Throughout 2025, I served on Australia’s first parliamentary inquiry into society-wide antisemitism. When the Bondi terrorist atrocity occurred, we had yet to finalise a report, and I supported the decision to simply send our evidence to the Royal Commission.

A notable feature of our inquiry was the care taken to test evidence and contentions through robust questioning.

This included testing key witnesses vigorously as to the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, and on other key contentions and demands of Jewish representative groups of a Zionist perspective.

This didn’t please all the witnesses, for example, it led Lynda Ben-Menashe, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, to later publicly label me as “NSW’s Gaslighter-in-Chief”. This was for daring to even suggest that a wrongful conflation of Israel and the Australian Jewish community could be driving antisemitism.

In my limited observations so far of the Royal Commission, this degree of scrutiny seems not to be present, particularly when

witnesses have sought to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

The evidence in our inquiry made clear the absolute centrality in Zionist advocacy in Australia of this conflation, which is no new phenomenon, as former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban famously said of his work, “the chief task of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all”.

This conflation, however, seems to be worsening antisemitism.

Critising Israel not antisemitic
The Jewish Council of Australia spoke in their evidence of “a politicised and divisive discourse which seeks to label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, thereby increasing antisemitism by linking Jewish identities to the state of Israel and its human rights abuses”.

A central insight I took from the inquiry is that political leaders need to exercise restraint and responsibility in not treating the Jewish community as a monolith (itself an antisemitic trope), but also in how we respond to political demands from pro-Israel Jewish representative groups.

We should undoubtedly treat these groups as important voices and witnesses on antisemitism and recognise their right to lobby, but if we subcontract the development of policy to them,

counterproductive policies focused on criticism of Israel will inevitably be the result.

This has certainly been the case with the appointment of Jillian Segal, someone, as I put to her in our inquiry, with no obvious expertise on the core question of how to reduce racism across a community.

Long before Bondi, Segal played a central role in demanding the banning of pro-Palestine protests from the CBDs of major cities, and she undoubtedly contributed to the divisive and unconstitutional post-Bondi ban on protests.

I challenged Segal in the inquiry on whether this demand was actually pernicious, because such bans would be unconstitutional and calling for them created fear and suggested the Jewish community was deliberately not being protected. She unsurprisingly disagreed.

Shared understanding missing
Another topic at the inquiry was the importance of dialogue at a community level, building shared understanding between communities sitting on each side of the conflict.

I put to a number of witnesses that perhaps this should be a two-way street.

On the one hand, non-Jewish communities are gaining an understanding of Jewish history, why Israel is so important to so many Jewish people and why the tropes of antisemitism are false.

On the other, Jewish people gaining an understanding of Palestinian history, which perhaps might reduce perceptions of antisemitism arising from Palestinian activism.

Segal was asked in this regard whether, “there might be a role for education within the Jewish community about the history of the Palestinian people” and tartly responded, “education is always valuable, but the focus of the plan is protecting Australians from hate, not asking vulnerable communities to adjust their sensitivity to it”.

Similar evidence emerged from Joshua Kirsch, a Jewish community advocate, of whom I asked:

“Do you think there are ways to deepen community understanding on both ‘sides’, if I can use that term, such that there can be a greater alignment of understandings, or greater understanding of the perspective of the other? We’ve heard evidence about perceptions of antisemitism having a pernicious influence themselves, and people interpreting things in a genuine way as antisemitism that is not intended as antisemitism is intended, for example, things that Palestinians might say about their situation.”

He answered, “I think my priority as a Jewish person, and I think as a person who is involved with Jewish organisations, is not to educate Jewish people about why their feelings are not valid.”

Indeed, what became clear in the evidence was that many of the political demands of pro-Israel groups actively

prevent the development of some semblance of a shared understanding of history.

This came up directly in the inquiry when I questioned Waverley Mayor Will Nemesh, whose council has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which suggests that it is antisemitic to label Israel a “racist endeavour”.

“If you had a Palestinian resident who came to you and said, ‘I was expelled in 1967 from what is now Israel. I’ve been denied a right of return. I think Israel is a racist endeavour,’ is that resident an antisemite?”

Namesh replied, “There are strong views in terms of Israel and Palestine. What is crucial is understanding there are two peoples and both claim connection to the land. I think both are very valid”. 

