Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Greg Barton, Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

With 15 civilians and one gunman dead so far, and another 40 people injured, Australia is reeling from its worst act of terrorism on home soil. Two gunmen opened fire on a Jewish community gathering to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah at Archer Park on Sydney’s famous Bondi Beach.

Police have confirmed the two alleged attackers were father and son, aged 50 and 24. The father, Sajid Akram, who was licensed to own six firearms, was shot dead by police. The son, Naveed Akram, remains under police guard in hospital.

Given it was clearly an antisemitic attack, authorities soon after declared it an act of terrorism – that is, an act of politically motivated violence. This designation also gives authorities extra resources in their response and in bringing those responsible to justice.

As Australians try to process their shock and grief, there has been some anger in the community that not enough has been done to protect Jewish Australians from the rising antisemitism evident since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing Gaza war.

What we know about the alleged attackers

ASIO (The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) Director-General Mike Burgess has said one of the alleged gunmen was “known” to ASIO, though he did not specify which one. Being “known” to authorities can simply mean someone has been associated with networks and communications that have caused concern to authorities. The ABC has reported that Naveed Akram came to the attention of authorities after the arrest of Islamic State Sydney cell leader Isaac El Matari in July 2019.

However, there are hundreds of people who come to authorities’ attention for their contact, online or off, with extremist networks and individuals. With limited resources (and authorities’ resources will always be limited, no matter how much funding they have), they have to run a triage system to assess the threat an individual or a group may pose, and manage the risk as best they can.

They will carefully assess what is being said and the language used, for example, as well as looking at whether a person has a history of violence. As angry and upset as people understandably are in the wake of such a horrific incident, it needs to be recognised that authorities can’t simply arrest everyone who expresses extremist ideas or has passing links with extremist elements.

We still need to know more about this terror attack and the alleged attackers, but to date there has been no evidence of a network in operation. Given the alleged gunmen were father and son, this technically fits the profile of a “lone actor” attack, as we saw in the Lindt Cafe siege in 2014, and Christchurch in 2019.

It is very difficult for authorities to predict and therefore prevent lone actor attacks – by their nature, there’s often no sign beforehand of the potential for violence. And public sites like the reserve at Bondi Beach require extensive resources to police, meaning not all can be adequately secured.

As Burgess pointed out in his annual threat assessment, “our greatest threat remains a lone actor using an easily obtained weapon”. Sadly, that has been shown to be true.

Changing nature of terrorist threat in Australia

There has been much attention in recent years on the rise of far-right extremism and terrorism.

One of the best guides to this is Burgess’ annual threat assessment. In it he explained that a decade ago, just one in ten cases ASIO was following up involved right-wing extremists, with radical Islamist groups occupying most of their attention. However, in recent years the ratio has shifted closer to one in two investigations involving right-wing extremism. In other words, a lot of ASIO’s attention and resources are now necessarily tied up with combating right-wing extremism, especially following the Christchurch terror attack in which 51 people were shot dead by an Australian far-right terrorist during Friday prayers in two New Zealand mosques.

More broadly, Islamic terrorism continues to remain a global threat. IS and Al-Qaeda remain active in the Middle East and increasingly in Africa, as well as central Asia and Afghanistan. Generally, authorities are doing a good job of keeping on top of any threats these networks might pose in Australia.

There is no doubt the general atmosphere between pro-Palestinian and Jewish groups has become far more febrile in the wake of the Hamas attack and the Gaza war. There is a lot of anger and frustration as scenes of violence and suffering are broadcast daily, and we have seen a rise both in antisemitism and Islamophobia since the war began, simply because of the way it plays out in people’s imaginations.

But even in the protests we have seen over many months, the number of people who might use this sentiment to spur violence is small.

Again, there is no evidence the Bondi shooting was part of a wider network, and it is very difficult to stop a lone actor attack on a public site.

In a glimmer of hope, the man whose much-lauded act of heroism in wrestling one of the alleged gunman’s weapons from him has been named as 43-year-old Muslim fruit shop owner Ahmed Al-Ahmed. It is hoped this man’s bravery, which showed us the best of humanity in the midst of the worst, will stop any simplistic analysis of blaming the Muslim community for such violence. We have seen this in the United States, and Australia must do much better.

Has the government done enough?

It is very difficult to keep outdoor public events entirely safe: buildings are relatively easy to secure, but a park at a beach far less so.

The government clearly needs to do more to stop terrorism, and public events are an obvious focus for more resources. No one should be satisfied with where we are right now. It is simply horrifying. But it’s going to take a lot of work to figure out where we can best use resources.

We can’t close every loophole or thwart every risk. We can’t stop people turning to violence, and we can’t police every hateful thought. It has been said this was an attack on all of us, and that’s very true. As the message of Hanukkah inspires us, now is the time when we need to pull together as Australians from all faiths and communities, and work together to ensure that light triumphs over darkness.

Greg Barton is Rector (academic head) of Deakin University Lancaster University Indonesia (DLI). Greg receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is engaged in a range of projects funded by the Australian government that aim to understand and counter violent extremism in Australia and in Southeast Asia and Africa.

– ref. Australia is reeling from the worst terrorist attack on home soil. Could it have been prevented? – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-reeling-from-the-worst-terrorist-attack-on-home-soil-could-it-have-been-prevented-272048

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matteo Vergani, Associate Professor and Director of the Tackling Hate Lab, Deakin University

At least 16 people – including a ten-year-old child – are dead after two men opened fire on a crowd of people celebrating the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah on Sunday in a public park at Sydney’s Bondi Beach. Many more are injured.

I am horrified. But as a researcher who studies hate and extremist violence, I am sadly not surprised.

The Jewish community has been a top target for terrorist ideologies and groups for a long time. Many people working in this field have been expecting a serious attack on Australian soil.

Much remains unclear about the Bondi terrorist attacks and it’s too early to speculate about these gunmen specifically. The investigation is ongoing.

But what about antisemitic sentiment more broadly?

Our research – which is in the early stages and yet to be peer reviewed – has recorded a significant and worrying increase in antisemitic sentiment after October 7.

Our research

We have been training AI models to track online sentiment in social media targeting Australian communities, including Jewish people.

