Following the December 2025 Bondi Beach massacre, Australia rapidly escalated policing powers, hate speech laws, security funding and antisemitism initiatives. Yet political pressure continued to intensify — culminating in a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion which had its first hearing block in May 2026.
There has been strong criticism of the need for the Royal Commission after measures to date and also of its execution. The evidence presented once the commission began was criticised for its pattern and monolithic tone.
This article examines the pattern of behaviour of the pro-Israel lobby prior to the Royal Commission’s first hearings.
It shows that the Government ultimately yielded to sustained pressure from pro-Israel lobby organisations - and therefore if this happens again the legal outcomes of this inquiry could be significant in terms of freedom of speech.
Shortcut: Jump past contents to start reading main body of the article:👉 CLICK HERE
First published: 14 May 2026
Last Update: 19 May 2026 (see 🗄️Version History - Article Updates)
PART ONE: Pre-Royal Commission
PART TWO: Pro-Israel Lobby
PART THREE: Interim Reports
APPENDICES
END PAPERS
On 14th December 2025 a horrific antisemitic attack occurred on Bondi Beach. The attack was perpetrated by a father and son inspired by the ISIS ideology who went on to kill 15 innocent civilians, most of them Jewish enjoying a beachside Chanukah event. The father was killed but the son survived and is currently in custody charged with murder in an ongoing trial.
The attack shocked the country and triggered an immediate political response from both the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments.
Within days, governments announced expanded policing operations, new hate speech measures, increased security funding, and the acceleration of multiple inquiries already underway into antisemitism.
Yet despite this extraordinary mobilisation of state resources, political pressure rapidly intensified further — culminating weeks later in the announcement of a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
This article examines how that process unfolded, the organisations that shaped it, and the broader implications for political speech surrounding Israel and Zionism in Australia.
PART ONE: Pre-Royal Commission
In response to Bondi the Prime Minister announced a number of measures
dedicated Operation Shelter to protect Jewish communities with 250 dedicated officers and 24/7 response. This was announced as a permanent force in March 2026.
a ban on all protests in Sydney - which was extended to February 2026 during the visit of President Herzog (see below). The extension during Herzog’s visit, resulting in brutal police action was later found to be unlawful.
$102M additional funding to the Jewish community to be allocated via ECAJ
changes tightening gun laws
changes tightening hate speech laws
Richardson Inquiry: a new comprehensive inquiry across all security and police forces into the Bondi Beach incident
expedited publication of the results of an almost complete NSW Parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism that had literally just been completed after a full year with the report due in February 2026.
antisemitism envoy plan adoption: the Government announced they would be adopting the plan released by Jillian Segal in July 2025. Despite the plan being broadly criticised as being overreaching and unpractical.
Yet still this was not enough.
When the PM appeared at a memorial service at Bondi Pavillion he was roundly booed by the crowd who said that he had not done enough.
The political response already underway was extensive by any historical standard. In addition to this the historical responses to earlier concerns raised by the community had also been extensive.
In addition to the announcements above post-Bondi this is just some of what the Commonwealth and State Governments had delivered to the pro-Israel lobby to date.
In July 2024 Jillian Segal was appointed as antisemitism envoy with no public scrutiny (unlike overseas counterparts). There was no hearing, limited vetting and no publicly disclosed conflict-of-interest assessment accompanying the appointment.
Segal has faced much criticism and appointments with similarly overt political advocacy backgrounds would likely attract substantial scrutiny in comparable public roles. She is the immediate past president of ECAJ and has made public statements on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, Zionism and the Gaza conflict itself. This would typically trigger disqualification scrutiny in comparable public appointments.
This was apparent in the antisemitism plan that was produced in July 2025 which was described by civil liberties organisations as deeply restrictive - intending to introduce monitoring of free speech amongst other measures.
The envoy network operates within a broader international framework involving organisations closely aligned with Israeli government and pro-Israel advocacy interests - Special Envoys and Co-ordinators for Combating Antisemitism (SECCA) - an initiative of the World Jewish Congress. Indeed the week after Segal’s appointment she attended a global SECCA meeting in Argentina which perhaps contributed towards the unusually rushed timing of the appointment.
Segal’s role operates with a dedicated Government office with full-time staff and substantial public funding. In addition to the exclusive nature of the role relative to other forms of discrimination (including for example Aboriginal Rights) the fact the Segal has a particular political and foreign state view yet was still appointed must draw scrutiny.
Established NSW Strike Force Pearl to investigate antisemitic attacks in the state (Dec 2 2024)
Established Federal Special Operation Avalite to investigate antisemitic attacks1 (Dec 9 2024)
Created a centralised incident database specifically for antisemitism
The policing dedicated task forces were formed in response to apparently antisemitic incidents of damage to Jewish property which Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to exploit, linking the attack on a synagogue in Melbourne to Australia’s vote against Israel in the UN2.
The attacks were later found to be motivated not by ideology but simply by money - performed by paid criminals for hire.3
Australian intelligence was told that it was a state based actor behind the attacks and that the country responsible was Iran4.
