On 14 December 2025, a father and son, reportedly linked to the ISIS clerical fascist organisation, committed a murderous attack on innocent participants at a Jewish celebration on Sydney’s famous Bondi Beach. Fifteen were killed and around 40 seriously injured.

There is no way this horrific event can be minimised. It was murderous, it was antisemitic, the victims and their loved ones were completely innocent.

It also can’t be remotely justified by Israel’s genocide in Gaza and increasing repression on the West Bank.

Nor did it in anyway serve the interests of Palestinians and their fight for peace and self-determination — if anything it gave “pro-genociders” a deceitful propaganda weapon.

Extraordinary heroism also powerful message of interfaith kindness
There is no “notwithstanding high point” in this murderous tragedy. But there was much heroism.

Understandably the overwhelming impact of the sheer horror of the slaughter meant that this was not reported as much as it deserved.

But prominent was the extraordinary courage of Ahmed al-Ahmed who wrestled the gun from one of the attackers and was severely wounded — being shot five times — as a result.

His extraordinary courage was covered by The Guardian (29 December 29): Saving lives at Bondi Beach.

Ahmed al-Ahmed is an Australian of Syrian origin. He is also Muslim. His bravery saved many Jewish lives.

Sickening contrast
This makes the sickening response of the Israeli government even more deplorable. It attempted to blame the terrorist attack on the Palestinian resistance to Israel’s ethnic cleansing and genocide, and to opponents of this warmongering.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu even went so far as to dishonestly claim Australia’s recognition of Palestine as a state was to blame.

Two newspaper opinion pieces from New Zealanders who deny the reality of ethnic cleansing and genocide by Israel repeat this disgraceful “blame Palestinians” response.

The first was by Deborah Hart, chair of the Holocaust Foundation New Zealand. Her paywalled piece was published by The New Zealand Herald (December 15): Never again.

The second was by Juliet Moses, a spokesperson for the New Zealand Jewish Council. Her piece was published by Stuff (December 17): New Zealand should pay attention.

While both justifiably describe the horrific nature of the slaughter, they also reiterated the above-mentioned theme of the Israeli government thereby whitewashing its ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The fact that they both write in a softer, non-brazen and more subtle style does not diminish this observation.

The heroic Ahmed al-Ahmed is similarly whitewashed presumably because the heroism of a Muslim is considered inconsistent with Israel’s unconscionable narrative.

The implied narrative of Hart and Moses is that the life of an Israeli trumps the life of a Palestinian — including a child — and the right of Israelis to self-determination overrides the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

Further, Palestinian refusal to accept this narrative is consequentially responsible in some way for the Bondi Beach slaughter.

It is bad enough to hold this position; it is even worse to tar the Bondi victims with this same brush.

An aside: Jewish exceptionalism
As an aside, this narrative is reinforced by a Zionist claim of Jewish exceptionalism that is used to justify an untenable position that granting equal rights to others in Israel would be “tantamount to suicide.”

This exceptionalism argument is effectively rebutted by a paywalled article by Peter Beinart in the October 2025 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique: Jewish exceptionalism not so exceptional.

Beinart points out that the past experiences of South Africa, Northern Ireland and the American South where “. . . time and again dominant groups have loudly claimed that granting equal rights would be tantamount to suicide . . .” were always wrong.

Getting it right
On December 17, the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) released a public condemnation of the Bondi Beach atrocity.

It was appalled by the antisemitic terror attack, sided with the Jewish community, and acknowledged that for more than two years it had marched with Jews and Jewish groups against the genocide in Gaza.

Further, it criticised the use of the Bondi Beach slaughter by Benjamin Netanyahu and others to condemn and blame Palestinians and others for opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

For completion, the statement from national co-chair John Minto is published below:

“PSNA was appalled and shocked at Sunday’s antisemitic terror attack targeting the Jewish community in Australia on the first day of the celebration of Hanukkah.

“The best antidote to race hatred is community solidarity and we stand with the Jewish community in the face of such horror.

“For many decades, and the past two years in particular, we have protested and marched side by side with Jews and Jewish groups to condemn the genocide in Gaza and stand with the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation.

“We have always made clear our campaign targets Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. Jews are not responsible for these policies, despite Netanyahu claiming he is acting and speaking as ‘Prime Minister’ of all Jews.