That means working with humans – including extremism experts and people in the Jewish community – to label content. This is to teach our model if the content it is encountering is hateful or not.

Based on definitions adopted by the Jewish community, we distinguished between two main types of antisemitism: “old” antisemitism and “new” antisemitism.

“Old” antisemitism targets Jews as Jews. It draws on entrenched myths and stereotypes that portray them as alien, dangerous, or morally corrupt.

“New” antisemitism shifts the focus from individual Jews to the state of Israel. It blames Jews collectively for Israel’s actions.

Many in the Jewish community see this as a modern continuation of historical antisemitism. Critics (both within and outside the Jewish community) contend it risks conflating legitimate opposition to Israeli policies with antisemitism.

Central to this debate is whether anti-Israel sentiment represents a continuation of age-old prejudices or a political response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In our research, we tracked both “old” and “new” antisemitism.

A sharp increase

We found that both increased sharply after October 7.

For example, we studied posts on X (formerly Twitter) geolocated in Australia before and after October 7. We wanted to understand the size of the rise in antisemitism.

We found that “old” antisemitism rose from an average of 34 tweets a month in the year before October 7 to 2,021 in the following year.

“New” antisemitism increased even more, rising from an average of 505 a month in the year before October 7 to 21,724 in the year after.

Some examples of “old” antisemitism are explicit, such as calls to “get rid of all Jews” or “kill all Jews”.

Others are more indirect, including minimising or denying the Holocaust. Examples include posts claiming that “if the Holocaust of 6 million Jews were true, Israel could not exist today” or that the Nazis had only a minimal impact on the Jewish population.

Other forms of hate rely on conspiracy theories, such as claims that “Jews are paying to destroy Australia”.

However, the vast majority of the content our models identified as antisemitic fell into the category of “new” antisemitism. This included content that blamed the Jewish community for events in Israel, such as calling all Australian Jews “baby killers” or “Zionazi fu–wits”, regardless of their personal political views and opinions about the Israeli government and its actions.

(All examples here are drawn from real content, but the wording has been slightly modified to anonymise them and prevent identification of the original authors).

In other words, we have seen an overall escalation of hostilities against Jews online.

More extreme and explicit calls for violence rarely appear on mainstream platforms. They tend to circulate on fringe social media, such as Telegram.

On X, we have seen a collision of mainstream discourse and fringe discourse, due to the lack of moderation.

But antisemitism doesn’t always involve slurs, meaning it can also happen in mainstream platforms. Especially after the election of Trump and the relaxation in moderation practises of Meta, we have also seen it on Instagram. This includes Instagram posts published after the Bondi attack.

Could more have been done?

Certainly the Jewish community, I am sure, will feel not enough was done.

Jillian Segal, Australia’s first government-appointed special envoy for combating antisemitism, released her plan for addressing the issue back in July.

As I wrote at the time, the recommendations fell into three main categories:

1. preventing violence and crime, including improved coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia

2. strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms

3. promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.

The government had said it will consider the recommendations. Segal has now said government messaging combating antisemitism has “not been sufficient”.

Some might argue addressing points two and three could have helped prevent the Bondi attack. A common assumption is that a climate of widespread antisemitism can embolden violence.

The reality, however, is that this is hard to establish. People who commit terrorist acts – whether they self radicalise or are recruited by terrorist organisations – do not necessarily respond to changes in broader public sentiment.

That said, there is obvious value in prevention work aimed at reducing hostility and antisemitic attitudes, even while small networks or individuals committed to violent terrorism may still exist.

Preventing terrorist violence of this scale relies primarily on effective law enforcement. This requires adequate resourcing and a clear legislative framework.

Education and broader cultural change matter. In short term, however, they are less likely to be as effective at preventing acts of terrorism as measures such as firearm regulation, monitoring extremist networks, and disrupting plots before they turn into action.

Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Australian government (ARC, Department of Home Affairs) and the Canadian government (Public Safety Canada).

– ref. Bondi attack came after huge increase in online antisemitism: research – https://theconversation.com/bondi-attack-came-after-huge-increase-in-online-antisemitism-research-272045

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

The death toll has risen to 15 after two gunmen opened fire on a crowd at Bondi Beach at about 6.47pm on Sunday. Thirty-eight people were injured and taken to hospital, including two police officers and four children. One of the gunmen is also dead. It is the deadliest mass shooting in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

A crowd of more than 1,000 had gathered to celebrate the first day of the Jewish festival Hanukkah. Bondi Beach is in the Sydney eastern suburbs, the heart of the Jewish community. New South Wales police have declared the shooting a terrorist attack.

Police confirmed one suspect had been taken into custody and was in serious condition. Another suspect was killed at the scene and police said they were investigating the possibility of a third offender. One of the attackers was known to authorities.

On Sunday evening, police were also investigating reports of an explosive device near the beach. At a press conference on Sunday night, New South Wales Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed an improvised explosive had been found in a car.

ASIO head Mike Burgess said Australia’s terrorism threat level remained at “probable”. This means there is a greater than 50% chance of an onshore attack or attack planning in the next twelve months. “I don’t see that changing at this stage,” Burgess told reporters in Canberra on Sunday night.

Soon after the shooting began, horrific vision emerged on social media of people shot dead or injured, as well as footage of incredible acts of bravery from passersby trying to thwart the attack.

One video shows a bystander tackling a gunman from behind, wrestling his gun from him. Others were performing CPR on the injured on the beach.

A Jewish chaplain with blood on him spoke of trying to save people amid terrible scenes of people shot in the head. People fled as the attack unfolded, but some elderly people were unable to run.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the scenes as “shocking and distressing”. “My thoughts are with every person affected.” In the wake of the attack he convened an emergency meeting of the National Security Committee of cabinet.

Albanese received a preliminary briefing from Australian Federal Police acting Deputy Commissioner Nigel Ryan and New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, who convened an emergency meeting of state cabinet. Albanese defended himself against criticism he had not taken antisemitism seriously enough.

“Australia is braver than those who seek to make us afraid […] we will see justice done, and we will come through this together,” he said.

“There are nights that tear at our nation’s soul in this moment of darkness,” Albanese said. “We must be each other’s light. Hold on to the true character of the country that we love.”