Who tipped off ASIO? Israeli intelligence.
The fact Israeli intelligence assisted Australia in identifying Iran as the culprit was publicly revealed on 27th August 2025. This was just two months after the US and Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities on 22nd June after Israel launched a 12 day war on Iran unilaterally on 13th June.
It is unclear when Israel advised ASIO Iran were involved but clearly around the same time.
The timing of these allegations — emerging amid rapidly escalating regional conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States — inevitably intensified political sensitivities surrounding the attacks.
As a matter of record - the pro-Israel lobby produce regularly - and indeed submitted for the Royal Commission - bespoke statistics purporting to show antisemitic hate crime.
These property attacks - whilst equally distressing for the community - were not performed because the community was Jewish, attacking their identity. It was a “politically motivated attack on the Jewish community” according to the police5.
The distress is there - but the reassurance to a certain extent from an Australian societal point of view is that they are not indications of systemic antisemitism in Australia.
Therefore a valid question of the Australian lobby is - have these incidents (all of them) been removed from their submitted statistics into a separate category.
They cannot be used as evidence of a link between pro-Palestine protest and an increase in antisemitism for example.
2023: NSW fast-tracked measures including ban on Nazi salutes and symbols
in the wake of footage “gas the Jews” was chanted from the Opera House later found to be a still deeply unpleasant chant but in a different legal category6 - Chris Minns acted before the full facts were publicly established7
2024: Sep - doxxing legislation introduced in response to the doxxing of a WhatsApp group involved in cancelling writer Clementine Ford.
2025: NSW fast tracked specialised legislation to ban hate speech
in the wake of the Jewish property attacks/caravan discovery - later found to be non-antisemitic graffiti and arson by paid criminals by an overseas actor - Chris Minns again acting before the facts known8
after a legal challenge - it was found that the changes put in whilst the investigation was still ongoing in parliament were unlawful. Minns had taken a “Captain's Call” in favour of pro-Israel lobby pressure - which was unlawful9.
Feb 2025: NSW Parliamentary Committee to examine antisemitism in NSW10
Feb 6 2025: Mandatory minimum sentences for hate crimes pushed through as Federal law
In addition to regular community group funding:
18 Oct 2023: $25M grant for securing places of worship11
8 Jan 2024: $63M in Federal Funding for security12
8 Dec 2024: Another $32M in Federal Funding for security to ECAJ in the wake of the Adass Synagogue attack13
8 Dec 2024: $35M grant to rebuild Adass Synagogue despite substantial private fundraising (billionaires Rupert Murdoch, the Gandel Family Foundation, Anthony Pratt) and insurance coverage already being available
11 Dec 2024: $9M grant to redevelop Sydney Jewish Museum14.
The above are Federal community grants - excluded are:
State Grants
Local Council Grants
Federal payments to individuals (trauma payments and so forth - released on October 7th and for Bondi and ongoing)
For more detail on Government Community Funding & Support see here
Bearing in mind the Prime Minister was accused - albeit in a highly emotional environment - of “not doing enough”.
The historical responses prior to Bondi outlined in the previous section clearly demonstrate a close attention to community needs by any standards.
This was then reinforced with the new political responses announced by the Prime Minister including implementation of the antisemitism envoy’s plan.
And yet the booing of the PM at the memorial event a week later for the Bondi victims - albeit in a highly emotional environment - indicated further dissatisfaction.
The lone-wolf nature of the attacks could not be prevented other than by intelligence (which was being investigated) and furthermore - the terrorists were enabled under Liberal administrations.
the father was able to come to Australia under Howard
the changes to S18C of the Racial Discrimination Act were made by Abbott for “the right to offend”
the gun licenses were approved for the father under Abbott
ASIO in 2019 decided to say the son was not a danger to the community under Morrison and Dutton
As later sections will explore, the interim findings eventually reinforced the conclusion that Bondi was fundamentally a lone-actor extremist attack rather than the product of protest movements or broader civil unrest and that no further legislative measures could have prevented the attacks.
But back in December 2025 the booing of the Prime Minister at Bondi was just the beginning of the pro-Israel lobby’s response.
After the PM was booed at Bondi, a highly organised lobbying and media campaign went into overdrive with a daily publication of support to shame the Prime Minister into conducting a Federal Royal Commission into antisemitism.
At the same time, the Zionist Federation of Australia extended an invite to President Herzog of Israel to visit Australia without consulting the Australian Government or diplomatic channels15.
The Prime Minister was essentially shamed into:
announcing a State Visit invitation to President Herzog to attend Australia on a pastoral visit (22nd December) which went ahead to great protests in February
announcing that a Royal Commission would be called into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion (8th January)
The terms of reference were published — noting social cohesion was added to at least give scope to broaden the discussion and evidence
A more disturbing announcement was the confirmation the IHRA definition would be accepted by the Royal Commission… though to be fair the commissioner at times would be shown to interject to query if criticism of Israel or Zionism is defined as antisemitic by those giving testimony.