“Palestine supporters were also appalled when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and leaders of the pro-Israeli lobby in Australia and New Zealand, tried to exploit the horror in Bondi by blaming it on condemnation of Israel’s genocide and the Australian government’s (largely non-existent) support for Palestinian rights.

“This blaming almost invariably comes from people who support Israel’s actions in Gaza. Their strategy is to exploit the killing in Bondi to help the Israel government carry on its genocide and ethnic cleansing without criticism.”

“We are concerned that the strategy will cross the Tasman to panic the New Zealand government into introducing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-semitism into New Zealand legislation.

“This definition is used to target people supporting Palestine. The Israeli government has managed to get it into government legislation, university rules and local government policy in many parts of the Western world.”

“It’s all part of Netanyahu’s ‘Eighth Front’ to silence Israel’s critics.

“It has no place here.”

Apart from agreeing with it, there is nothing I could say that could add to its persuasive and powerful message. It speaks for itself.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

On 14 December 2025, a father and son, reportedly linked to the ISIS clerical fascist organisation, committed a murderous attack on innocent participants at a Jewish celebration on Sydney’s famous Bondi Beach. Fifteen were killed and around 40 seriously injured.

There is no way this horrific event can be minimised. It was murderous, it was antisemitic, the victims and their loved ones were completely innocent.

It also can’t be remotely justified by Israel’s genocide in Gaza and increasing repression on the West Bank.

Nor did it in anyway serve the interests of Palestinians and their fight for peace and self-determination — if anything it gave “pro-genociders” a deceitful propaganda weapon.

Extraordinary heroism also powerful message of interfaith kindness
There is no “notwithstanding high point” in this murderous tragedy. But there was much heroism.

Understandably the overwhelming impact of the sheer horror of the slaughter meant that this was not reported as much as it deserved.

But prominent was the extraordinary courage of Ahmed al-Ahmed who wrestled the gun from one of the attackers and was severely wounded — being shot five times — as a result.

His extraordinary courage was covered by The Guardian (29 December 29): Saving lives at Bondi Beach.

Ahmed al-Ahmed is an Australian of Syrian origin. He is also Muslim. His bravery saved many Jewish lives.

Sickening contrast
This makes the sickening response of the Israeli government even more deplorable. It attempted to blame the terrorist attack on the Palestinian resistance to Israel’s ethnic cleansing and genocide, and to opponents of this warmongering.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu even went so far as to dishonestly claim Australia’s recognition of Palestine as a state was to blame.

Two newspaper opinion pieces from New Zealanders who deny the reality of ethnic cleansing and genocide by Israel repeat this disgraceful “blame Palestinians” response.

The first was by Deborah Hart, chair of the Holocaust Foundation New Zealand. Her paywalled piece was published by The New Zealand Herald (December 15): Never again.

The second was by Juliet Moses, a spokesperson for the New Zealand Jewish Council. Her piece was published by Stuff (December 17): New Zealand should pay attention.

While both justifiably describe the horrific nature of the slaughter, they also reiterated the above-mentioned theme of the Israeli government thereby whitewashing its ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The fact that they both write in a softer, non-brazen and more subtle style does not diminish this observation.

The heroic Ahmed al-Ahmed is similarly whitewashed presumably because the heroism of a Muslim is considered inconsistent with Israel’s unconscionable narrative.

The implied narrative of Hart and Moses is that the life of an Israeli trumps the life of a Palestinian — including a child — and the right of Israelis to self-determination overrides the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

Further, Palestinian refusal to accept this narrative is consequentially responsible in some way for the Bondi Beach slaughter.

It is bad enough to hold this position; it is even worse to tar the Bondi victims with this same brush.

An aside: Jewish exceptionalism
As an aside, this narrative is reinforced by a Zionist claim of Jewish exceptionalism that is used to justify an untenable position that granting equal rights to others in Israel would be “tantamount to suicide.”

This exceptionalism argument is effectively rebutted by a paywalled article by Peter Beinart in the October 2025 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique: Jewish exceptionalism not so exceptional.

Beinart points out that the past experiences of South Africa, Northern Ireland and the American South where “. . . time and again dominant groups have loudly claimed that granting equal rights would be tantamount to suicide . . .” were always wrong.