At Sunday night’s press conference, Minns said “This cowardly act of terrifying violence is shocking and painful to see, and represents some of our worst fears about terrorism in Sydney.” He asked Australians to “wrap their arms around” the Jewish community, and praised both the outpouring of love and support towards the Jewish community as well as the extraordinary demonstrations of courage in the wake of the attack.

Lanyon called for calm, and said this is “not a time for retribution”. He assured the public no stone would be left unturned in bringing those responsible to justice and ensuring there are no further attacks. “This type of disgraceful activity, this wanton use of violence, the taking of innocent lives is unacceptable to New South Wales.”

Independent federal MP Allegra Spender, who represents Bondi in her seat of Wentworth, also expressed her shock and horror.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley also expressed her shock. “Australians are in deep mourning tonight, with hateful violence striking at the heart of an iconic Australian community, a place we all know so well and love, Bondi.

“Today we stand together as Australians against hate in this moment of profound tragedy and shock.”

In a statement, Israeli President Isaac Herzog said “our heart misses a beat”. He called on the Australian government to “take action to fight against the enormous wave of antisemitism which is plaguing Australian society”.

The Australian Imams Council issued a statement condemning the attack.

“These acts of violence and crimes have no place in our society. Those responsible must be held fully accountable and face the full force of the law,” the statement said.

“Our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and all those who witnessed or were affected by this deeply traumatic attack.”

A timeline of the events

• 5pm – Chanukah by the Sea event begins. It’s run by the Chabad of Bondi which promotes it as “the perfect family event to celebrate light, warmth, and community.”

---

• around 6.45pm – NSW police respond to reports of an active shooter.

---

• Sometime after 6.45pm – Two shooters can be seen firing from a bridge towards people at the Chanukah by the Sea event. They have a number of guns. Video footage shows cars driving past them as they shoot.

---

• One of the shooters, since identified as Sajid Akram, moves to the park grass.

---

• A bystander, since identified as Ahmed El-Ahmed, tackles gunman Sajid Akram.

---

• Sajid Akram runs back to bridge where video shows his son Naveed Akram is still shooting. He re-arms. Both men come under fire from police nearby.

---

• Sajid Akram is shot and falls to the ground.

• The second alleged gunman, Naveed Akram, is shot. A man in pale clothing walks towards the bridge then motions for police to come. Another man moves onto the bridge and raises his hands, a gunshot can be heard in the video footage.

• Police and members of the public run onto the bridge in chaotic scenes. One man can be seen kicking one of the alleged gunmen, while another two people are fighting each other.

• By 7.30, police are seen surrounding the shooters on the ground.

• Sajid Akram is confirmed to have died, while Naveed Akram is in hospital with injuries.

---

This article has been updated.

– ref. ‘An act of evil antisemitism’: at least 15 dead in terrorist attack on Bondi Beach – https://theconversation.com/an-act-of-evil-antisemitism-at-least-15-dead-in-terrorist-attack-on-bondi-beach-272031

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

The death toll has risen to 16 after two gunmen opened fire on a crowd at Bondi Beach at about 6.47pm on Sunday. Thirty-eight people were injured and taken to hospital, including two police officers and four children. One of the gunman was among the dead. It is the deadliest mass shooting in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

A crowd of more than 1,000 had gathered to celebrate the first day of the Jewish festival Hanukkah. Bondi Beach is in the Sydney eastern suburbs, the heart of the Jewish community. New South Wales police have declared the shooting a terrorist attack.

Police confirmed one suspect had been taken into custody and was in serious condition. Another suspect was killed at the scene and police said they were investigating the possibility of a third offender. One of the attackers was known to authorities.

On Sunday evening, police were also investigating reports of an explosive device near the beach. At a press conference on Sunday night, New South Wales Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed an improvised explosive had been found in a car.

ASIO head Mike Burgess said Australia’s terrorism threat level remained at “probable”. This means there is a greater than 50% chance of an onshore attack or attack planning in the next twelve months. “I don’t see that changing at this stage,” Burgess told reporters in Canberra on Sunday night.

Soon after the shooting began, horrific vision emerged on social media of people shot dead or injured, as well as footage of incredible acts of bravery from passersby trying to thwart the attack.

One video shows a bystander tackling a gunman from behind, wrestling his gun from him. Others were performing CPR on the injured on the beach.

A Jewish chaplain with blood on him spoke of trying to save people amid terrible scenes of people shot in the head. People fled as the attack unfolded, but some elderly people were unable to run.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the scenes as “shocking and distressing”. “My thoughts are with every person affected.” In the wake of the attack he convened an emergency meeting of the National Security Committee of cabinet.

Albanese received a preliminary briefing from Australian Federal Police acting Deputy Commissioner Nigel Ryan and New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, who convened an emergency meeting of state cabinet. Albanese defended himself against criticism he had not taken antisemitism seriously enough.

“Australia is braver than those who seek to make us afraid […] we will see justice done, and we will come through this together,” he said.

“There are nights that tear at our nation’s soul in this moment of darkness,” Albanese said. “We must be each other’s light. Hold on to the true character of the country that we love.”

At Sunday night’s press conference, Minns said “This cowardly act of terrifying violence is shocking and painful to see, and represents some of our worst fears about terrorism in Sydney.” He asked Australians to “wrap their arms around” the Jewish community, and praised both the outpouring of love and support towards the Jewish community as well as the extraordinary demonstrations of courage in the wake of the attack.

Lanyon called for calm, and said this is “not a time for retribution”. He assured the public no stone would be left unturned in bringing those responsible to justice and ensuring there are no further attacks. “This type of disgraceful activity, this wanton use of violence, the taking of innocent lives is unacceptable to New South Wales.”

Independent federal MP Allegra Spender, who represents Bondi in her seat of Wentworth, also expressed her shock and horror.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley also expressed her shock. “Australians are in deep mourning tonight, with hateful violence striking at the heart of an iconic Australian community, a place we all know so well and love, Bondi.

“Today we stand together as Australians against hate in this moment of profound tragedy and shock.”

In a statement, Israeli President Isaac Herzog said “our heart misses a beat”. He called on the Australian government to “take action to fight against the enormous wave of antisemitism which is plaguing Australian society”.

The Australian Imams Council issued a statement condemning the attack.