PART TWO: Pro-Israel Lobby
The pro-Israel groups all rallied under the banner of pro-bono legal representation by one firm: Arnold Bloch Leibler16 representing:
Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and subgroups:
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBOD)
Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV)
Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA)
Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)
National Council of Jewish Women Australia (NCJWA)
The Dor Foundation
These are the longstanding “legacy” organisations that share broadly aligned political positions regarding Israel and frequently collaborate institutionally. Many maintain formal relationships with international umbrella organisations and advocacy networks based in Israel and abroad.
The diagram below summarises the majority of these groups and their directors:
The groups that have been put together under Arnold Bloch Leibler really do serve to show that this is just one section of the community and one viewpoint. These organisations are often presented publicly as representative Jewish community bodies, though critics argue they do not reflect the full diversity of Jewish political opinion in Australia as the groups are:
political Zionists
they have consistently adopted strongly pro-Israel positions during conflicts in the Middle East, including during periods of intense international criticism of Israeli conduct
It is clear they do not represent the full spectrum of Jewish opinion in Australia- in particular when it comes to reflecting international findings on Israel’s conduct in the Middle East.
Every single one of the above organisations has run campaigns to facilitate submissions en masse to the Royal Commission.
So you can imagine what particular image this incredibly well organised group would be presenting to the Royal Commission.
Indeed Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABL) themselves are a firm which clearly has overlapping pro-Israel interests. They have acted pro-bono not just for this group but for past Liberal MPs including Josh Frydenberg17 and Peter Dutton18.
Principal partners of ABL are:
Mark Leibler: who is also:
Chair of the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Committee (AIJAC)
Director of the United Israel Appeal (UIA) the principal fundraising body for the State of Israel in Australia.
Jeremy Leibler: who is:
the son of Mark Leibler and fellow law partner
In 2020 the Australian Financial Review noted ABLs extensive private client list of some of the most prominent businessmen in Australia19.
For a decade between 2010 and 2020 the Leiblers’ firm ABL were also acting as the exclusive corporate agents in Australia for the Israeli State owned weapons company Israel Aerospace Systems as revealed in an investigation by Michael West Media below.
This coincided with the most pro-Israel legislative agenda and defence ties in Australian history under the Morrison Government.
As Michael West Media notes in their excellent exposé article of Leibler’s ties to Israel’s defence web there is no suggestion of impropriety.
There are substantial institutional overlaps which raises questions about perceived conflicts of interest.
Currently ABL are also representing the CEO of the Zionist Federation of Australia Alon Cassuto in an action against journalist Mary Kostakidis. The accusation being … antisemitism20.
Lawfare can be expensive. Pro-bono representation from a large, influential corporate law firm that happens to have prominent Zionist figures as Directors and who are also leaders of these pro-Israel organisations is a distinct advantage.
These overlapping institutional relationships are likely to attract scrutiny given the central role these organisations now play in the hearings.
The final piece of the pre-hearing preparation is the conductor - the law firm appointed by the Australian Commissioner to assist the process.
This appointment was done without any tender and the firm selected was Gilbert & Tobin. Since they are the only law firm as a premium member of the Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC) of which Mark Leibler of AIJAC is a Governor. Critics may view the overlap as creating perceptions of institutional proximity that warranted greater transparency around the appointment process - which makes the lack of tender all the more questionable21.
Incidentally listed alongside Gilbert & Tobin as Premium Members of the AICC is Henroth Group which is the investment company of the husband of the Government antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal, John Roth. Roth was found to have been one of the largest donors to far-right group Advance Australia in 2025 with a donation of $50,00022 of which Segal denied any knowledge.
Jumping ahead - after the first week of the hearings critics have argued that the process risks privileging emotionally compelling testimony over evidentiary scrutiny, particularly given the highly coordinated nature of submissions from established pro-Israel organisations.
And Gilbert & Tobin as the Special Counsel themselves have also faced criticism for not challenging evidence enough as has been the case even in past sensitive Commissions.
The following example shows the highly emotionally charged nature of the proceedings.
On 27 January 2026 — the UN International Day of Holocaust Remembrance — a prominent Australian pro-Israel lobby organisation published a professionally produced video across social media platforms23.
The video employed split-screen imagery juxtaposing:
scenes from contemporary Australia (including protests and antisemitic incidents), and
archival imagery from Nazi Germany in the period leading up to the Holocaust.
The visual narrative explicitly invited comparison between:
present-day political dissent and unrest in Australia, and
the systematic, state-driven persecution of Jewish people under National Socialism.
The comparisons made in the video collapses fundamentally different situations:
Nazi antisemitism was a racial ideology targeting Jewish people because they were Jewish, enforced by a totalitarian state through law, violence, and ultimately industrialised extermination.
Contemporary protest in Australia, including protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza, is directed at the conduct of a sovereign state and its policies — not at Jewish people as an ethnic or religious group.
Key distinctions ignored by the campaign include:
The State of Israel did not exist in 1930s Germany; the Star of David then functioned as a marker imposed on Jewish civilians, not as a national flag representing a state actor - and therefore BDS protest against that state actor as today as one would have boycotted apartheid South Africa.
