Table of Contents
Anna Stanley
Anna Stanley is an open-source investigator specialising in extremism. She previously worked in intelligence roles for the UK Foreign Office and police.
As bullets tore through the crowded Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on December 14th, Ahmed al-Ahmed acted with extraordinary courage. The 43-year-old Syrian-born Muslim immigrant and father of two ran towards the gunfire. He tackled an ISIS-inspired shooter and wrestled away his rifle. He was shot twice. His intervention almost certainly saved lives in the massacre that left 15 dead and more than 40 wounded.
Within hours, his story went viral, dominating global headlines and social media. Donations quickly mounted to AUD 2.5 million in a GoFundMe dedicated to his heroism. World leaders praised him, from Australian Prime Minister Albanese to President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yet the scale and intensity of the acclaim were striking – because his identity carried symbolic weight.
On a Channel 4 interview, Syrian Australian activist Lubaba Kahil – who visited al-Ahmed in hospital – remarked, “He didn’t save only those who were at Bondi Beach – he saved all Muslims.” Her words captured a wider view that al-Ahmed’s Muslim identity counteracted the ideology he confronted.
In the global imagination, al-Ahmed became a reassuring symbol: proof that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’, immigrants are assets and the public’s anxieties are misplaced. Jews above all are encouraged to see this single act of heroism as representative of reality – eclipsing the pattern beneath.
This reveals a glaring double standard: Muslim-perpetrated terrorism is swiftly disowned as ‘not true Islam’ while Muslim heroism is hailed as the faith’s authentic essence. This selective attribution – common across media and commentary – is not neutral analysis but narrative warfare.
The truth is simpler: ISIS-inspired terrorists no more represent the whole of Islam than al-Ahmed does.
In a Jerusalem Post opinion piece, Zvika Klein invokes Jewish history’s highest moral honour, the “Righteous Among the Nations”, reserved by Yad Vashem for non-Jews who saved Jews during the Holocaust. He places al-Ahmed in that lineage, alongside icons like Schindler, who shielded Jews in his factory; Wallenberg, who issued protective papers in Budapest; Sugihara, whose visas saved thousands; and Irena Sendler, who smuggled children from the Warsaw Ghetto.
The comparison feels inappropriate, not least because, as al-Ahmed’s cousin revealed, “he acted impulsively without thinking who the people were that were being killed – without knowing their religion, if they were…Jewish”. The irony stings: how does a rescuer unaware of his victims’ Jewishness become the ultimate rebuttal to antisemitism?
Unlike the Holocaust rescuers, who deliberately chose to save Jews amid genocide, al-Ahmed’s bravery was a human instinct against violence, not a targeted stand against antisemitism. He performed a life-saving act worthy of praise – there is no need to inflate it into something it wasn’t.
There were also Jewish attendees who acted with extraordinary courage that day. Boris and Sofia Gurman, an elderly couple in their 60s, confronted one gunman before being shot dead. Later, Reuven Morrison hurled bricks at the retreating shooter and was killed. Their heroism received comparatively little attention.
Al-Ahmed’s religion became highlighted because it satisfied a reputational need: Islamist violence has created persistent terror, with Jews its most consistent targets – from Hamas and Hezbollah to ISIS affiliates, the Houthis, Iran and radicalised actors across Europe and North America.
Yet many Jews respond with a suicidal empathy that ultimately works against their own security and fuels their own demise. Noticing the religious-ideological pattern that targets Jews isn’t bigotry – it’s a prerequisite for survival.
Where are campaigns by mainstream Muslim organisations against extremist preaching? Where are the mass protests from Muslim communities against antisemitic jihadist attacks? Or internal pressure on radical mosques and clerics? What about proactive cooperation beyond condemnations, issued only once blood is spilled?
Mainstream Muslim organisations in the West rarely mount such efforts, and within their communities many Muslims remain silent – out of fear, indifference or collusion – allowing extremism to fester. Inflating a hero is easier than accountability: it offers moral relief without confronting an epidemic as entrenched as antisemitism.
And so the message quietly delivered to Jewish communities is this: anaesthetise yourselves, accept this superficial reassurance that all is well. Mute your awareness of patterns and history. Be grateful for hollow gestures of ‘unity’.
When an anomaly is paraded as refutation of a pattern, the result is not peace-building or successful ‘interfaith’ – it is gaslighting.
Ahmed al-Ahmed should be honoured, but his courage cannot hide uncomfortable truths. Honouring bravery is good – weaponising it to deny reality is not.
This article was originally published by the Daily Sceptic.