“These acts of violence and crimes have no place in our society. Those responsible must be held fully accountable and face the full force of the law,” the statement said.

“Our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and all those who witnessed or were affected by this deeply traumatic attack.”

---

This article has been updated.

– ref. ‘An act of evil antisemitism’: at least 16 dead in terrorist attack on Bondi Beach – https://theconversation.com/an-act-of-evil-antisemitism-at-least-16-dead-in-terrorist-attack-on-bondi-beach-272031

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

As Sunday’s Bondi Beach attack unfolded, many will have seen footage of a man acting alone, moving toward one of the gunmen and wrestling the weapon from his hands.

It was an extraordinary act of bravery that resulted in him being shot twice.

The man was named as 43-year-old Ahmed al Ahmed, a local fruit shop owner.

Incredible bravery, but there are risks

We have no way of knowing how many additional lives were saved as a result of Ahmed’s bravery. But it almost certainly prevented further loss of life.

The moment is reminiscent of when a bystander similarly intervened at great personal risk during the Bondi Junction shopping centre attack in 2024.

When acts of courage like these occur, we rightly take notice and commend them.

But they also raise important and often overlooked questions: what motivates ordinary people to take such selfless, high-risk actions, is bystander intervention a good strategy, or does it go against official advice during mass violence events?

Two types of ‘bystander effect’

Many people would have heard of the “bystander effect”, which occurs when the presence of others discourages someone from intervening in an emergency situation, against a bully, or during an assault or other crime.

But decades of behavioural research complicate the popular idea that people inevitably freeze or look away when others are present during dangerous situations.

A large meta-analysis of bystander behaviour shows in genuinely dangerous, unambiguous emergencies (like those involving a clear perpetrator), the classic (passive) bystander effect is substantially weakened, and in some cases even reversed.

In other words, violent attacks are precisely the kinds of situations where people become likelier to act.

One reason is danger clarifies responsibility. When a situation is clearly life-threatening, people recognise it faster and are less likely to wait for social cues or reassurance from others.

We see time and again that in clear high-risk emergencies (particularly those involving violence), responsibility often sharpens rather than disappears.

An analysis of more than 100 suicide attacks in Israel shows bystander intervention can significantly reduce overall casualties.

Across these documented incidents, intervention rarely prevented an attack altogether but it frequently disrupted the attacker’s control over timing and location, triggering premature action in less crowded settings and saving lives as a result.

The same analysis, however, also shows bystander intervention often came at a direct personal cost to the interveners.

But active bystander behaviour takes many forms and can occur at different stages.

It may also involve:

• someone who knows the perpetrator noticing and reporting concerning behaviour in the lead-up to an attack

• guiding others to safety or sharing information as events unfold

• providing assistance and coordination in the aftermath.

However, getting involved does seem to fly in the face of official advice from Australian authorities.

In fact, only a few weeks ago, the Australia–New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee launched a new national public safety campaign.

A new safety message

The new public safety campaign explicitly recognises that Australia is a safe country but there remains a risk of weapons attacks in crowded places, and that knowing how to respond can save lives.

The campaign introduced the guidance “Escape. Hide. Tell.” which means:

• escape: move quickly and quietly away from danger but only if it is safe to do so

• hide: stay out of sight and silence your mobile phone

• tell: call police by dialling Triple Zero (000) when it is safe.

The aim of this advice is to help people respond in the critical first moments before police arrive, make informed decisions, and increase their chances of staying safe.

The official Australian guidance does not include any instruction to confront an attacker.

By contrast, US public safety messaging such as the FBI’s “Run. Hide. Fight” guidance does include a “fight” step, but only as a last-resort option when escape and hiding are not possible and life is in immediate danger.

Australian authorities have chosen not to include such a step, emphasising avoidance and reporting rather than confrontation.

Some practical advice

My previous experimental research has identified more specific behavioural guidance that can improve survival chances in violent attacks, particularly in crowded environments.

Using computer modelling and controlled experiments with real crowds, I have identified several strategic areas to improve their survival chance in such events.

First, moving slowly away from danger is not ideal – people need to move away from the source of threat as quickly and safely as possible.

Second, hesitation – whether to gather information, inspect what is happening, or film events – increases the risk of harm.

Third, people need to remain agile in their decision-making and navigation while they are moving and be willing to adjust their movement as situations evolve and information becomes clearer. This means continuously scanning your surroundings and adjusting direction as new information becomes apparent, rather than stopping to reassess.

Finally, when moving with family or friends, travelling in a single-file formation – staying close in a back-to-back snake formation rather than holding hands side by side – benefits everyone by reducing congestion and improving flow.

Be prepared

The events in Sydney are horrific and they underline a difficult reality: preparedness for violent risks in crowded places needs to become more mainstream.

Crowded spaces will always remain vulnerable to deliberate violence, whether driven by terrorist intent or other motivations.

Messaging needs to reach more people to be evidence-based, nuanced, and widely accessible.

With several major public events and large mass gatherings approaching (including New Year’s Eve) it is more important than ever for people to be aware of these risks and remain vigilant.

Milad Haghani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Intervene or run and hide: what should you do during public violence like the attacks at Bondi? – https://theconversation.com/intervene-or-run-and-hide-what-should-you-do-during-public-violence-like-the-attacks-at-bondi-272046

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

At least 12 people have been killed after two gunmen opened fire on a crowd at Bondi Beach at about 6.47pm on Sunday. Twenty-nine people were injured and taken to hospital, including two police officers. One of the gunman was among the dead. It is the deadliest mass shooting in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

A crowd of more than 1,000 had gathered to celebrate the first day of the Jewish festival Hanukkah. Bondi Beach is in the Sydney eastern suburbs, the heart of the Jewish community. New South Wales police have declared the shooting a terrorist attack.

Police confirmed one suspect had been taken into custody and was in serious condition. Another suspect was killed at the scene and police said they were investigating the possibility of a third offender. One of the attackers was known to authorities.

On Sunday evening, police were also investigating reports of an explosive device near the beach. New South Wales Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed an improvised explosive had been found in a car.

ASIO head Mike Burgess said Australia’s terrorism threat level remained at “probable”. This means there is a greater than 50% chance of an onshore attack or attack planning in the next twelve months. “I don’t see that changing at this stage,” Burgess told reporters in Canberra on Sunday night.