Acts of antisemitic violence in Australia, including arson attacks on synagogues, have in several cases been attributed by Australian authorities to criminal or foreign-influenced activity rather than grassroots ideological movements — and are not representative of mass political mobilisation.
Isolated criminal acts or lone-actor violence in Australia bear no resemblance to the Einsatzgruppen, the Nazi state apparatus, or the genocidal machinery of the Third Reich. The Bondi attackers appear to have been lone wolves and followers of an ideology that does not hold Palestinian rights in its radical ideology. And certainly nothing to do with the pro-Palestine groups protesting peacefully against Israel’s actions.
These are not matters of interpretation; they are matters of historical record.
The approach taken in this campaign stands in direct conflict with the publicly stated guidance of leading Holocaust institutions.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has explicitly warned that:
comparing contemporary political situations to Nazism is historically inaccurate,
such comparisons are offensive to victims of the Holocaust, and
instrumentalising Holocaust memory for opportunistic political purposes undermines education and remembrance.
While such warnings are often cited in response to inappropriate Nazi comparisons directed at Israel, the principle articulated is universal. The misuse does not become acceptable when the analogy is reversed or when it is deployed to shield a state from accountability.
Holocaust remembrance institutions do not grant exemptions based on political alignment.
The last image in the video makes the connection explicit.
The repeated framing of Israel specifically as ‘the Jewish state’ carries implications extending criticism of state conduct into questions of collective Jewish identity.
The framing risks collapsing distinctions between criticism of Israeli state conduct and historical antisemitic persecution.
The video by AIJAC foreshadowed a common theme in the hearings that were to follow.
Michael West Media noted that the leaders of the Australian pro-Israel lobby in their evidence at the Royal Commission all talked to family holocaust history - with the underlying themes suggesting a direct line from the holocaust to pro-Palestine protests24.
As AIJAC had made more explicit as the narrative in their January video.
Given the Royal Commission’s emphasis on historical trauma and antisemitism narratives, the campaign’s framing is particularly relevant to understanding the political atmosphere in which the hearings are occurring.
I’d suggest the video from AIJAC should be submitted as evidence to the Royal Commission in testimony. The campaign is relevant evidence when assessing how antisemitism narratives were being framed in the lead-up to the hearings.
The purpose of the Royal Commission is to “pick out trends” in submissions to dive into in further detail. With the highly organised evidence from the closely aligned groups in the pro-Israel lobby - it is already clear what those trends would point to.
Critics fear the cumulative effect of these campaigns may be the expansion of legal and institutional restrictions on criticism of Israel and Zionism against valid criticism summarised below.
The huge resources, influence and organisation brought into play here make it clear why this commission was so important in the first place with the huge campaign to launch is that many described as astroturfing. This reflects a profound asymmetry in political influence and institutional access when compared to non-Zionist Jewish groups or pro-Palestinian groups also impacted by charges of antisemitism.
I would hope that the Royal Commissioner Victoria Bell is strong enough to take into account his power dynamic and the one-sided view, from a well organised group. There’s clear transnational co-ordination also bringing in testimony from overseas parties also.
I will write on the ins-and-outs of the hearings separately but a key concern is what we are hearing is carefully selected set of highly emotional testimonies. And that is amplified across sections of the Murdoch press on a daily basis as if it is fact and reality rather than opinion and feelings.
The emotion involved reminded me of a different hearing but same principle. The below video is from the 2023 documentary “Israelism” about the orchestration of pro-Israel testimony on campus over a BDS resolution, told by a Jewish student whistleblower who wasn’t comfortable with what she was being asked to do.
The issue is the same - subjective experiences of antisemitism versus political protest directed at Israeli state conduct. And the stakes are the same if the ultimate outcome is to shut down anti-Israel protest.
🎥 Insta video: “Israelism” - coaching emotion on campus. Note the final comments from a Palestinian student putting it into perspective. Click below to watch 👇
PART THREE: Interim Reporting
It had been announced the Richardson report into Bondi that had already commenced pre-Royal Commission would be managed under the main commission but would still issue an interim in April 2026.
The month before its submission the original commissioner of the inquiry Dennis Richardson suddenly resigned citing the fact he felt “he had little influence on the outcomes of the report” due out the following month. Notably he had queried the thoroughness of the 2019 ASIO security screening of one of the Bondi gunmen under the Liberal Morrison Government.25
In April 2026 the Interim Report on Bondi was published which focused on the security events around Bondi. High level takeaways were26:
no link drawn with pro-Palestine protests
there was little that further legislative changes could have done to prevent the massacre
But the key message is that any uptick in antisemitism in Australia is a direct result of Israel’s wars in the middle east.
Commissioner Bell said this specifically in her opening day remarks of the hearing bloc:
Which is a linkage that had already become central to public debate following October 7 - but good to have this confirmed in the report and in remarks from the Royal Commission.
The almost completed 2025 NSW Parliamentary Inquiry in Antisemitism report was never issued and the results passed on to the Australian Royal Commission. It would surely be relevant to the inquiry to see a mutually exclusive report produced before the Bondi massacre occurred to give an accurate view of the temperature of antisemitism in the state at the time.
