Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has firmly dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s accusations that Australia’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state contributed to the deadly Hanukkah attack at Bondi Beach, Sydney, which left at least 15 people dead.
“No, I do not accept this connection,” Albanese said, calling the suggestion “an unfounded and dangerous shortcut.” He emphasized that the attack should be seen as an antisemitic terrorist act targeting Australia, not as a justification to politicize international diplomatic decisions.
The Sydney terror attack may have been carried out by an Iranian-backed foreign terror cell, Israeli authorities believe.
Officials cited Iran as a primary suspect, and said possible links to groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba were also being investigated, according to Israeli media reports.
Australian officials have not publicly confirmed any foreign involvement in the atrocity.
At least 16 people were killed in the country’s worst mass shooting in decades, which targeted a Jewish gathering to celebrate Hanukkah, the festival of lights.
Intelligence sources said the attack on the Bondi Beach celebration appeared to be sophisticated and well-planned, and carried the hallmarks of Unit 910, Hezbollah’s feared external operations arm.
An Iranian link to the attack would follow a pattern of terror plots and attacks in Australia in recent years.
Israel’s Mossad intelligence revealed in October that it had thwarted dozens of terror attacks around the world on Jewish and Israeli targets since Oct 7 2023, in countries including Greece, Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Australia.
In August, Australia ordered Iran’s ambassador to leave the country after alleging Tehran had directed attacks against Jewish targets in Sydney and Melbourne, an arson attack on a cafe in Sydney in October 2024, and another on a synagogue in Melbourne in December.
In a sweeping and precedent-setting decision, Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that botei din may no longer impose jurisdiction on Israeli citizens whose center of life is abroad, even if they briefly enter the country. The dramatic judgment brings an end to years of legal and halachic friction over so-called “airport jurisdiction,” in which litigants were summoned to rabbinical courts based solely on fleeting physical presence in Israel.
Justice Yechiel Kasher overturned a ruling of the Rabbinical High Court and clarified that Israeli rabbinical courts have authority over marriage, divorce, and related financial matters only when there is a “substantive connection” to the State of Israel. Mere Israeli citizenship or a short visit to the country, he ruled, is insufficient to establish international jurisdiction.
At the heart of the case was the interpretation of Section 1 of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law, which grants rabbinical courts exclusive authority over matters of marriage and divorce involving Jews who are “in Israel, citizens of the state or its residents.” The key question was the meaning of the phrase “in Israel”: does it require a genuine, meaningful connection to the country, or is temporary physical presence enough?
Justice Kasher decisively rejected the broader interpretation. He ruled that without a real and substantial link to Israel, the courts lack international jurisdiction. As a result, Israeli citizens who live abroad and visit Israel briefly can no longer find themselves suddenly subject to rabbinical court proceedings—particularly financial and property claims—when all of their assets and daily lives are based overseas.
The ruling places significant emphasis on preventing legal injustice. Justice Kasher noted that recognizing jurisdiction based solely on momentary presence could lead to unfair outcomes and coercive litigation tactics. He pointed to earlier Supreme Court rulings that require a “proper connection” to Israel before judicial authority can be exercised. Considerations of judicial efficiency also played a role, with the court stating that Israel is not the appropriate forum for disputes involving individuals who lack sufficient ties to the country.
Importantly, the court held that this interpretation applies equally to both parties in a dispute. Just as a defendant may argue a lack of sufficient connection to Israel, so too may a plaintiff be required to demonstrate such a connection in order to bring a case before the rabbinical courts.
The precedent-setting decision arose from a dispute between a couple who married in Israel in 1985 but soon thereafter relocated to the United Kingdom. The wife remained in Britain, while the husband later initiated proceedings against her in Jerusalem, taking advantage of her brief visit to Israel. Both the regional rabbinical court and the Rabbinical High Court had approved the move, but the Supreme Court intervened and put a stop to it.
Justice Kasher ordered that the case be returned to the regional rabbinical court for a renewed factual examination of the woman’s substantive connection to Israel. He also ordered the husband to pay 40,000 shekels in legal costs.
Deputy President of the Supreme Court Noam Sohlberg concurred with the outcome, stressing that since the bulk of the couple’s assets are located in the United Kingdom, Israel is not the appropriate legal forum for resolving the dispute.
Police have removed a woman from a memorial vigil for the Bondi Beach terror attack after she launched into a pro-Palestine protest and made anti-Israel comments
As officers escorted her away, she shouted accusations that others were politicizing the tragedy and demanded Israeli flags be taken down.
The protester, who was wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf, was heckled by hundreds in the crowd, with chants of 'get her out.'
She later told the media that she was Jewish and believed she had a right to protest at the vigil.
'I came here today because I'm a Jewish person. My family was murdered in the Holocaust... This community has politicized this tragedy,' she said.
Governor-General Sam Mostyn called the woman's intervention 'incredibly disrespectful'.
'It was a disgrace and I know the community here reacted how they should.'
One mourner told Daily Mail: 'This was meant to be a quiet moment of reflection, people were grieving, and suddenly it just descended into chaos.’
The vigil drew many from the Jewish community following a deadly attack where two gunmen killed 16 people at a Hanukkah event being held at the beach.
Two heavily armed men, allegedly Naveed Akram, 24, and his 50-year-old father Sajid Akram stood on a pedestrian footbridge and opened fire with military-grade weapons into the crowds of locals, holidaymakers and families.
So far 16 people have died, including alleged gunman Sajid Akram, while a further 42 people, including four children, were taken to hospital.
Police confirmed 14 people had died at the scene, while two others died overnight in hospital, with the victims ranging in age between 10 and 87 years old.
As of Monday, there were five people in critical condition, including two police officers - a constable and a probationary constable who was repeatedly shot in the face.
Naveed Akram is in hospital under police guard after being shot by police.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday evening submitted his response to petitions filed with the Supreme Court against the continued tenure of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.
“The petitions must be dismissed outright, or alternatively, rejected on their merits. This is primarily due to the complete absence of any legal grounds for such an extraordinary and extreme intervention in the foremost constitutional act - the formation of the elected government, as determined by law through the Knesset, the government, and its leader. Such intervention would carry anti-democratic implications, undermining the separation of powers, principles of proper governance, the law, and judicial precedent,” the response stated.
It further noted, “The Honorable Court must not accede to petitions that seek to establish a precedent of judicial interference in the appointment of government ministers based on ideological opposition to the policies advanced by the minister.”
“The petitions before us are nothing more than an unconstitutional attempt to remove a government minister and must be dismissed outright,” the response submitted to the Supreme Court declared.