Soon after the shooting began, horrific vision emerged on social media of people shot dead or injured, as well as footage of incredible acts of bravery from passersby trying to thwart the attack.

One video shows a bystander tackling a gunman from behind, wrestling his gun from him. Others were performing CPR on the injured on the beach.

A Jewish chaplain with blood on him spoke of trying to save people amid terrible scenes of people shot in the head. People fled as the attack unfolded, but some elderly people were unable to run.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the scenes as “shocking and distressing”. “My thoughts are with every person affected.” In the wake of the attack he convened an emergency meeting of the National Security Committee of cabinet.

Albanese received a preliminary briefing from Australian Federal Police acting Deputy Commissioner Nigel Ryan and New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, who convened an emergency meeting of state cabinet. Albanese defended himself against criticism he had not taken antisemitism seriously enough.

“Australia is braver than those who seek to make us afraid […] we will see justice done, and we will come through this together,” he said.

“There are nights that tear at our nation’s soul in this moment of darkness,” Albanese said. “We must be each other’s light. Hold on to the true character of the country that we love.”

At a press conference on Sunday night, Minns said “This cowardly act of terrifying violence is shocking and painful to see, and represents some of our worst fears about terrorism in Sydney.” He asked Australians to “wrap their arms around” the Jewish community, and praised both the outpouring of love and support towards the Jewish community as well as the extraordinary demonstrations of courage in the wake of the attack.

Lanyon called for calm, and said this is “not a time for retribution”. He assured the public no stone would be left unturned in bringing those responsible to justice and ensuring there are no further attacks. “This type of disgraceful activity, this wanton use of violence, the taking of innocent lives is unacceptable to New South Wales.”

Independent federal MP Allegra Spender, who represents Bondi in her seat of Wentworth, also expressed her shock and horror.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley also expressed her shock. “Australians are in deep mourning tonight, with hateful violence striking at the heart of an iconic Australian community, a place we all know so well and love, Bondi.

“Today we stand together as Australians against hate in this moment of profound tragedy and shock.”

In a statement, Israeli President Isaac Herzog said “our heart misses a beat”. He called on the Australian government to “take action to fight against the enormous wave of antisemitism which is plaguing Australian society”.

The Australian Imams Council issued a statement condemning the attack.

“These acts of violence and crimes have no place in our society. Those responsible must be held fully accountable and face the full force of the law,” the statement said.

“Our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and all those who witnessed or were affected by this deeply traumatic attack.”

– ref. ‘An act of evil antisemitism’: at least 12 dead in terrorist attack on Bondi Beach – https://theconversation.com/an-act-of-evil-antisemitism-at-least-12-dead-in-terrorist-attack-on-bondi-beach-272031

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Laurence Grondin-Robillard, Professeure associée à l’École des médias et doctorante en communication, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Oxford Dictionary has named “rage bait” its Word of the Year. The quantity of live-streamed drama in 2025 has made it clear that outrage is now fuelling much online content.

The death of French streamer Raphaël Graven, alias Jean Pormanove, was particularly striking in this respect. Before dying live on Kick after streaming for 298 hours, Graven had been subjected to humiliating scenes and psychological abuse from two co-streamers, according to an investigation by French news outlet Médiapart.

Although the recording of the live stream leading up to his death is no longer available, excerpts from previous broadcasts that show Pormanove being ridiculed or mistreated continue to circulate online.

As an associate professor and doctoral student at UQAM’s École des médias (School of Media), I closely study the dynamics that shape digital platforms. Increasingly, platforms use rage bait to turn anger into a tool for attracting attention and advancing their commercial goals.

The Kick platform, comparable to Twitch, has been blamed for Graven’s death, and rightly so. A lack of moderation and the encouragement of gambling and games of chance are among the most frequent criticisms directed at it.

The aftermath of Graven’s death

Just a few days after Graven’s death, 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska was stabbed to death on the subway in the North Carolina city of Charlotte. Images and surveillance footage of her death went viral via X, Instagram and TikTok in a matter of hours, showing the young woman wounded, alone and without help.

The fascination with Zarutska’s slaying is nothing new. What’s more unusual, and turns this into rage bait, is how it was exploited.

Conservative YouTuber Benny Johnson accused the news media of ignoring the case, claiming that “if she were black and her killer white, the media would be talking about it non-stop.” His statement was intended to elicit a strong emotional reaction from both sides.

Beyond the reappropriation of news items to produce content designed to provoke outrage, the past year was also marked by the strategic use of videos generated by artificial intelligence for the same purpose.

One example is the sequence depicting the the president of the United States as a “king” flying over a “No Kings” protests and dropping a brown liquid resembling excrement onto the crowd. It was even shared by Donald Trump himself last October.

Word of the Year

In this highly charged context, rage bait became Oxford Dictionary’s Word of the Year, with its use reportedly tripling over the last 12 months. The term is defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger,” which is “typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media account.”

Oxford Words of the Year have been linked to digital culture for several years now. In 2022, it was “goblin mode,” in 2023, “rizz” won the vote and in 2024, it was “brain rot.”

This year, more than 30,000 people voted to elect the 2025 Word of the Year. The term was in competition with “aura farming” — cultivating one’s aura — and “biohack”, a set of practices aimed at optimizing the health and performance of the body and mind through changes in lifestyle, diet and technology.

From click bait to rage bait

From online clickbait, we are now moving towards rage bait, with the same objective: to gain online visibility.

The problem lies not only with content creators who use this type of bait, but also with social media platforms themselves. A decade ago, platforms were described as echo chambers, spaces where users were exposed almost exclusively to content that confirmed their interests, opinions and beliefs. It’s getting harder to say that today.

Beyond the case of the platform X — which Elon Musk has already significantly revamped since acquiring Twitter — both Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew also relaxed their terms of service in 2025 in the name of freedom of expression.

Zuckerberg is seeking to reconnect with the American Republican political class, while Chew is attempting to maintain TikTok’s access to the American market, which is under threat from legislative pressure. This new approach is leading to the emergence of digital spaces where controversial content, particularly rage bait, is acceptable.