The absence of a separately published pre-Bondi report removes what could have been an important baseline assessment of antisemitism in NSW before the massacre occurred.
A low baseline would give further evidence to the fact that:
the Bondi killers were lone wolves acting entirely independently
sections of the pro-Israel lobby had been consistently emphasising narratives of “rising antisemitism” in public discourse against the best evidence
Without this mutually exclusive report the Bondi incident could look like a natural follow-on from “antisemitism” as valid protest against Israel or political zionism particularly given the contested definitions of antisemitism that had emerged during the period.
This gap did not go unnoticed.
On 5th May 2026 NSW Senate Member Stephen Lawrence gave a speech in Parliament on just that - the findings from the NSW Antisemitism Inquiry after he served on the inquiry (see video below)27.
The full transcript of his speech is in APPENDIX A: Stephen Lawrence MLC statement on the findings of the NSW Commission of Inquiry into antisemitism - but this quote summarises:
“a significant part of the growing antisemitism is attributable to an expansion of the definition of antisemitism and the exceptionalisation of it, as well as a continuing and growing tendency to treat the Australian Jewish community and Israel as the same thing—as indivisible—and to treat criticism of one as criticism of the other”
There is also a YouTube recording of evidence submitted the the NSW Inquiry on 16 June 2025 - see APPENDIX B: Public hearing – Inquiry into antisemitism in New South Wales – 16 June 2025 (Youtube) fast-forwarding to time signatures for testimony by Professor Stuart Rees and Dr. Peter Slezak.
🎥 Stephen Lawrence MLC - Instagram, 10 May 2026, speech in the NSW Senate 5 May 2026: Click below to play 👇
Whatever conclusions the Royal Commission ultimately reaches, one reality should concern all Australians regardless of political position:
a major national tragedy has rapidly evolved into a process with potentially significant implications for political speech, protest rights, media discourse, and criticism of a foreign state.
The central question is no longer simply how Australia responds to antisemitism — which unquestionably exists and must be confronted seriously.
It is whether legitimate opposition to the actions of the Israeli state, or to political Zionism as an ideology, will increasingly be reframed as a form of racial hatred requiring legal suppression.
The distinction matters profoundly.
Democracies capable of protecting minority communities while preserving political dissent are stronger societies.
Democracies that collapse those distinctions risk damaging both.
Or “social cohesion” as is the other part of the Royal Commission that must be addressed.
APPENDICES
On 5th May 2026 Stephen Lawrence stood up in NSW Parliament and gave a statement on the findings of the 2025 NSW Inquiry into Antisemitism. The inquiry ran for a full year and provided insight into the nature of antisemitism in the state right before the Bondi attacks.
It was decided to not publish a full report - which would have provided a solid baseline for understanding antisemitism right before Bondi - but it was decided to submit raw evidence directly to the main Bondi Inquiry, which diluted the findings somewhat.
The transcript of Lawrence’s full statement is below with salient parts highlighted.
The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (18:04): I take note of the report of the Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Justice and Communities inquiry into antisemitism in New South Wales, having served as a committee member during the inquiry. At the time of the Bondi terrorist attack, our inquiry had concluded the taking of evidence but not finalised a report. Upon the establishment of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, committee members unanimously agreed to conclude the inquiry without a substantive report and to forward the evidence for the consideration of the important royal commission, which sits at a pivotal time and may well be looked back upon as a critical juncture in antisemitism. I will say a few things on some of the propositions I think the evidence from the inquiry supports.
Antisemitism is worsening in Australia. In my view, it has certainly worsened since Bondi and the legislative responses it provoked. A significant part of the growing antisemitism is attributable to an expansion of the definition of antisemitism and the exceptionalisation of it, as well as a continuing and growing tendency to treat the Australian Jewish community and Israel as the same thing—as indivisible—and to treat criticism of one as criticism of the other. The responses that are then provoked by that process in turn are interacting with longstanding antisemitic tropes and worsening antisemitism. When antisemitic attacks occur, they are used as evidence that more exceptionalisation is necessary, that the much wider views and definitions of antisemitism must be right and that the more draconian responses previously sought must also be right. The idea that we can legislate our way out of antisemitism is pure idiocy. In that respect, the inquiry provided a forum for the testing of key narratives, contentions and demands of pro-Israel forces in Australia insofar as they relate to antisemitism, or alleged antisemitism in some cases, noting that the definition is contentious.
One of the hallmarks of the inquiry was the care we took to seek evidence. We were not content with relying on often-cited numbers presented without evidence or research. The longer we looked, the more suspect many of the figures presented on antisemitic attacks and incidents appeared to be. For example, we have heard a lot from the Opposition about the University of Sydney being a hotbed of antisemitism, and one of the inquiry’s terms of reference specifically related to that. Unlike the Federal inquiry into antisemitism on campus, the committee drilled down and asked universities for data on proved instances, which did not ultimately prove the truth of the wild assertions about the so-called antisemitic encampments and so forth that we so often heard about in this House. We also took extensive in-camera evidence from the police and found that large numbers of their recorded database of hate crimes and hate incidents were nothing of the sort; they captured large numbers of entirely legitimate pro-Palestine material and political communications and the like.
