Militarized Subjects, Politicized Victims, and What Captures the World’s Attention

This article attempts to understand three violent incidents that occurred in Australia, the United States, and Syria, not as isolated individual actions, but as events that have been politically and media-driven, interpreted in vastly different ways.

The basic idea is simple: Not all crimes are told in the same way, and not all victims receive the same level of attention.

Here, we use ideas from political science and sociology to understand: 1. How individuals previously subjected to militarization become violent actors, 2. Why some victims are highlighted while others are marginalized, 3. How a ready-made narrative is imposed on an event before an investigation is concluded.

We focus specifically on the Bondi incident in Australia, which was quickly characterized as an “anti-Semitic attack,” in contrast to the near-complete disregard for the shooting at Brown University in the United States, despite the fact that it was part of a shocking number: 389 mass shootings in just one year.

We also remind the reader that the perpetrator of the Tadmor attack in Syria graduated from the same jihadist environment as the current ruler of Syria, al-Jolani, highlighting the overlap between institutionalized violence and extremism.

Conclusion: The power of the narrative is what determines the political value of an event, not just the number of victims.

1. Violence is Not Just “News”

When an attack occurs, it is not treated as an abstract fact. Instead, it is given a name, an identity, and tied to a larger political narrative.

If a senior official or a powerful state declares that what happened is a “security threat,” the event immediately becomes a matter of national security, and extraordinary measures are justified based on that.

This is what is called in political science: securitization.

2. Three Incidents… Three Different Narratives

We examine three cases: 1. Naveed Akram – The Bondi incident in Sydney 2. Benjamin Erickson – The shooting at Brown University (USA) 3. The Perpetrator of the Tadmor Attack – Targeting American and Israeli forces in Syria

The question is not just: Why did they do it? But more importantly:

Why was each incident interpreted in a completely different way? And who benefits from these interpretations?

3. An Important Commonality: Militarization

All three share one key element:

They had previously been exposed to organized violence within military or security institutions.

• Naveed Akram: There was talk about his connection to the Israeli army and his influence from the events in Gaza.

• Benjamin Erickson: An American infantry soldier trained for combat.

• The Perpetrator of the Tadmor Attack: Part of Syrian security services and had links to ISIS.

These are not “monsters” or “crazy people” as they are often portrayed, but individuals who came out of systems of violence and were left without accountability or psychological support.

Scholars call this: Moral Injury Which refers to the feeling of guilt and internal breakdown after participating in violence that conflicts with one’s conscience.

4. Why Did the World Focus on Australia… and Ignore America?

4.1 Australia: Immediate Amplification The Bondi incident became, within hours:

• An international issue, • Statements from world leaders, • One dominant headline: An anti-Semitic attack.

4.2 Brown University: Near Silence In contrast, the shooting at Brown University:

• Did not turn into a global issue, • No international conferences were held because of it, • It was simply part of America’s “normalization” of gun violence.

Despite it being the 389th mass shooting in just one year.

This illustrates an important point:

Media attention does not follow the number of victims, but rather the political utility of the story.

5. The Problem of the “Anti-Semitism” Narrative in the Bondi Incident

5.1 Fixing a Single Narrative

In the Bondi incident, information was leaked early, and only one narrative was presented: The attacker was anti-Semitic. The attacker was Pakistani and Muslim. Before the investigation was even finished, and before any other explanations were considered.

This does not mean that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist, but it means that choosing this particular explanation was a political-media decision.

5.2 The Political Context Before the incident, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu issued threats to countries, including Australia, for their stance on recognizing the Palestinian state.

This context makes any political criticism immediately labeled as religious hatred.

6. What About Israeli Intelligence?

There is no conclusive evidence of direct involvement.

But what is clear is:

• The swift use of rhetoric about “Iran” and “Hezbollah”, • Shifting the blame abroad, • Exonerating the regimes that created these militarized subjects from accountability.

The real question is not: Did intelligence agencies get involved?

But: How are these narratives used to keep the world in a constant state of emergency?

7. A Simplified Conclusion

What these cases reveal is:

• People shaped by violent systems who were then abandoned, • Victims whose level of visibility is selected, • Narratives imposed faster than the truth.

One final noteworthy piece of information:

• Naveed’s mother is Italian, and his father is Indian, • He was known to be a very kind person, • Similarly, Benjamin Erickson was described as polite.

This doesn’t absolve them, but it reminds us that evil doesn’t emerge suddenly; it is gradually made.

In a time of perpetual emergency, the most responsible position is to resist quick judgments and hold on to the question.

8. Ahmad al-Ahmad: The Overlooked Truth

One of the facts that wasn’t highlighted in the media:

Ahmad al-Ahmad, a Muslim man, intervened and confronted one of the attackers, preventing further casualties.

This detail is very important because:

• It dismantles the idea of a “Muslim attacker versus a Jewish victim,”

• It proves that religious identity doesn’t explain violence, • It challenges the simplistic narrative, which is why it was marginalized.

9. Was the Attack an Act of Religious Hatred?

The official narrative says yes. But the facts suggest legitimate questions:

• The attack wasn’t random, • It didn’t target Australian bystanders, • It seemed to be linked to political symbolism rather than general religious hatred.

This does not justify violence, but it means that automatically labeling it as “anti-Semitic” is a political reduction.

The bigger problem here is the confusion between Judaism, Zionism, and the policies of the Israeli state.