TikTok claims to prohibit bloody or disturbing content, even if it is in the public interest, in addition to having a mission to “inspire creativity and bring joy.”

But this type of content generates engagement. As a result, it circulates and continues to be recommended. It remains visible thanks to its profitability.

This paradox lies at the heart of the problem: different platforms say they want to limit violence, but they profit from the elements that make violence go viral. So we’re therefore trapped in an ecosystem where outrage becomes an economic resource and where the most intense emotions fuel visibility.

A profound change in the web

In this sense, the shift from clickbait to rage bait is not just an evolution in visibility techniques. It highlights a profound change in social media.

This dynamic calls for a rethinking not only of moderation rules, but also of the business models that maintain this cycle of exposure, outrage and profitability.

In light of France’s commission of inquiry into the psychological effects of TikTok on minors and other similar work, the Oxford Dictionary’s choice seems less like a lexical tribute than an acknowledgement of social media’s failures.

The recent Words of the Year illustrate an online environment where mental exhaustion, numbness and outrage have become commonplace. Graven’s death reminds us that human lives are caught up in systems that turn vulnerability into spectacle and suffering into a product.

Laurence Grondin-Robillard ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. ‘Rage bait’ is the Oxford Word of the Year, showing how social media is manufacturing anger – https://theconversation.com/rage-bait-is-the-oxford-word-of-the-year-showing-how-social-media-is-manufacturing-anger-271584

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Arie Perliger, Director of Security Studies and Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, UMass Lowell

Owais Hammam was walking near his home in Khirbet Bani Harith in the West Bank on Dec. 3, 2025, when, according to media reports, he was kidnapped by Jewish settlers. Over several hours at a nearby settlement, the 18-year-old Palestinian is alleged to have endured repeated beatings, humiliation and harassment.

Israel military soldiers were reportedly involved in the incident, before they eventually released him the next morning. Hamman was hospitalized with multiple injuries and severe psychological trauma.

The alleged attack is far from isolated. The post-Oct. 7, 2023, environment has seen an escalation in settler violence, which has gone from primarily involving vandalism and property destruction to now being marked by kidnapping, prolonged abuse and apparent military complicity. In the two years to October 2025, more than 3,200 Palestinians were “forcibly displaced by settler violence and movement restrictions,” according to United Nations figures.

Violence has increased to an extent that the U.N. said October 2025 was the worst month for West Bank settler violence since it started recording incidents in 2006.

As a scholar who has studied Israeli extremist groups for over two decades, I contend that the dramatic escalation of settler violence in the West Bank reveals a profound transformation within Israel’s state institutions. Rather than serving as purported neutral enforcers of law and order, the military, Israeli police and the broader governmental apparatus have become increasingly aligned with — and at times directly complicit in — violent settler actions against Palestinians.

This institutional reluctance to address settler violence is not merely a failure of enforcement, I would argue, but a deliberate outcome of deep social, political and cultural changes that have reshaped Israeli society since at least the mid-1990s.

Settlers’ dream government

The most visible manifestation of this transformation is the composition of Israel’s current government, formed in December 2022.

For the first time, key ministerial positions are held by individuals with explicit pro-settler ideologies and personal ties to some of the most violent streams of the settlement movement. Hence, it is not surprising that prominent figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — both settlers with what has been described as extremist ideologies — have actively implemented policies that facilitate and legitimize settler violence.

For instance, Ben-Gvir has significantly eased firearm regulations, issuing over 100,000 new gun licenses since October 2023, with settlers receiving preferential access.

Smotrich, meanwhile, has publicly distributed security equipment to illegal outposts and allocated substantial budgets for settler militias. This political backing fosters a climate in which settlers feel emboldened to act with impunity.

Beyond individual ministers, the Israeli government has pursued structural reforms that systematically undermine institutional checks on settler violence.

The transfer of the main Israeli governing body in the West Bank — the Civil Administration authority — from military central command to Smotrich’s Finance Ministry represents a fundamental shift in governance. For decades, the Civil Administration coordinated the provision of West Bank services such as health and education. It also served as an instrument for coordinating with the Palestinian Authority, the body entrusted per the Oslo Accords with limited self-rule over parts of the occupied West Bank.

By placing the Civil Administration under political control rather than independent military command, the government has weakened one of the few mechanisms capable of restraining settler expansion.

Similarly, plans to subordinate the West Bank Border Police to Ben-Gvir’s Ministry of National Security threaten to dismantle the unified command structure that has been instrumental in managing tensions in the occupied West Bank since 1967.

Capitulation to settlers

Concurrent to these developments has been a blurring of lines between civilian settlers and uniformed security personnel. After Oct. 7, 2023, Israeli authorities distributed 8,000 army rifles to so-called civilian settlement defense squads and regional defense battalions.

These armed settler groups now operate alongside — and are increasingly indistinguishable from — official security forces. Settlers frequently wear official uniforms and carry army-issued weapons during attacks on Palestinians.

Security infrastructure such as police stations is often physically located within settlements, fostering close relationships between law enforcement and settler communities.

I would suggest that this geographic and institutional proximity makes neutral policing nearly impossible.

The cultural and social dimensions of this phenomenon run even deeper. Many settlers serve as army reservists, creating overlapping identities between civilian and military personnel.

Civilian security coordinators, who are responsible for coordination between the military and the settlements’ own “defense squads,” actively shape military operational policy. They help define settlement boundaries, determine areas prohibited to Palestinians and occasionally command soldiers.

Soldiers typically interpret clashes as friction between civilians rather than crimes requiring intervention. When violence intensifies, they often declare an “emergency situation” and defend settlers rather than protecting Palestinian victims.

Societal shifts

The transformation of Israeli institutions reflects broader societal changes where the settler movement has evolved from one of many societal factions to a dominant political force.

Settlers hold key positions in government and military leadership and exercise considerable political influence.

As a result, settler violence has become increasingly embedded in the operational logic of state institutions, turning law enforcement bodies from ostensibly neutral arbiters into what international observers increasingly describe as enablers or participants in systematic violence against Palestinians.

It represents, I would argue, a fundamental reorientation of state power in explicit service of settler expansionism.

Moreover, the failure to hold perpetrators of settler violence to account reveals the extent of the institutional capture. Between 2005 and 2023, more than 93% of police investigations into settler violence were closed without indictment – and only 3% resulted in convictions.

