Unfortunately he appears to have survived.
HR News || Sydney — Twelve people are dead. Dozens are wounded. A Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach turned into a massacre. And amid that carnage, Arsen Ostrovsky — a well‑known pro‑Israel lawyer and activist whose political rhetoric has been deeply polarizing — was shot.
This wasn’t just a terror attack on a community gathering — it was the smearing of politics and violence on the same page. When someone spends years hurling rhetorical grenades at the world, those words don’t disappear. They echo.
Ostrovsky has a long track record of inflammatory, racist & dehumanising commentary that has lit up social media and outraged critics across the world.
Here are some of the most contentious statements:
- “Oh look, the little jihadi Greta Thunberg is trying to get into Gaza… it would be so sad if something happened to her flotilla…” — a tweet referencing her humanitarian mission that many readers understood as implying harm.
- He responded to criticism of a “Palestinians as cockroaches” cartoon by saying “If it offends your sensitivities, then don’t follow or look away,” defending a post that dehumanised Palestinians by equating them with vermin — imagery historically tied to genocide propaganda.
- Of the new Human Rights Watch chief, he tweeted: “Different leader, same antisemitic, Israel‑obsessed, Jew‑hating” — language that labels an NGO leader with a slur rather than engage with policy disagreements.
- Criticising Amnesty International’s Gaza genocide report, he called it “utterly baseless and replete with malicious lies… a blood libel” against Israel, framing legal human‑rights analysis as criminally deceitful and morally indefensible.
- He tweeted to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez after a terror attack: “‘Two people’? They were two JEWS… maybe you ought to be more mindful of your relentless inflammatory rhetoric, that only emboldens the kinds of perpetrators…” — accusing her of encouraging violence by not explicitly tailoring language to Jewish victims.
Those are not soft takes. They are hostile, antagonistic, and designed to provoke — exactly the kind of rhetoric that, once unleashed online, doesn’t stay confined to screens or algorithmic bubbles.
Now picture this: a crowded beach, festival lights, kids playing, families celebrating — and bullets.
That collision of celebration and violence was sudden and terrible. Witnesses described chaos, blood on the sand, and screams as people scrambled for cover. And in the middle of it all was someone whose public life was shaped by controversy and conflict.
For many observers, the link between Ostrovsky’s explosive public voice and the political violence that tore through Bondi Beach isn’t a coincidence. Critics on social platforms have openly said variations of “words lead to actions and actions lead to violence,” noting that rhetoric — especially violent or dehumanizing language — can feed real hate.
And that’s the uncomfortable reality: words don’t float in a vacuum. They circulate in hot political atmospheres, in wars with thousands of dead, in polarized feeds where nuance has been replaced by fury.
Make no mistake: what happened on Bondi Beach was a domestic terror attack. Authorities describe it that way. But the presence of figures like Ostrovsky complicates the picture — not because he deserved to be shot, but because people tangled in extremist discourse are inevitably pulled into the vortex of retaliation, escalation, and backlash.
This isn’t about justifying violence against a person — violence against civilians is inexcusable. But it is about understanding how language that paints opponents as provocateurs, frauds, or worse can escalate the toxicity of political discourse.
Ostrovsky’s defenders see him as a fierce advocate; his critics see him as part of the very problem that underlies so much of the world’s anger right now: dehumanizing rhetoric dressed up as advocacy. In a world where hundreds of thousands have died in Gaza, where entire cities have been leveled, and where human rights language is wielded like a weapon, every inflammatory public statement feeds into a larger, uglier ecosystem.
Discover more from Class Autonomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
