Having heard mountains of evidence, the antisemitism royal commission now faces a huge challenge

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)

Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has ended its public hearings after months of evidence about antisemitism, extremism and the Bondi Beach terror attack.

The commission was established in January following the attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi on December 14 2025, which killed 15 people.

But its task is much broader than investigating just that attack.

It has been asked to examine the extent and causes of antisemitism in Australia. This includes extremism and radicalisation, and how antisemitism affects Australian Jews. It must also examine what governments and institutions can do about it.

The extensive, wide-ranging evidence has revealed a complicated, alarming story about antisemitism and hate in Australia’s institutions, workplaces and everyday life.

Who has the commission heard from?

The commission opened in February and has since held nine blocks of public hearings between May and August.

By its final block, it had heard from 340 witnesses and received more than 20,000 submissions.

The witnesses reflect the commission’s broad task. Australian Jews, including students, academics, teachers, healthcare workers, artists and many others, have described their experiences of antisemitism. University leaders, politicians, community and religious organisations, police, intelligence officials and experts on extremism and social cohesion have also given evidence.

Some evidence about Bondi has been heard privately. This is because it could affect national security or the criminal case against the surviving alleged attacker.

Broadly speaking, the evidence has been about three main themes: how institutions have responded to antisemitism, whether Bondi could have been prevented and how Australia can better protect social cohesion.

1. Institutional responses

Australian Jews have reported abuse and exclusion in universities, schools, workplaces, healthcare settings, cultural organisations, and online.

Security has become part of everyday life for some Jewish communities. Melbourne’s Bialik College told the commission its security costs had increased by 230% since 2022.

The commission heard about children being excluded from birthday parties and Australian Jews becoming less comfortable openly expressing their Jewish identity.

Based on my research on hate and extremism, one key factor behind the discrimination reported by Australian Jews is the conflation of Jewish identity with the policies of Israel and the war in Gaza.

Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinians should not be considered in themselves antisemitic. But holding all Australian Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government is part of the problem described in the hearings.

Institutions have often struggled to respond to these experiences. One Jewish academic at the University of Wollongong received a threatening six page antisemitic letter. He found there was no specific university process for reporting it. Instead, he had to use a general workplace health form.

But another issue has proved even harder for many institutions: what exactly should they treat as antisemitism?

There is disagreement about where criticism of Israel or Zionism ends and antisemitism begins. The commission uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.

Some witnesses support this approach. Others, including the Jewish Council of Australia, worry it could restrict legitimate criticism of Israel.

Research from our Tackling Hate Lab that I presented at the hearings shows how the conflict has affected different communities.

In short, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim hate increased significantly after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 2023 and the ensuing war in Gaza. The Bondi attack further exacerbated both types of hate.

2. Could Bondi have been prevented?

This is a different question, requiring different solutions.

The commission has examined what security and intelligence agencies knew about the Bondi attackers and what they did with that information.

It has looked at how agencies share intelligence, firearms licensing, and security at the Hanukkah event. It also considered whether authorities had the powers and resources needed to intervene.

It has examined radicalisation: the process through which people and groups can adopt increasingly extreme ideas and, in some cases, become willing to use violence.

Evidence has explored the role of online environments and ideological and religious influences.

The commission has also examined early intervention and deradicalisation programs, which aim to reach people at risk of moving towards extremist violence.

The hearings have raised questions about possible gaps in Australia’s security system.

But they have not yet established that a particular intelligence or security failure caused the Bondi attack.

That distinction matters. The final report will need to establish what authorities could reasonably have known and done before the attack.

3. How should Australia respond while maintaining social cohesion?

The evidence gathered during the public hearings points to three different levels of prevention, known as the public health model of countering violent extremism.

First, at the broader social level, social cohesion describes how well people from different groups live together, trust institutions and accept common democratic rules. Stronger relationships between communities, education and better institutional responses may help reduce anti-Jewish hate, anti-Muslim hate, and other forms of hate targeting marginalised groups.

Second, when people start moving towards extremism, we need more targeted programs to prevent a trajectory towards violence.

Third, when someone is already radicalised and presents a credible threat of terrorist violence, intelligence gathering, information sharing, threat assessment and police intervention become crucial.

These approaches can also affect each other. Some security measures can undermine social cohesion if they alienate communities or the wider public and reduce trust in institutions.

The challenge is therefore to match the response to the problem, while ensuring attempts to tackle radicalisation and forms of hate such as antisemitism do not create more hostility or division between Australian communities.

The commission itself has operated in this polarised environment.

Some people giving evidence have faced abuse and intimidation. Indigenous academic Marcia Langton, for example, described receiving racist abuse after publicly supporting Australian Jews.

More than a dozen Bondi survivors and eyewitnesses were granted anonymity to protect them from further trauma and threats.

The ongoing criminal case has created another constraint. This is because the commission must investigate what happened at Bondi without releasing evidence that could prejudice the trial.

What happens next?

The commission must now bring all this evidence together.

It has already released an interim report with 14 recommendations, all accepted by the federal government. Its final report was due by December 14, one year after the Bondi attack, but Commissioner Virginia Bell has applied for a four-day extension.

The key questions will be what Australia learns from the evidence, and whether it can develop different responses for different problems.

It will be up to the government to decide whether, and how to implement the recommendations. This will be the real test of whether the royal commission can lead to change and help prevent future attacks like Bondi against Jewish or other communities.

But at the very least, it has already contributed significantly to public debate and awareness of hate and extremism in Australia.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/26/having-heard-mountains-of-evidence-the-antisemitism-royal-commission-now-faces-a-huge-challenge/