In 2021, the last year for which I was able to obtain data, Israeli authorities opened just 87 investigations for “ideologically motivated offenses,” while U.N. monitors documented 585 incidents.

The Israeli police chief in the West Bank has gone so far as to claim that reports of settler violence are fabricated by “radical left-wing anarchists.”

The erosion of judicial scrutiny

The Israeli Supreme Court has formally acknowledged that the West Bank constitutes occupied territory under international law.

Nonetheless, the judicial architecture historically accommodates settlement expansion. Settlers are subject to Israeli civilian law, including the ability to vote in Israeli elections while Palestinians face military law, producing vastly asymmetrical outcomes in cases involving violence and property rights.

The country’s Supreme Court, while occasionally striking down discriminatory measures against Palestinians, has bowed to security rationales that permit the broader settlement enterprise to proceed. For example, in 2022, the court rejected a petition to return Palestinian land in the city of Hebron, ruling that an
Israeli presence is part of the military’s “regional security doctrine.”

Similarly, in many petitions against military policy of house demolitions, the Supreme Court has adopted a deferential stance toward security authorities.

Impact on the peace process

The implications of this institutional capitulation to settlers’ interests extend far beyond the West Bank itself. Settlers have explicitly viewed the war in the Gaza Strip as an opportunity to accelerate their agenda, forcing over 1,000 Palestinians from at least 18 communities since Oct. 7, 2023.

In addition to the humanitarian concerns, this pattern of violence-driven displacement undermines the viability of a two-state solution, which has returned to international discourse as the centerpiece of “day after” planning for Gaza. It also undermines any claim Israel might make that in lieu of a two-state solution, it can enforce the rule of law equally across people living in territories under its control.

So while international actors focus on ceasefire negotiations and reconstruction, the violence in the West Bank undermines the territorial and demographic foundations necessary for Palestinian statehood and makes the prospect of a lasting ceasefire more distant. The implications of that for a just future are indeed dire.

Arie Perliger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. West Bank violence is soaring, fueled by a capitulation of Israeli institutions to settlers’ interests – https://theconversation.com/west-bank-violence-is-soaring-fueled-by-a-capitulation-of-israeli-institutions-to-settlers-interests-269162

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sebastian Maslow, Associate Professor, International Relations, Contemporary Japanese Politics & Society, University of Tokyo

Though China and Japan are experienced in dealing with diplomatic crises, relations between the two neighbours appear to have reached a new low. And this time, their conflict may not be easily resolved.

What’s behind the latest crisis and what’s driving the escalation?

The current round of tensions was triggered by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks in the Diet (Japanese parliament) on November 7, suggesting a move by Beijing to use military force against Taiwan would trigger a Japanese military intervention.

Presented as a “worst-case scenario”, such a Chinese attempt would constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, she said, justifying its right to collective self-defence to support its US security ally in restoring peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

Diplomatic crisis

Taiwan was a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945. Later, it harboured Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists after their defeat by Mao Zedong’s communist troops in 1949.

Today, Beijing considers Taiwan a province of China, though it has never been under the Communists’ rule. Statements to the contrary are considered an intervention in China’s domestic affairs, crossing a red line for Beijing’s elite.

Demanding a swift retraction of Takaichi’s remarks and an apology, Beijing’s brigade of “wolf warrior diplomats” launched a war of words against her. With the Japanese prime minister not backing down, Beijing then retaliated with a mix of political, economic and military pressure.

China’s Communist leadership warned its citizens against travelling to Japan, and students were told to reconsider their plans there, apparently because of safety concerns. Imports of Japanese seafood were reduced or put on hold, while concerts and movie screenings featuring Japanese artists were cancelled.

China’s Coast Guard and Navy vessels also passed through the waters of the Senkaku islands, a territory administered by Japan but claimed by China as the Diaoyu islands.

Amid all this, an international campaign to blame Japan for the current crisis was rolled out to isolate Tokyo. A formal protest was issued to the UN, and in talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, global leaders were pressured to align with his Communist government against Japan.

The diplomatic turmoil reached a climax in early December with Chinese military planes directing their radars at Japanese fighter jets.

Tension spills into trade

China and Japan are key trading partners. This year alone, a fifth of Japan’s inbound tourism came from China. Beijing’s tightening the screws on Japan will therefore have a measurable impact on the Japanese economy. Some estimate the economic fallout could reach ¥2.2 trillion (A$14.2 billion).

Nevertheless, Beijing’s measures still fall short of past episodes of conflict between the two.

In the early 2000s, Japanese prime ministers’ pilgrimages to the Yasukuni war shrine and revisions of Japanese history textbooks triggered massive anti-Japanese protests across China.

In 2010, Beijing stopped exporting rare earth minerals to Japan in retaliation for Japanese authorities arresting a Chinese captain and his crew after they rammed their ship into a Japanese Coast Guard vessel.

Japan’s “nationalisation” of the disputed Senkaku islands in 2012, buying the isles from their private owner, triggered a significant increase in China’s military presence in the East China Sea.

In light of Japan’s wartime past and China’s economic and military rise, diplomatic disputes have been a default in Sino-Japanese relations since both countries normalised their ties in 1972.

Beijing and Tokyo, however, established a path that has skilfully avoided this from spilling over into trade and business. Japanese investments and economic aid were instrumental in driving China’s industrial modernisation, and both countries have developed close trade relations.

So, when relations hit a low in the 2000s, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a point by choosing Beijing as his first visit abroad in 2006, declaring a “mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests”.

Ever since, this wording has served as the broader framework for manoeuvring tensions in Sino-Japanese relations.

No off-ramp in sight

This time, however, de-escalation and a return to the status quo may not be as easily achieved.

Takaichi has portrayed herself as an arch-conservative who has inherited her mentor Abe’s policy agenda. She has pledged to restore a “strong Japan” by beefing up Tokyo’s defence capabilities and further strengthening the alliance with the United States.

The current dispute should not come as a surprise. Takaichi has established herself as a China hawk. She has repeatedly visited Taiwan, and in April this year called for a “quasi-security alliance” with Taipei. This reflects concerns in Tokyo that have linked the security of Taiwan directly to that of Japan, and put security across the Taiwan Strait at the centre of the US-Japan alliance.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, then-Prime Minister Kishida Fumio declared “Ukraine may be the East Asia of tomorrow,” explicitly putting Taiwan at the core of international security.

Already, Takaichi has announced plans to increase Japan’s defence budget to 2% of its GDP by the end of March 2026, two years ahead of schedule. To secure the financial resources, tax hikes are part of the discussion. A nation on alert against foreign threats will help temper opposition.

Supported by Taiwan’s leadership and large portions of the island’s public, Takaichi has used the standoff with Beijing to present herself as a resolute leader. She has also redirected the public’s focus away from her party’s past scandals to the current security crisis. Two months into office, her cabinet enjoys high support.

A quick end to the crisis is not in sight. Xi’s China is more powerful than it was a decade ago, leaving it with plenty of options to escalate tensions. The weaponisation of trade and increased military exercises are the tools Beijing will likely employ.

Yet, Japan has learned from past crises. Its supply chains have become more resilient. De-risking its investments and production away from China is an established strategy.

Takaichi’s current governing coalition also does not include the Komeito party, which has strong ties to Beijing. Within her Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), members of the old guard, such as Toshihiro Nikai, who maintained channels to Beijing’s elite, have lost their influence. Figures sceptical of China’s rise, such as Taro Aso, remain at the centre of the party.

With diplomatic channels in short supply and domestic political agendas paramount, an off-ramp for the current dispute is not in sight.

Most importantly, however, geopolitical transitions have created a new context for Sino-Japanese tensions to play out. A confident China has backed Russia in its war in Ukraine and claims leadership of the Global South. The Trump administration has undermined confidence in established US alliances, accelerating polarisation in the international system. Deterring China will become an increasingly difficult task.

Sebastian Maslow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why tensions between China and Japan are unlikely to be resolved soon – https://theconversation.com/why-tensions-between-china-and-japan-are-unlikely-to-be-resolved-soon-271527

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Yaqoot Fatima, Professor of Sleep Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

You’ve probably experienced it – your alarm is set for 6:30am, yet somehow your eyes snap open a few minutes before it goes off. There’s no sound, no external cue, just the body somehow knowing it’s time.

It might seem strange, but you didn’t wake up by chance. It’s your body clock at work – an amazingly precise internal timing system that regulates when you sleep and wake.

But how exactly does this built-in alarm clock work?

A hormonal wake-up call

Deep in the brain is a small group of neurons called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, often referred to as the body’s “master clock”. These neurons keep track of time by coordinating internal rhythms such as circadian rhythm (aligned with the 24-hour day) to regulate things like sleep, body temperature, hunger and digestion.

The circadian rhythm influences when we feel sleepy and alert each day. Our bodies set the master clock naturally, and it is completely normal to see variation in the timing of when people prefer to sleep and be awake.

Have you ever wondered why some people are “morning people”, preferring to catch the sunrise and hit the pillow early at night, and others are “night owls”, staying up late and sleeping till mid-morning? This is because of differences in their circadian rhythm.

Regular sleep and wake, meal and exercise routines program our master clock so it starts to predict when these behaviours will happen each day and begin releasing related hormones accordingly.

For example, when we wake up in the morning, we experience a phenomenon known as the “cortisol awakening response”. This is a significant spike in cortisol – a hormone thought to help us prepare for the day and feel energised.

For people who have very consistent rise times and morning light exposure, the master clock learns when they usually get up. Well before their alarm sounds, it gently prepares the body: the temperature rises, melatonin (a sleepiness hormone) levels fall, and cortisol levels start to climb.

By the time their alarm is due, the body is already transitioning into wakefulness. Think of it as a sort of hormonal wake-up call.

A well-synced rhythm or poor sleep quality?

If you often wake a few minutes before your alarm and feel alert and rested, it’s a sign your circadian rhythm is finely tuned. Your body clock has learned to anticipate your routine and help you transition smoothly from sleep to wakefulness.

However, if you wake before your alarm but feel groggy or restless, it might signal poor sleep quality rather than a well-synced rhythm.

Having a regular bedtime and awakening schedule helps train the body’s internal clock, especially when it stays aligned with natural cues in your environment, such as changes in light and temperature throughout the day.

This will make it easier to fall asleep and wake up feeling refreshed. A regular sleep-wake schedule will help your body “keep track of time” and can teach the body to predict when it’s time to wake up.

On the other hand, an irregular sleep schedule can confuse these internal bodily rhythms, leading to drowsiness and difficulty concentrating and performing mental tasks.

Without a consistent sleep pattern, the body will rely on an alarm to wake up, potentially waking you in deeper stages of sleep and leaving you with that groggy feeling (known as sleep inertia).

In that case, reviewing your sleep hygiene and making small changes to your habits can realign your body’s internal clock, helping you wake naturally and feel truly rested.

Why is it hard to switch off?

Stress and anxiety can increase levels of cortisol – the same hormone that naturally increases in the morning to help you wake up – making it harder to stay asleep or triggering early awakening.

Anticipation of exciting events can also make it difficult to sleep, as a high state of arousal makes your brain stay alert, leading to lighter sleep and premature awakenings. These situations are common and are normal from time to time; however, they may cause longer-term sleep problems if they happen too often.

In the pre-industrial era, people followed environmental cues from the sun and the moon to guide their sleep patterns.

In modern times, waking naturally without an alarm can be hard. But when it happens, it’s a strong sign that you’ve had enough rest and that your body clock is healthy and well-aligned.

Training your body to wake up without an alarm is possible by adopting the following strategies: prioritising a consistent sleep schedule with 7–8 hours of sleep (including on weekends); avoiding sleep disruptions due to caffeine, alcohol or heavy meals; creating a dark sleep environment and avoiding screens before bed; and ensuring exposure to natural sunlight in the morning.

Yaqoot Fatima receives funding from MRFF, NHMRC and Beyond Blue.

Alexandra Metse has received funding from the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, MRFF, the Waterloo Foundation, and the NSW Department of Education. She is a member of the Australasian Sleep Association.

Danielle Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why do we wake up shortly before our alarm goes off? It’s not by chance – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-wake-up-shortly-before-our-alarm-goes-off-its-not-by-chance-268992