It seemed to me that the IHRA definition could, in that public exchange, hardly be defended, because to do so would have been to directly and blatantly deny Palestinian history and identity to an absurd degree.

Yet inevitably, it will continue to be advocated for by many Jewish representative groups.

Zionist denials
In that vein, prominent Australian Zionist Alex Ryvchin attended the inquiry and directly denied that any ethnic cleansing had occurred during the formation of Israel.

A level of denialism, contradicted by the historical record, that is difficult to square with a dedicated commitment to inter-community dialogue. The evidence in our inquiry convinced me that ensuring our Jewish community is not conflated with Israel is central to dealing with growing antisemitism.

Callow future Australian political leaders might return from Israel impressed after free study tours, but the difficult, albeit obvious, truth is that Israel is an Apartheid state, founded on ethnic cleansing, a premeditated determination to create a Jewish super majority and then a denial of the right of return.

The world’s expert human rights organisations do not have this wrong.

These facts, the criminality of the destruction of Gaza and Israel’s increasingly expansionist tendencies, mean Israel will continue to attract a growing storm of criticism.

But Australia is a free society, and our Jewish community is allowed to be as supportive of Israel and Zionism as they wish. No other community in Australia is expected to distance itself from a country with which they identify, no matter how illiberal and criminal its government is, and it should never be demanded of any part of our Jewish community.

Ultimately, the only people responsible for the actions of the state of Israel are the officials of that state.

While most people will agree on this statement, the difficulty is found in how broader narratives and policies, including the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, impact across the community.

It is in this fiendishly difficult context that we look to Royal Commissioner Bell to chart a way out of the downward and divisive spiral we seem to be in.

She truly will need the wisdom of Solomon to unpick this knot of growing antisemitism in Australia.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It has no place here.”

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

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It has no place here.”

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

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Andrew Brown

Australia is being told it faces an unprecedented wave of antisemitism — a crisis requiring extraordinary measures, including a Royal Commission. But police data, court findings, and parliamentary evidence tell a very different story.

This is not a story about denying antisemitism. It is about how inflated claims are being used to silence criticism of Israel, criminalise protest, and narrow democratic space.

Australia is being told it faces a moral emergency so grave it justifies extraordinary measures.

A sweeping wave of antisemitism, unprecedented in scale, is said to be engulfing the country, demanding heightened policing, vast public funding, and now a Commonwealth Royal Commission.

A manufactured narrative?

The claim has been repeated so often it has hardened into common sense. But when examined against evidence rather than repetition, the crisis begins to dissolve. What remains is not a surge in antisemitic violence, but the manufacture of a narrative

and its rapid elevation into state doctrine.

This is not denial of antisemitism. Antisemitism is real, dangerous, and must always be confronted where it occurs.

What is being challenged here is the scale, the framing, and the political use of the claim. When slogans replace evidence, the alleged crisis collapses.

Start with the numbers. Australians are repeatedly told there were around 1200 antisemitic incidents in New South Wales and more than 2000 nationally. These figures are treated as settled fact by politicians and the media.

They are nothing of the sort.

They are not police statistics. They are not court outcomes.

They are self-reported incident logs compiled by advocacy organisations using expansive definitions that collapse political speech into racial hatred. Protest slogans, Palestinian flags, stickers, online criticism of Israel, opposition to Zionism, and support for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions are all counted alongside genuinely hateful conduct.

Dissent counted as hate
Once dissent is counted as hate, the number grows and its meaning evaporates.

When these claims were tested against formal state processes, the picture changed radically. Evidence to the New South Wales Upper House antisemitism inquiry showed that only around 13 to 14 incidents met the threshold for potential criminal prosecution.

New South Wales Police did not dispute this.

From 1200 incidents to low double digit chargeable cases is not a rounding error. It is a categorical difference. If Australia were facing a genuine wave of antisemitic violence, police data and court proceedings would reflect it. They do not.

“Australia is told [of] an unprecedented wave of antisemitism, a crisis requiring extraordinary measures, including a Royal Commission. But police data, court findings, and parliamentary evidence tell a very different story”#auspol https://t.co/ooKp2MqJz0

— 💧Michael West (@MichaelWestBiz) January 10, 2026

Fake terror plots
The panic has been sustained by a series of high profile incidents that do not survive scrutiny.