Getting it right
On December 17, the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) released a public condemnation of the Bondi Beach atrocity.

It was appalled by the antisemitic terror attack, sided with the Jewish community, and acknowledged that for more than two years it had marched with Jews and Jewish groups against the genocide in Gaza.

Further, it criticised the use of the Bondi Beach slaughter by Benjamin Netanyahu and others to condemn and blame Palestinians and others for opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

For completion, the statement from national co-chair John Minto is published below:

“PSNA was appalled and shocked at Sunday’s antisemitic terror attack targeting the Jewish community in Australia on the first day of the celebration of Hanukkah.

“The best antidote to race hatred is community solidarity and we stand with the Jewish community in the face of such horror.

“For many decades, and the past two years in particular, we have protested and marched side by side with Jews and Jewish groups to condemn the genocide in Gaza and stand with the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation.

“We have always made clear our campaign targets Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. Jews are not responsible for these policies, despite Netanyahu claiming he is acting and speaking as ‘Prime Minister’ of all Jews.

“Palestine supporters were also appalled when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and leaders of the pro-Israeli lobby in Australia and New Zealand, tried to exploit the horror in Bondi by blaming it on condemnation of Israel’s genocide and the Australian government’s (largely non-existent) support for Palestinian rights.

“This blaming almost invariably comes from people who support Israel’s actions in Gaza. Their strategy is to exploit the killing in Bondi to help the Israel government carry on its genocide and ethnic cleansing without criticism.”

“We are concerned that the strategy will cross the Tasman to panic the New Zealand government into introducing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-semitism into New Zealand legislation.

“This definition is used to target people supporting Palestine. The Israeli government has managed to get it into government legislation, university rules and local government policy in many parts of the Western world.”

“It’s all part of Netanyahu’s ‘Eighth Front’ to silence Israel’s critics.

“It has no place here.”

Apart from agreeing with it, there is nothing I could say that could add to its persuasive and powerful message. It speaks for itself.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally bowed to pressure from the Murdoch News Corp’s relentless media campaign and advocacy by political critics and victim’s families to announce a royal commission of inquiry into “antisemitism and social cohesion”.

The commission advocates were seeking his political downfall over last month’s Bondi Beach massacre that killed 15 people at a Jewish religious holiday of Hanukkah with complaints that he had “not done enough” against antisemitism.

One of the two allegedly ISIS-aligned terrorist gunmen was also killed at the scene of the tragedy and the other was wounded and arrested. He has been charged with 59 counts, including 15 charges of murder and committing a terrorist act.

Albanese held a press conference in Canberra yesterday and confirmed that former High Court justice Virginia Bell would lead the national inquiry.

While the royal commission has been mostly welcomed by survivors, victims’ families and Jewish community groups that have been lobbying for a national inquiry, some advocacy organisations have criticised the time it has taken before being called.

However, even more serious criticisms have emerged over the terms of reference and a widespread belief that the real objective is to mute criticism of Israel and its brutal policies of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Award-winning journalist and Lamestream co-host Osman Faruqi, for example, argues “this royal commission won’t give us answers to Bondi — it’s set up to protect Israel.”

“The terms of reference for the Royal Commission should put aside any doubt: this is an inquiry designed to castigate critics of Israel.”

In the media release yesterday that Albanese, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed the four main areas to be covered, they stated:

• Tackling antisemitism by investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and its key drivers in Australia, including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation.
• Making recommendations that will assist law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to tackle antisemitism, including through improvements to guidance and training within law enforcement, border control, immigration, and security agencies to respond to antisemitic conduct.
• Examining the circumstances surrounding the antisemitic Bondi terrorist attack on December 14, 2025.
• Making any other recommendations arising out of the inquiry for strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia.

Missing from the terms of reference is anything related to the rise of Islamophobia in Australia. The brief is far too narrowly framed compared with what many had hoped for.

The Australian Government has announced the establishment of a Royal Commission following the antisemitic Bondi terror attack. This devastating event deeply affected the victims, their families, the Jewish community, first responders and the broader Australian public.

The Royal… pic.twitter.com/kFQbrJh5IZ

— Australian Human Rights Commission (@AusHumanRights) January 9, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had cynically jumped in within hours of the Bondi shootings to lambast Albanese and connect the massacre to the massive protests against the Gaza genocide — including 300,000 on the Sydney Harbour Bridge — even though there was no evidence of this.

