The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) used advanced artificial-intelligence tools to examine the immediate reactions of world leaders and governments to the murder of 15 people in the shooting attack against the Jewish community in Sydney during a Hanukkah event on December 14, 2025.
The analysis reviewed the first official responses to the attack in 25 major countries worldwide, including Western countries, Asian countries, and Muslim and Arab states. The material examined included official statements by government spokespersons, public declarations, and social media posts immediately after the attack. In cases where no statement was issued by a head of state, the analysis examined statements released at a lower governmental level, such as diplomats or foreign affairs officials.
Each response was weighted according to several parameters, including whether it explicitly stated that the attack targeted Jews, that it occurred on Hanukkah, and whether it used terms connected to terrorism or antisemitism. Mentions of Israel or Israelis, and the level of the official issuing the statement were also factored in. Statements delivered by heads of state received greater weight than general announcements released by foreign ministries. The full ranking is attached for reference.
Keyword analysis found that “terrorism” was the most frequently used term, followed by “antisemitism” and “Jews.”
The findings show that the highest scores were recorded in Argentina and Canada. In both cases, the nation’s leaders clearly and explicitly stated that the attack was antisemitic terrorism directed against Jews and carried out during the Hanukkah holiday.
By contrast, Australia, where the attack took place, as well as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, received relatively low scores because their initial statements did not explicitly mention Jews, antisemitism, or Hanukkah. In Australia, the prime minister was widely criticized by both traditional and social media outlets, and only later issued a clarification referring to the attack as antisemitic terrorism. A similar pattern was observed in New Zealand.
At the bottom of the ranking were Muslim and Arab countries. In most of these cases, responses were issued by foreign ministries rather than by national leaders. In some instances, the fact that the attack targeted Jews was omitted, and condemnations were framed in general terms opposing “any form of violence,” without reference to the antisemitic motive. This group included Egypt and Jordan, countries that maintain peace agreements with Israel.
Israel was mentioned only once, in a statement by Argentine President Javier Milei, who directly criticized the Australian government, linking Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state to what he described as a climate that enabled the antisemitic attack. This response was unusual in that it explicitly connected Australia's foreign policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians with the security of the local Jewish community.
The analysis also examined which officials spoke and which remained silent. In most democratic countries, the responses were issued directly by heads of state, indicating the gravity attributed to the attack. No leader of a Muslim country issued a direct response.