In Sydney, the so called caravan plot and multiple graffiti and vehicle fire cases were initially framed as antisemitic attacks. Later reporting revealed hoaxes, staged events, or criminal activity unrelated to antisemitism as a social phenomenon.

Corrections arrived quietly, long after the alarm had done its work.

The Melbourne Synagogue fire was, we are told, the work of Iran, so it too cannot be seen as a result of local antisemitism.

More damning still was evidence from police inquiries that hundreds of antisemitic incident reports were generated by a single individual, identified as a Jewish teenager who made more than 500 calls alleging threats and attacks. These reports were logged, counted, and publicly relied upon as indicators of a statewide and national surge before being identified as false or self-generated.

This is not a footnote. It exposes a systemic failure.

A reporting framework that allows one person to materially inflate incident figures is not measuring social harm. It is manufacturing it. When that data is amplified by media and cited by politicians as “proof” of crisis, the error ceases to be technical. It becomes political.

Political amplification has been decisive. Senior leaders talked up early claims before facts were settled. Media followed. Initial allegations raced into headlines. Clarifications barely whispered.

Public memory retained the fear, not the correction.

What is unfolding follows a pattern of “manufacturing consent” described decades ago by Noam Chomsky who observed that modern democracies rarely suppress dissent through force. Instead, they manage perception by narrowing the range of acceptable opinion while preserving the appearance of open debate.

Australians are still permitted to speak. They are encouraged to condemn antisemitism in the abstract.

But questioning the scale of the alleged crisis, interrogating the numbers, or insisting on a distinction between hatred of Jews and criticism of Israel is treated as suspect. This is not censorship. It is calibration.

‘Fake protesters’ narrative

The consequences have been most visible in the treatment of protest. Australia has seen one of the largest sustained protest movements in its modern history, with weekly demonstrations in support of Palestine drawing tens of thousands.

Jewish Australians march openly.

Jewish speakers address crowds. Jewish banners appear alongside Palestinian ones. The focus is ceasefire and accountability.

Yet these protests are relentlessly framed as incubators of antisemitism.

The misrepresentation following the October 8 gathering near the Sydney Opera House was emblematic. Claims of genocidal chanting were broadcast nationally and internationally. Those present publicly disputed the account.

The disputed version was amplified. The disavowals were marginalised. A contested moment was frozen at its most inflammatory interpretation and reused as an origin myth.

Sydney Harbour Bridge propaganda
The fracture became impossible to ignore after the Harbour Bridge march, one of the largest demonstrations in Australian history. No violence. No arrests. Jewish Australians marching openly.

Yet the event was branded a hate march by the government’s antisemitism envoy.

If a peaceful protest of that scale can be declared hate without evidence, antisemitism is no longer being identified. It is being declared. And once it can be declared, it can be weaponised.

That weaponisation has a clear objective: to shut down criticism of Israel.

As Israel’s war in Gaza has intensified and the occupation of the West Bank has deepened, the international conversation has shifted toward allegations of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes.

Rather than answer those charges, Israel’s defenders have sought to redefine the debate itself. The problem is no longer what Israel is doing. The problem is those who are talking about it.

Criticism of Israel is reframed as antisemitism. Opposition to Zionism is reframed as racial hatred. Support for Palestinian rights is reframed as extremism. Pro-Palestinian protest is recast as a domestic security problem rather than a human rights movement responding to mass civilian harm.

The endgame
This brings us to the endgame. The government’s mandate for a Commonwealth Royal Commission into antisemitism has now been released. It does not ask whether a nationwide antisemitism wave exists. It assumes one.

From its opening premises, the mandate proceeds on the basis that antisemitism is prevalent across Australian society and institutions and that protest, education, and political expression warrant scrutiny. These are not hypotheses to be tested. They are conclusions already reached.

This is not a fact-finding exercise. It is an implementation exercise.

Many Jewish Australians reject this strategy and stand openly with Palestinians. The issue is not Jewish identity. It is the instrumentalisation of antisemitism claims to silence dissent, suppress protest, and shield a foreign state from accountability.

Antisemitism must always be confronted where it exists.

But evidence must precede power.

Anything less is theatre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz