Israel’s warnings proven right as democracies speak plainly, while Arab regimes dilute antisemitic terror accountability.
The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) has used advanced artificial-intelligence tools to uncover an uncomfortable global truth: when Jews were massacred in Sydney during a Hanukkah celebration, not all governments were willing to name the crime for what it was—antisemitic terrorism.
JPPI’s AI-driven analysis examined the immediate official reactions from 25 major countries following the murder of 15 members of the Jewish community on December 14, 2025. The study reviewed statements from heads of state, foreign ministries, diplomats, and verified social-media accounts in Western, Asian, Muslim, and Arab countries.
Each response was scored using objective parameters: whether officials explicitly stated Jews were targeted, acknowledged Hanukkah, used the words “terrorism” or “antisemitism,” referenced Israel or Israelis, and—critically—who delivered the message. Statements from presidents and prime ministers carried far greater weight than vague ministry releases.
The results were revealing.
Argentina and Canada ranked highest, with their leaders unambiguously identifying the attack as antisemitic terrorism against Jews during Hanukkah. Their clarity demonstrated moral leadership—and an understanding that euphemisms only embolden extremists.
By contrast, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom scored surprisingly low. Initial statements avoided mentioning Jews, antisemitism, or the religious nature of the event. Only after intense public backlash did Australia’s prime minister revise his language to explicitly label the massacre antisemitic terrorism. New Zealand followed a similar pattern of hesitation and correction.
At the bottom of the ranking were Muslim and Arab states. In most cases, responses—if issued at all—came from foreign ministries rather than national leaders. Many avoided acknowledging that Jews were targeted, instead condemning “violence in general.” Even Egypt and Jordan, countries with peace treaties with Israel, failed to clearly name antisemitism as the motive.
This silence was not accidental. It reflects a long-standing pattern in which Jewish suffering is deliberately depoliticized, diluted, or ignored—particularly when acknowledging it would challenge entrenched anti-Israel narratives.
Notably, Israel was mentioned only once—by Argentine President Javier Milei. In an unprecedented statement, Milei directly criticized Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state, arguing it contributed to a hostile climate that endangered Jewish communities. His response stood out for explicitly linking foreign policy toward Israel with Jewish security abroad.
The AI analysis also tracked who did not speak. In democratic nations, heads of state generally responded quickly, underscoring the severity of the attack. No leader of a Muslim country issued a direct statement.
The findings validate what Israel has long warned: antisemitic terror is global, ideological, and selectively condemned. When Israel fights terrorism, it is not only defending its borders—it is confronting the same hatred that spills Jewish blood in Sydney, Paris, and Brussels.
Naming the crime matters. Silence is not neutrality—it is complicity.