As a member of the inquiry, I sought to probe the important line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. An indication of its importance is that it emerged as a central issue in so many of the recommendations made by the Federal Government’s envoy on antisemitism, Ms Jillian Segal, who gave evidence at the inquiry. Its centrality in Ms Segal’s report in a way was belied by claims from many witnesses in the inquiry, particularly those of a Zionist perspective, that Israel is a second-order issue when it comes to antisemitism in Australia. Yet when pressed, many of the examples they raised—perhaps most—and recommendations they sought indeed related to Israel.
The evidence in fact made clear the absolute centrality in Zionist advocacy in Australia on antisemitism issues of protecting the State of Israel from criticism and conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. In my view and many others, not least non-Zionist Jewish groups that gave evidence in the inquiry, that approach actually worsens antisemitism. However, I stress that is not how many of the prominent Jewish Zionist voices in Australia see it. They have legitimate good faith differences of opinion. By and large, as I understand their intent, they see many, if not most, of the substantial criticisms of Israel as reflecting or driving antisemitism, not reflecting serious underlying misconduct by Israel.
That, however—and this was included in the inquiry—rarely engages with the huge body of international law and findings of human rights organisations that prove Israel is an extreme outlier. In my view this conflation can contribute to a situation where responsibility for Israel’s conduct is wrongly imputed to the Australian Jewish community, which is a view that should never occur. That was also a view, it appears, the Bondi terrorists had come to, with the police fact sheet recording they had made a video stating their intention to attack “Zionists” and recent reporting suggesting they had become radicalised due to the destruction of Gaza.
Australian Jews are allowed to be as Zionist as they wish and as supportive of Israel as they wish. However, the only people responsible for the actions of the State of Israel are the officials of that state. We face a complex international reality. Israel is increasingly a far-right state, led by an indicted war criminal with expansionist, aggressive and apartheid policies. Its actions directly correspond to increases in antisemitism around the world. Criticism and resistance are growing. That will continue, and that is entirely appropriate. That leads to the situation where determined defenders of Israel seek to characterise legitimate criticism as antisemitism, to justify censorious laws that ban expressions of legitimate political opinion. The only alternative is to acknowledge the difficult truth that drives the growing storm of criticism of the ethnocracy that is Israel.
I do not say all of that to lecture Zionist members of the Jewish community and their organisations, or to tell them to be different. Many Jewish people are Zionists, and that will continue to be the case. They have thought out their positions and have longstanding cultural and social connections. They have every right to establish groups and demand pro-Israel policies from our Government. But the take‑home for me from the evidence in the inquiry—especially from the Jewish Council, but also from others—is that we, as political leaders, need to exercise restraint, care and responsibility in how we talk about and address these matters and how we respond to demands from Zionist groups. We should treat these groups as important voices and witnesses on antisemitism, but subcontracting the development of State policy to them can result in counterproductive policies focused on the criticism of Israel. That, in my view, will make antisemitism worse.
We should not treat the Jewish community as a monolith, as one single group with the same opinions and traits. Indeed, that very idea is central in so many antisemitic tropes, such as the ongoing evil and pernicious conspiracy theory of Jewish power, that Jews are a cabal who control the world and that it could hardly control the world as a group unless it was a monolith. As I said, politicians should not be saying, “The Jewish community thinks this,” or, “A member of the Jewish community would be offended by this or that.” Even when that politician thinks they are backing in the Jewish community, what they actually reinforcing are antisemitic tropes. Also, they are often doing it in the most controversial areas of political concern.
For example, after the Bondi shooting, protests were effectively banned. In a very real sense, that was done explicitly on the basis it was necessary to protect the Jewish community in the wake of Bondi. Yet many of the Jewish witnesses at the inquiry were attendees at pro‑Palestine protests, and those protests were not aimed at the Jewish community. To the extent that was done in the name of Jewish people, it was an insult to those who attended the protests. But, more importantly, it reinforced antisemitic tropes and left the Jewish community exposed to the views and actions of marginal, hateful people who then expressed the view that Jewish people were responsible for the taking away of their rights.
The same package of reforms took away firearms from people. I was shocked by the rise of antisemitic comments on social media that blamed the Jewish community for those reforms. That is what we facilitate when we wholly accept and legitimatise language and narratives that stereotype the Jewish community. Leaders need to exercise responsibility and restraint to not treat the Jewish community as a monolith, to not stereotype the Jewish community as entirely supportive of Israel and Zionism. We need to acknowledge the diversity of their views. The stereotyping and conflation of Jews with Israel contributes to rising antisemitism and pits communities against each other. That is particularly acute when the Government makes laws that are controversial and take rights away from individuals. Politicians do it through narratives that use Jewish people as a justification and make them a scapegoat for unpopular changes.
