TEHRAN – Israeli media’s interpretation of the terrorist attack in Sydney is marked by contradiction and confusion. 

Was it unrelated to any intelligence manipulation, or an act of terrorism motivated by anger over the regime’s brutality in Gaza? 

The terror attack in Sydney targeted a Jewish event linked to the Israeli Chabad movement. It occurred only days after the Israeli regime approved a large allocation in its 2026 state budget aimed at improving its global image. The total amount reached 2.35 billion shekels. 

Of this, one billion shekels was officially authorized to fund social media campaigns, partnerships with civil society organizations, and coordination with parliamentarians, social media influencers, and other public figures.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who strongly advocated for increasing media and public diplomacy spending, stated that circumstances had changed and Israel must therefore adopt a new approach. 

This budget decision, along with Netanyahu’s explicit support, signals the beginning of a new Zionist strategy. The approach is generously backed by the far right in both the government and the Knesset. 

While the destination of one billion shekels is already known, the use of the remaining 1.35 billion shekels remains unclear. Will it fund covert operations abroad through the Mossad? Or will it be used to support efforts unlike those traditionally employed?

Increasingly, the perpetrators of the Sydney attack are being linked to Daesh or to sympathizers associated with the Takfiri organization. Experts say Daesh and its supporters have previously represented an open field for manipulation by various intelligence agencies. 

The United States has infiltrated Daesh networks, sometimes alongside its Israeli ally to conduct proxy operations. In many such cases, the actual perpetrators are unaware of who is directing or exploiting their actions, due to opaque communication methods that are easily penetrated by multiple intelligence services.

Daesh adherents are often driven by religious zeal to attack those they label as “infidels”, however, in Daesh ideology, the definition of unbelief is fluid and unrestrained. An “infidel” may be Christian, a Jew, or in the vast majority of cases, a Muslim.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed by Daesh, making them the biggest victims of the Takfiri group’s terrorism. 

In the case of Bondi Beach, the terror attack was carried out by a Muslim father and son. Some analysts believe the target was not Jews as a religious group. In fact, most Jews worldwide, including in Australia, the United States, and Britain, have openly condemned the Israeli regime’s violence. 

Rather, they argue the attack targeted an Israeli settler movement that embodies the ideological core of Zionist settlement across all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea. Among those killed was the settler Rabbi Eli Schlanger, a prominent figure in fundraising for illegal settlement expansion. 

He had posed for photographs with the regime’s soldiers in Gaza and operated near a Chabad facility established in a former Palestinian home in Khan Younis. Schlanger was his organization’s own representative in Australia and the sponsor of the targeted event on Bondi Beach.

Given the confusion surrounding the Sydney attack, it is important to examine it objectively by highlighting the Israeli regime’s gains and losses.

Israeli gains

First, the attack allowed Netanyahu and his far-right allies to exploit the attack by presenting themselves as defenders of the Australian Jewish community. They framed the entire community as innocent civilians under attack by religious “terrorism”. 

This narrative was reinforced through misinformation, including Netanyahu’s initial claim that the Australian who subdued one of the attackers and avoided further bloodshed was a “Jewish hero,” a statement later proven false when it emerged that the man was a “Muslim hero.”

Second, the Israeli regime revived the narrative of antisemitism, equating it not only with hostility toward Jews but with opposition to the Israeli regime’s indiscriminate aggression in Gaza. 

The attack was portrayed as a consequence of Australia’s political support for a Palestinian state, while Australian criticism of the Israeli occupation regime’s actions was labeled antisemitic.

This is part of a wider campaign to clamp down on pro-Palestinian protests. 

Third, Israeli propaganda intensified calls for Jews worldwide to immigrate to the occupied Palestinian territories, presenting it as the only safe haven. Following the attack, Australian Jews, estimated at around 126,000, were urged to prioritize migration. This was based on the claim that Australia could not protect them, while the occupying regime supposedly safeguards its settlers despite waging aggression on multiple fronts.

Fourth, the Israeli occupation regime further blurred the distinction between Palestinian resistance to occupation and Daesh-style terrorism. 

This conflation has been central to Netanyahu’s messaging and PR campaign since October 2023 and was revived after the Sydney terror attack through direct comparisons between the two events.

Israeli losses

Despite these gains, the terrorist attack also inflicted clear losses.
First, the deaths of Israelis, including senior figures within the settler-aligned Chabad movement, represent a direct loss.

These individuals were Israeli regime activists working to advance illegal settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and immigration, both of which are central to the Zionist project.

Second, the attack undermined the regime’s intelligence and security image. The Mossad claims responsibility for protecting Israelis wherever they operate, especially when engaged in activities tied to Zionist objectives. The failure to prevent the attack weakens that claim.

Third, the occupying regime’s global deterrence was damaged. At a time when Netanyahu boasts over the aggression on Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, and even deep inside Syria, the Sydney attack exposed the regime’s vulnerability. 

When the regime’s losses are weighed against its gains, the outcome appears negative. No rational Israeli leadership would willingly accept these losses in exchange for the political and media benefits, unless Netanyahu and his extremist allies have reached a level of recklessness that undermines the very foundations of the regime and its core deterrence doctrine.