
The recent rise in both anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks in Sydney has reignited concerns about racism and social division in Australia. The incidents, which involved graffiti targeting Jewish and Muslim communities, as well as acts of violence, reflect a deeper issue of racial and religious intolerance. These attacks have raised an important question: should such actions be considered terrorism?
The Nature of the Sydney Attacks
On 18 January 2025, Sydney saw a series of hate crimes that targeted both Jewish and Muslim communities. Anti-Semitic graffiti was reported in Jewish neighbourhoods, followed by Islamophobic graffiti appearing in other parts of the city. These incidents occurred against a backdrop of rising racial tensions and increasing hate speech. Furthermore, some Jewish neighbourhoods experienced more severe acts, including arson attacks on vehicles, raising alarms within both communities about safety and the growing climate of hostility.
Defining Terrorism in the Context of Hate Crimes
Terrorism is commonly defined as the use of violence or intimidation in pursuit of political, ideological, or religious objectives. Under this definition, hate crimes—particularly those that instil fear and seek to marginalise certain groups—can, in some cases, qualify as acts of terrorism. The Sydney attacks, while not as violent as large-scale terror incidents, share some key characteristics of terrorism:
- Targeting Specific Communities: The perpetrators specifically targeted Jewish and Muslim communities, aiming to intimidate and sow fear among these groups.
- Political and Ideological Motivations: Hate crimes often stem from extremist beliefs, whether anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, or other forms of racial or religious bigotry.
- Creating a Climate of Fear: Much like terrorism, hate crimes are meant to instil fear beyond just the immediate victims, affecting entire communities and their sense of security.
Global and Historical Comparisons
The connection between hate crimes and terrorism is not new. In the United States, white supremacist attacks, such as the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the 2019 Christchurch mosque attack in New Zealand, were classified as acts of terrorism due to their ideological motivations and intent to spread fear. Similarly, the Sydney incidents, particularly if they escalate to physical violence, could be categorised under Australia’s anti-terror laws.
However, some political figures, such as opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson, argue that there is no direct parallel between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, suggesting that anti-Semitic attacks are more severe. This stance has sparked debate on whether all forms of racial or religious violence should be treated equally under anti-terrorism laws.
Legal and Policy Implications
In response to these incidents, Australia’s political leaders have proposed stricter laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for terrorism-related offences. However, the effectiveness of such measures remains a point of debate. While tougher laws may deter some offenders, they do not address the root causes of racism and religious intolerance. Education, community engagement, and social programmes aimed at fostering mutual understanding between different religious and ethnic groups are also necessary to prevent future incidents.
Conclusion
The recent attacks in Sydney highlight the urgent need to address racism and religious intolerance in Australia. Whether or not these incidents meet the legal definition of terrorism, they have undoubtedly created fear and division within the community. A balanced approach—combining strong legal measures with proactive social initiatives—is essential to combat hate crimes and ensure a more inclusive society. The broader question remains: if acts intended to instil fear and harm specific communities are not considered terrorism, what message does that send about the value of those communities in the eyes of the law?