Another important topic of the inquiry was the importance of dialogue at a community level to build shared understanding between two communities. My view is—and I put this to a number of witnesses—that should undoubtedly be a two-way street, with non-Jewish communities gaining an understanding of Jewish history and why the tropes of antisemitism are false and also why Israel is so important to so many Jewish people. Likewise, Jewish people could gain an understanding of Palestinian history. I explored with witnesses whether that might reduce fear levels and comfort members of the Jewish community if they understood the actual meaning and intent of particular slogans such as “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada”, and the reasons for demands to recognise a Palestinian state.
This process is particularly important in light of the conflation I have discussed. Fear levels in the Jewish community are higher if some members wrongly interpret certain conduct as antisemitic. A wrong interpretation might not have been made if the two communities had a more shared understanding of their histories. This view is reinforced when one considers how common certain very extreme views of history of both groups are. It was a worthwhile inquiry. It was a shame in some ways that we could not complete it. I hope the evidence will be of assistance to the royal commission.
Public hearing of the year long NSW Inquiry into antisemitism28.
Fast forward to 2:35:30 for evidence from Professor Stuart Rees AM and Dr. Peter Slezak. Full transcript of the session can be found here (p28 for Rees/Slezak).29
Professor Rees also made a submission to the inquiry in 14th March here.30
Transcript of Professor Rees’s statement:
Dear Committee Members,
I write to you as a former Professor of Social Work & Social Policy at the University of Sydney, former Director of that university’s Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies and as the founder, inaugural Director of the Sydney Peace Foundation.
My limited observations of anti-Semitism stand in total contrast to anti-Palestinianism, Islamophobia and attacks on Arab Australians. For example, in over twenty years of teaching at Sydney University I witnessed numerous occasions when students from Hebrew Studies attempted to break up seminars dealing with the world wide Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement on behalf of Palestinians’ rights to self determination, to harass a distinguished Palestinian doctor invited to address the medical faculty. We tolerated such prejudice, such verbal abuse but now, if there is the slightest hint of criticism of the state of Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians, then the lobby whose identity depends on claims about anti-Semitism, starts to grossly exaggerate claims about threats to Australian citizens of Jewish heritage.
For years, Australia has witnessed a complete imbalance. Just because the Zionist lobby is powerful does not mean to say that anti-Semitism is widespread. Just because Palestinian Australians have not had political clout, it can be alleged that Islamophobia and anti-Palestinianism does not exist.
Paradodoxically, feelings about anti-Semitism become apparent in relation to attacks against Palestine and Palestinians. It’s as though the Zionist pro Israel narrative must always dominate and any alternative resistance to this one sided version of history can be dubbed anti-Semitism. This is an appalling concoction, now even fostered by an anti-Semitism envoy Ms. Segal.
Let me explain just one piece of history. In 2003 when the distinguished and highly regarded Palestinian academic and politician Dr. Hanan Ashrawi was chosen as that year’s recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize, the Zionist lobby used every opportunity to deride, attack and tell blatant lies about Ashrawi. Establishment figures. members of the Federal government, leading lawyers and journalists from right wing newspapers joined the onslaught against Ashrawi and against me as Director of the Peace Foundation. The mere presence of Ashrawi in Australia allegedly showed that a terrorist would be in our midst, that Australian citizens’ security was threatened, that anti-Semitism was being encouraged. This distasteful, dangerous episode was concocted as evidence of anti-Semitism. That was a fallacy. On the contrary, support for Ashrawi ensured that almost for the first time in Australia the human rights of Palestinians could be discussed openly. Such discussion was telling Australian politicians and media outlets that the usual Israeli narrative that Jewish citizens were always the victims was false.
More recently I have observed Sydney University students in their pro Palestine encampment on the grounds of that university. I interviewed numerous students whose dismay at the continuing death and destruction in Gaza motivated them to protest by camping out in dire weather conditions. I witnessed the camping students including Jewish students in seminars about human rights, peace and justice. This had nothing to do with anti-Semitism yet the visibility of Palestinian flags, the speaking, as I did, about the unimaginable cruelty to the people of Gaza did threaten the usual domination of the Zionist narrative that Jewish people were under attack. Nothing could have been further from the truth, yet a fearful university management complied with the lobby that to bolster its identity claimed that anti-Semitism was rife on Sydney’s and other campuses. Protests about the slaughter of doctors, nurses, cleaners, ambulance drivers and journalists in Gaza and the destruction of almost every hospital in that narrow strip of land are entirely justified. How in heaven’s name can such protests about a genocide be called anti-Semitic?
I acknowledge that Jewish people may feel threatened by widespread support for Palestinians, threatened even by the appearance of Palestinian flags and other symbolism but in my forty years of work and leadership on the Sydney University campus, including four as a member of the governing body the Senate, such threats were never brought to my attention.
The current repetition that anti-Semitism is rife cross Australia looks like a self fulfilling prophecy, an alleged threat to social cohesion has become a deliberate distraction from the genocide in Gaza and in the West Bank.
Does anti-Semitism exist? Did Humpty Dumpty tell Alice, ‘Things mean what I say they mean.’
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Stuart Rees AM
Professor Emeritus, University of Sydney,
END PAPERS
Recommended Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 substack articles related to this one
In Australia the Government had instigated two in-depth inquiries into the circumstances of the Bondi killings, and two sets of law changes. On top of that, a year-long NSW State Parliament inquiry into antisemitism was just completing.
But it wasn’t enough. Pursued by an aggressive pro-Israel lobby fueled by the Murdoch Press the Prime Minister has been shamed into launching another Royal Commission - specifically focused on “antisemitism”.
This is politically motivated, manipulative and totally wrong. This article explores why and the elephant in the room that MUST be included in any inquiry.
In the wake of a national tragedy in Australia with the Bondi terrorist murders this article looks at the push for Draconian measures to “address antisemitism” and calls for a Royal Commission in Australia.
A Royal Commission is required. Into the forces that have been driving an agenda for Israel for decades in Australia now marshalled on the tails of the Bondi horror to bring anti-Israel sentiment back into line.
On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I attended a small memorial in Düsseldorf built into the railway tracks that once carried Jewish people to Auschwitz. I had intended to write only about remembrance. Instead, I found myself confronting how Holocaust memory is being politically exploited — in direct contradiction to the guidance of Holocaust institutions themselves. This article examines where the moral boundaries of remembrance lie, who sets them, and why “never again” must mean never again for anyone.
This article maps the global coordinating bodies behind pro-Israel lobbying and their direct Australian equivalents.
It explains:
The different organisations involved with a profile of each group
Why the IHRA definition is politically contested
How anti-Zionism is being reframed as racism
Why this matters for the Royal Commission and free speech
This is a definitional explainer, fully sourced, written to help Australians understand the different groups in the pro-Israel lobby and follow the process of the Royal Commission with context to commentary.
This article examines:
the announcement that the attacks on Jewish property orchestrated in Australia in 2024 were by Iran
questioning this narrative - and the actual motives for another actor
Sydney Opera House Audio falsely captioned by Australian pro-Israel extremist group AJA (first published Feb 2 2024) a look at the significant impacts on Australia’s reputation and utilisation against pro-Palestinian protestors:
NSW Police reveal not said
NOTHING to do with main pro-Palestine protestors (ABC Interview)
The legal difference in using the term “gas” never mind moral
Impacts of replaying this over and over and reinforcement of the link with protestors
The implementation of doxxing legislation after a Whatsapp group showing a highly organised campaign to cancel a pro-Palestine author was revealed.
This was heavily pushed by the pro-Israel lobby - who had doxxed One Nation themselves in 1998 in a more serious way with the release of personally identifying information.
A complete index of ALL Sleekit Scotsman articles, categorised, hyperlinked and with descriptions for easy browsing.
Sleekit Library
·
November 8, 2025
This is a categorised view of Sleekit Scotsman articles, with summary overviews and links to articles themselves. You’ll find subsets of these listed as relevant at the back of Sleekit Scotsman articles for further related reading.
First published: 14 May 2024
Last Update: 19 May 2024
Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 articles are updated periodically to add latest information on the subject of the article for relevance
Updates
19 May 2024: added APPENDIX B: Public hearing – Inquiry into antisemitism in New South Wales – 16 June 2025 (Youtube)
15 May 2024: reorganised section order
14 May 2024: updated internal URLs
Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 also publishes on a number of social media channels - please also consider subscribing to these:
✍️ Substack SleekitScotsman: this publication
📸 Instagram: @sleekit.scotsman https://www.instagram.com/sleekit.scotsman/
🧶 Threads @Sleekit.Scotsman: https://www.threads.net/@sleekit.scotsman
🦋 Bluesky: @sleekitscotsman.bsky.social
⬆️ Upscrolled @sleekitscotsman: https://share.upscrolled.com/en/user/e6b453ed-1273-458d-84c7-12703f1bd871/
👤 Facebook @sleekit.scotsman2 : https://www.facebook.com/sleekit.scotsman2
🎶 TikTok: @sleekit.scotsman: https://www.tiktok.com/@sleekit.scotsman
📺 YouTube @SleekitScotsman : https://www.youtube.com/@SleekitScotsman
🆇 X (formerly Twitter) @SleekitScotsman : https://twitter.com/SleekitScotsman
👾 Discord @sleekitscotsman: https://discord.gg/q5RFEpaCQp
🔗🌳 Linktr.ee: https://linktr.ee/sleekitscotsman
I am an autistic Scottish writer passionate about human rights issues and exposing Government corruption. I have a high attention to detail and can often spot connections and insights others may not see.
✍️ I’m an independent writer on social justice issues. As an autistic person, I have high attention to detail and try to put this in my work and though it does take me a long time to produce I do hope it is useful. 😊
☕️ My research, articles and memes are free but if you like my work please consider buying me a coffee on my Ko-Fi page - really appreciated!
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
AIJAC Instagram video 27 Jan 2026:
Michael West Media, 7 May 2026, “Is the Bondi Commission becoming a farce?“ -
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.