He blamed the deadly Bondi attack on Albanese, accusing the Australian prime minister of pouring “fuel on the antisemitism fire” by recognising a Palestinian state. (The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 UN member states, representing 81 percent of membership).

“You took no action. You let the disease spread and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today,” said Netanyahu, who is wanted on an International Criminal Court (ICJ) warrant to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israeli authorities have a pattern of blaming criticism of the Israeli government and military’s over its genocidal actions in Gaza for fuelling antisemitism.

Globally popular phrases such as ‘Globalise the intifada’, ‘From the river to the sea Palestine will be free’, and ‘Death to the IDF’ have frequently been targeted by Israeli officials and lobbyists seeking to shield their government’s atrocities.

Jewish-Australian author and journalist Antony Loewenstein, who wrote the 2023 bestselling book The Palestine Laboratory with powerful insights into Israel’s cruel military machine of repression against Palestinians, has been scathing in his television and newspaper commentaries, accusing Tel Aviv of “outrageous lies” that endangered Jews worldwide.

“Within hours of the horrific, antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney [last] month, the Israeli government and its proxies started pushing false narratives, outright lies and racism to a grieving nation,” he wrote in Middle East Eye.

“Netanyahu and senior Israeli ministers blamed an Australian government that ‘normalised boycotts against Jews’, recognised the state of Palestine this year, and refused to shut down pro-Palestine marches.

“Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy posted on X (formerly Twitter): ‘Jews around the world live in fear because we are being hunted. October 7 inspired millions around the world and launched a global war against Jews.’

“There was no logic or sense to this verbal onslaught at a time when the dead bodies were still warm on Bondi Beach. At that point, and still now, there’s no clear picture of the motives of the father and son accused in the slaughter of mostly Jews who had gathered to mark the first night of Hanukkah, although a link to Islamic State has been explored.

“It was an outrageous intervention from a disgraced Israeli government accused of committing genocide in Gaza — and yet too many in the Australian and global media treated Netanyahu and his cronies as credible commentators, deferring to their supposed wisdom.”

“Israel’s propaganda machine endangers every Jew on the planet – including me”

✍️ Opinion by Anthony Loewenstein https://t.co/eQP0rdHB5I

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) December 23, 2025

Indeed, what has been shocking for this New Zealand journalist holidaying in Australia for the past month — in Adelaide, South Australia — is the blatant way Israel has been  allowed to “shape” the public discourse and in the media. Remember, Netanyahu himself, has resisted a full Israeli inquiry into the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack, including his own alleged security failings, for more than two years.

One of the most recent cudgels being used to beat the Albanese Labor government was an open letter signed by 100+ “business leaders” supporting the royal commission call.

But what they wanted was a probe into the alleged “antisemitism” in Australia. What about the other forms of racism and harassment such an Islamophobia?

Signatories included billionaire businessman James Packer, News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller, and a whole bunch of banking and industry executives.

Mainstream media selective outrage.@Mondoweiss pic.twitter.com/9lgpNcpE1y

— Carlos Latuff (@LatuffCartoons) December 24, 2025

Editorials and cartoons in The Australian and other Murdoch media, such as The Advertiser in Adelaide, parroted each other in calling on Albanese to “serve the nation, not yourself.”

For almost four weeks none of the countless pages of articles canvassed other perspectives; to gain some balance it was necessary to turn to credible independent sources on social media. The job of the media is to serve the public interest, not themselves.

Take “serial inventor and entrepreneur” Jaqueline Outram posting on X for a counter view.

“More than 100 ‘business leaders’ signed a letter?

“Whoop-de-frickin-doo.

“Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched and will continue to march against genocide.

“Some capitalist opportunists signed a letter.

“Pfft …”

She added in a separate post, “Stop treating business leaders like they’re some kind of moral authority . . . Nobody cares what they think.”

More than 100 “business leaders” signed a letter?

Really? More than 100? Signed a letter?

Whoop-de-frickin-doo.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched, and will continue to march, against genocide.

Some capitalist opportunists signed a letter.

Pfft…#FreePalestine

— Jaqueline Outram 🇵🇸 (@JaquelineOutram) January 2, 2026

Commenting on the royal commission decision, prominent Brisbane journalist and media educator Kasun Ubayasiri questioned the “privileged” status of one section of the multicultural Australian society.

“So the government announces a royal commission on antisemitism when we have never had a Racism Royal Commission. Why the privileged status for one type of racism over others?”

The Jewish community in Australia numbers about 117,000 in a total population of 28  million – the ninth largest globally, and the biggest in the Indo-Pacific region. The Muslim community is about 815,000.

“More worryingly, the royal commission terms of reference seem problematic,” added Ubayasiri. “It makes no real attempt to untangle the morally repugnant antisemitism from anti-Zionism.

“The latter is easily defendable especially in its current format. The terms of reference particularly note the acceptance of the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism as a working definition, suggesting this distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is unlikely to be made by the royal commission.

“IHRA is already widely seen as chilling legitimate criticism of Israel. Arguably allowing the royal commission to draft its own definitional framing would have made more sense.”

Associate Professor Joseph Fernandez, a media law scholar and journalist, added: “Be very afraid of this exercise being hijacked to produce outcomes that will serve narrow and dubious interests — at the expense of the public interest generally, in a sound democracy.”

Apart from the royal commission issue, controversy has also blown up over an invitation by Albanese to the Israeli President, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, the first head of state born in Israel since its founding in 1948, to make an official visit. Mounting calls are being made to drop the invite over Herzog’s implication in incitement to genocide.

The move was welcomed by Jewish community groups and February was touted for a likely date. However, his visit would be certain to attract protests from pro-Palestinian groups condemning Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed at least 71,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.

Such a trip would require a heavy security commitment and the Labor Friends of Palestine, a party group supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, has appealed to Albanese to call off the invitation.

Other pro-Palestinian groups have called for an investigation into allegations of incitement to genocide.

Also, at least 50 writers and poets are reported to be withdrawing from the Adelaide Writers Festival — Australia’s largest free literary festival — on February 28-March 5 in protest over a cancellation of an invitation to a Palestinian author, lawyer and advocate because she has been critical of Israel.

Miles Franklin winners Michelle de Kretser and Melissa Lucashenko declared they would boycott the event in protest over featured Randa Abdel-Fattah being cancelled.

Others, including journalism professor and former foreign correspondent Peter Greste who was jailed by the Egyptian government for the “crime of being a journalist”, have also pulled out.

“We do not help social cohesion by silencing voices,” Greste posted on X.

My statement in response to the racist decision to cancel me from Adelaide Writers’ Week. https://t.co/HktwrcWveT pic.twitter.com/EDqTOteA1S

— Randa Abdel-Fattah (@RandaAFattah) January 8, 2026

Dr Abdel-Fattah accused the Adelaide festival board of “blatant and shameless” anti-Palestinian racism and censorship, adding that the attempt to associate her with the Bondi massacre was “despicable”.

“The Adelaide Writers Festival Board has stripped me of my humanity and agency, reducing me to an object onto which others can project their racist fears and smears.”

She had been expected to discuss her novel Discipline, which raises ethical issues about whose voices are allowed to be heard.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Israeli government has offered to train senior Australian police officers in Israel as part of efforts to combat terrorism and antisemitism, reports OnePath Network.

In a letter to Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said his government was “ready and willing to assist” following the Bondi beach massacre on December 14 which killed 15 civilians.

“We bring extensive experience in combating radical Islamic terrorism and antisemitism,” Chikli wrote.

“We would welcome the opportunity to host and train senior Australian police officers and security personnel in Israel, sharing our expertise and best practices in countering terrorism and antisemitism.”

This comes amid growing public scrutiny over the handling of the Bondi attack and broader concerns around antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia.

The Israeli offer has sparked criticism. Writing on social media, handala.bds said: “Might as well rollout the red carpet for Mossad [Israeli secret service]”.

Juju_b.22 asked about the Israeli training offer: “To commit genoc1de?”

Adam_h_y_k asked: “Train them in what? The Hannibal directive?”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Hugh Breakey of Griffith University

As Australia and New Zealand move into lockdown mode in response to the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, we are increasingly faced with serious ethical questions about what ordinary people should be obliged to do for others.

