Senator Bernie Sanders issued a forceful statement condemning a deadly antisemitic terrorist attack in Sydney while sharply criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response, arguing that condemning Israel’s policies and defending Palestinian rights must not be conflated with antisemitism.
Seventeen innocent people were killed in what Sanders described as a “horrific antisemitic terrorist attack,” a tragedy that has sent shockwaves through Australia and reignited global concern over the rising threat of antisemitism worldwide. Sanders opened his remarks by calling for unity against hatred, emphasizing that the attack was an assault not only on its victims, but on the fundamental values of human dignity and coexistence.
“Together, we must do everything we can to combat the alarming rise of antisemitism around the world,” Sanders said, stressing that violence against Jewish communities must be confronted without hesitation or qualification.
But Sanders quickly pivoted to what he called a troubling political response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Sanders, Netanyahu blamed the Australian prime minister for the attack, citing Australia’s move toward recognizing a Palestinian state as a contributing factor. Sanders rejected that argument outright, calling it both unjusti
“What was Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response to this tragedy?” Sanders asked rhetorically. “He blamed the Australian prime minister for the attack, simply because he had moved to recognize a Palestinian state.”
Sanders warned that linking acts of antisemitic violence to diplomatic support for Palestinian statehood risks distorting the meaning of antisemitism and undermining genuine efforts to combat it. He argued that such claims weaponize antisemitism accusations for political purposes, weakening their moral force at a moment when clarity is most needed.
“No, Mr. Netanyahu,” Sanders said bluntly. “Speaking out on behalf of the Palestinian people is not antisemitic.”
In a series of emphatic statements, Sanders drew clear distinctions between antisemitism—hatred or discrimination against Jewish people—and criticism of the Israeli government’s policies. He said opposing what he called the “disgraceful policies” of Netanyahu’s “extremist government” should not be labeled as bigotry.
Sanders went further, condemning Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza in some of his strongest language to date. He described the war as “genocidal,” asserting that it has killed more than 70,000 people, “mostly women and children.” He also criticized Israeli strikes on civilian infrastructure and humanitarian conditions, accusing the government of bombing hospitals and allowing the starvation of children.
“Condemning your genocidal war is not antisemitic,” Sanders said. “Demanding that your government stop bombing hospitals and starving children is not antisemitic.”
Those remarks reflect a broader shift within parts of the U.S. Democratic Party, where criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza has grown sharper and more public, even as leaders continue to denounce antisemitism in all its forms. Sanders, who is Jewish and has family roots in Eastern Europe affected by the Holocaust, has long argued that opposing antisemitism and defending Palestinian human rights are not mutually exclusive obligations.
Supporters say Sanders’ background gives him particular credibility on the issue. They argue that his position underscores a moral consistency: condemning violence against Jews while also opposing mass civilian suffering inflicted by a state acting in their name.
Critics, however, accuse Sanders of using inflammatory language and undermining Israel’s right to self-defense. Pro-Israel advocates argue that terms like “genocidal war” are inaccurate and risk inflaming tensions at a time when antisemitism is already on the rise globally.
Sanders rejected those critiques preemptively, warning that silencing criticism of government actions by labeling it antisemitic ultimately harms Jewish communities rather than protecting them.
“When everything becomes antisemitism,” one ally of Sanders said, “then nothing is.”
In his closing remarks, Sanders returned to the victims of the Sydney attack, urging the world not to lose sight of the need to confront hatred directly. He called for a renewed global commitment to fighting antisemitism, racism, and all forms of bigotry—without exception.
“As we mourn the tragic loss of life in Australia,” Sanders said, “we must continue to vigorously oppose antisemitism and all forms of racism and bigotry.”
At the same time, he insisted that moral clarity requires consistency. Governments, he argued, must be held accountable to international law and human rights standards, regardless of their alliances or geopolitical power.
“We must demand a world in which international law and human rights are respected by all governments, without exception,” Sanders said.
The statement places Sanders squarely at the center of one of the most contentious debates in global politics: how to combat antisemitism while allowing space for forceful criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza. As governments, activists, and institutions struggle to navigate that line, Sanders’ remarks reflect a growing insistence that defending Palestinian lives and opposing antisemitism are complementary—not conflicting—moral imperatives.
Whether his framing will gain broader acceptance remains uncertain. But in the aftermath of violence in Sydney and amid continuing war in Gaza, Sanders made clear that he believes the stakes are too high for ambiguity—and that silence, in the face of either hatred or mass suffering, is not an option.
Leave a Reply