a way regardless of the form of restriction.

Australia is held up as the gold standard by many liberals in America, and yet the reality on the ground is grim. The contrast between the country’s reputation and this outcome is jarring. And here we are.

Predictably, the Prime Minister gave the token answer for everything among progressive liberals worldwide: we need stricter gun laws. A reminder, at the time I’m writing this, this attack killed 15 and sent another 40 to the hospital. That immediate political reflex sidesteps other important failures in public safety and response.

What stands out most is how badly the immediate response faltered, not just the lack of armed civilians. Witnesses described police “freezing” as bodies lay wounded. One of the survivors of the terror attack at a Bondi Beach Hanukkah celebration said four police officers just ‘froze’ during the 20-minute rampage on Sunday that killed 11. Eyewitness Shmulik Scuri said he was with his family when the two suspects began firing at the crowd of worshippers from a nearby bridge. ‘For 20 minutes. They shoot, shoot. Change magazines. And just shoot,’ the witness told reporters.

It took a bystander to act before authorities could bring the situation under control. The actual hero of the event is named Ahmed al Ahmed, 43, who owns a fruit shop and charged one of the attackers, disarming one of them. For his trouble, he’s in the hospital recovering from gunshot wounds himself.

Police eventually responded, but it was too late for many victims, and survivors ran through the scene wearing bloodied bandages looking for friends and family. The way witnesses and social media recorded the chaos is painfully familiar to anyone who studied other slow law-enforcement responses. That comparison points to systemic problems in training, doctrine, or willingness to act decisively when lives are at stake.

Americans remember the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting and the horror of a delayed police reaction that left children exposed. The final DOJ report described one of the worst police responses imaginable. We need to watch how Australian authorities investigate what happened at Bondi and why officers did not stop the killers sooner.

Beyond response and gun policy, this was clearly an attack on a Jewish event during a Jewish holiday. As Bret Stephens accurately summarized in the New York Times, what happened in Australia is what “globalize the intifada” looks like. That phrase captures how overseas conflicts can stoke violence against local Jewish communities.

For years, Australia reassured itself that antisemitism is marginal—an imported pathology or an online nuisance safely removed from everyday life. That belief is no longer credible. Since Oct. 7, Jewish Australians have reported a sharp rise in harassment, intimidation, vandalism and threats at schools, universities, workplaces and public spaces. Antisemitic graffiti had already appeared in Bondi in the weeks before the attack. The violence didn’t emerge from nowhere. It was the most extreme expression of a wound to the body politic that has been allowed to fester.

That pattern is not unique to Australia; we’ve seen similar targeted threats and violence elsewhere. The key difference in the United States is that many Jews have the option to defend themselves. For several years, we’ve seen an influx of new Jewish gun owners seeking to protect themselves, especially in blue states where the liberal governments do not seek to help them. The election of Zohran Mamdani and his merry band of antisemitic misfits triggered a second wave of Jews buying guns in New York.

The logic is simple: when leaders are indifferent or hostile, people look out for themselves. Arming responsibly becomes a last-resort option when public institutions fail to guarantee security. That reality matters when policy choices make lawful self-defense more difficult.

In Australia, disarmament left both Jewish citizens and others exposed, and the police response compounded the damage. By pushing for more gun control without fixing policing and security gaps, authorities risk making it harder to respond to attacks and easier for killers to achieve mass harm. The implements change—knives, cars, rifles—but the intent is the same and the target is what matters.

Western liberalism’s sick desire to disarm the weak is leaving the world a dangerous place.