These challenges can perhaps best be seen in the outrage as people flocked to Bondi Beach and packed into pubs and cafes over the weekend, despite strict social-distancing rules.

This also helps explain the anger on social media over people lying about overseas travel in order to get doctors’ appointments, hoarding toilet paper and defying quarantine orders, even as they defend their conduct self-righteously.

READ MORE: The coronavirus pandemic is forcing us to ask some very hard questions. But are we ready for the answers?

Why is ethical action critical?
In the face of a pandemic, legislation and police enforcement can only do so much. Ethical decision-making by ordinary people becomes crucial.

While laws and policies can be slow to evolve, individuals can alter their behaviours instantaneously. Rules and bans can be ham-fisted or crude, but ethical decision-makers can respond intelligently to their own contexts.

Above all, ethical decision-makers can be intrinsically motivated to do right by the community, ensuring compliance of social-distancing rules in situations where effective policing is logistically impossible.

Even as Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews announced a special taskforce to enforce an immediate shutdown of venues and restrictions on gatherings, he appealed to people’s consciences in the strongest terms:

If you act selfishly, people will die.

This is why leaders have called for voluntary cooperation during the crisis. Laws and political action alone will not save us. An effective response to the pandemic requires ordinary people making sound ethical decisions.

Why is this so challenging?
As we have seen from the images over the weekend, ethical decision-making in response to a pandemic is not easy. Many people are simply not taking the crisis seriously enough.

One of the reasons for this is confusion. Rules change almost daily, meaning some people will not know the latest requirements. Others might not appreciate the stakes involved with their behaviours, and that it is not only their own health they are risking.

Also, rules can be ambiguous. For example, what happens if you’re keeping an appropriate distance from others at the beach or park, and it starts becoming crowded? Who should leave? Should those who arrived first have priority? Or should those who have had “their turn” move on?

In ambiguous situations, people take cues from those around them. If we saw others interacting normally at the park or pub (before they were closed), we could conclude it’s probably okay. We might also wonder if there’s any point in obeying the rules if others are not.

Furthermore, it’s easy to question the legitimacy of the new rules. Ordinarily, we judge rules based on many factors, such as:

• Is it the right thing to do?
• Is it fair?
• Will it be effective?

In fluid situations, these conditions are hard to meet. Consider the case of casual workers with no paid sick leave who might not be able to pay rent or might lose their jobs if they comply with quarantine orders. Demanding they shoulder this burden can seem unfair.

Similarly, many teachers feel they are taking unfair risks to keep schools open.

In the most difficult cases, people must weigh up conflicting moral priorities. Do they support their elderly parents by visiting them, or is this risking infection?

For these reasons, even conscientious ethical decision-makers can struggle.

Why we might make poor decisions
Unfortunately, human beings suffer from decision-making biases.

For example, we often interpret expectations as entitlements. We convert our ordinary expectations about social, work, educational, religious and sporting routines into demands that these should continue.

This is one reason why some call for a “war footing”, urging people to acknowledge a “new normal”.

In addition, people tend to be self-interested and prioritise immediate goals. Abstract concerns about risks to community infection can seem less salient than the pressures of the moment.

This bias can affect ethical decision-making. It allows us to “neutralise” rules by inventing stories about why they don’t apply to us, given our special circumstances. These self-serving excuses are a classic source of serious moral error.

Some guidelines to follow
There are no easy answers to the myriad moral challenges that Covid-19 thrusts upon us. However, here are five rules of thumb:

1. Common sense ethics still applies – and the stakes make it more important than ever. Never lie about or conceal your history or infection status. Comply strictly with authoritative directives about quarantine.
2. Stay informed about the latest rules.
3. Never force your decisions on other people. Even if you are not personally concerned about social distancing, acknowledge that others are entitled to their space.
4. If others are behaving recklessly or inappropriately, try to engage with them constructively. Outrage can be appropriate, but understanding can be better at changing minds.
5. Gird yourself for the long haul. “Fatigue” can set in over long periods with changing rules. As the weeks in a state of emergency turn into months, we can be worn down and become less diligent in our ethical decision-making.

Finally, remember the positives. As the stakes rise, acts of kindness and support are more important than ever before.

Hugh Breakey is president of the Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics. He is also senior research fellow in moral philosophy at the Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre, Griffith University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz