After Bondi Attack, the West Must Face the Reality of ‘Migration Jihad’

“They don’t move from the Arab world to Europe. They move the Arab world to Europe.” So said Professor Mordechai Kedar when he spoke to me for an extended interview as part of my podcast series. That episode was published the very day the Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, was attacked. The massacre only confirmed his words. Migration, as he described it, does not merely transfer people from one place to another. It carries cultures, ideologies, and systems of meaning with it, and those systems do not remain inert; they spread and even flourish.

Kedar’s claim is not about ethnicity or private belief. It describes the movement of social order, of moral assumptions, of ideas about authority and legitimacy. People do not arrive empty-handed. They bring with them ways of organizing life, ways of resolving conflict, ways of defining who belongs and who does not. When those systems collide with liberal societies uncertain of their own boundaries, pressure accumulates.

The Bondi shooting especially matters because it strips away the last remaining comfort. This was not Gaza, not the West Bank, not a contested border. It was a beach, during a religious festival, in a country geographically and politically distant from the Middle East. A symbol of Australia, freedom, liberty. The perpetrators identified by law enforcement, a Muslim father and son, who had taken part in “military-style training” in the Philippines in the month leading up to the attack, targeted Jews.

Kedar warned me how this form of conquest moves through ideology, through repetition, through intimidation, through the slow reshaping of public space by force and intimidation — a “migration jihad.” Islam is not a private creed, but an all-encompassing framework. As Kedar puts it, it is “not only religion … Islam is also politics, economy, and every aspect of public life.” When that framework relocates, it seeks expression. When it meets hesitation, it expands.

Europe has been living inside this dynamic for years. Jews are often the first target, but the pattern rarely ends with us. Concerts, campuses, cultural events, and public squares have become the battlefields of this unconventional war. Yet political leadership responds with ritual rather than authority: candle lighting, moments of silence, interfaith theater. Expressions of sorrow, memorial gestures, and carefully chosen metaphors replace enforcement and deterrence. In Britain, demonstrations containing explicit antisemitic incitement have been tolerated for months without clear red lines. Around the world, the language of concern circulates freely while responsibility for combating poisonous ideologies and organized dangerous networks is shirked.

Paris has just canceled its traditional open-air New Year’s Eve concert on the Champs-Élysées because authorities judged the security risks too high to safely host such a large crowd of around a million people. The event will be replaced by a pre-recorded broadcast and fireworks only. Christmas markets and other festive sites have also been flagged as high-risk targets and subject to fortified security.

So, it’s not just Jews who are under threat. In Australia the terrorists came for Hanukkah, but they’ve been targeting Christmas for years. In Berlin in December 2016, a Muslim attacker, Anis Amri, drove a lorry into the Christmas market at Breitscheidplatz, murdering 12 people and injuring dozens more in one of the deadliest jihadist attacks in Germany.

In Strasbourg in December 2018, a Muslim attacker inspired by ISIS opened fire near the city’s Christmas market, killing five people, in an assault explicitly framed by French authorities as Islamist terrorism.

And last week federal authorities in the US arrested several people in connection with a planned New Year’s Eve bombing plot in Southern California. The FBI and Department of Justice say the group responsible is “pro-Palestinian” in its outlook as well as anti-law-enforcement and anti-government. The individuals were allegedly preparing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to be used in coordinated bomb attacks across Los Angeles on New Year’s Eve.

But the response is weak. These days, order is no longer asserted; risk is managed. Jewish institutions are advised to remain calm while accepting abnormal levels of private security as a permanent feature of everyday life. An arrangement that should register as failure is absorbed as routine. Trust erodes this way.

Bondi shows that Europe is no longer the outer boundary of this phenomenon. Australia is now inside it. America, too, is discovering the same pressures through campus unrest, ideological intimidation, and violence that increasingly treats Jewish life as a proxy target for the wider freedoms and values it represents. The geography changes. The structure holds.

What Professor Kedar described was not prediction but trajectory. When people do not simply arrive but bring whole systems with them, the question facing Western societies ceases to be one of tolerance alone. It becomes a question of whether they still possess the clarity and resolve to defend the civic order and freedoms they inherited.