Royal Commissions are reserved for our gravest national failures. That we now require one to investigate antisemitism should alarm every Australian.
For decades Australia prided itself on being one of the safest places in the world for Jewish people. That reputation has been shattered.
Following Hamas' barbaric massacre of 7 October 2023, Australia witnessed an explosion of antisemitic incidents unlike anything seen in generations. Jewish schools required armed security. Synagogues were vandalised. Businesses were boycotted because they were Jewish-owned. University campuses became hostile environments. Protest marches featured slogans that many interpreted as glorifying terrorism or advocating violence.
Then came the unimaginable—the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi that claimed innocent Australian lives and finally forced the nation to confront what had been growing in plain sight. In response, the Federal Government established the Royal Commission to examine both antisemitism and the broader question of social cohesion.(Royal Commission on Antisemitism)
The Commission has an enormous responsibility.
But before reinventing the wheel, it should ask a simple question:
What have other democratic nations done better?
No Western country escaped the surge in antisemitism after October 7. Yet some governments responded far more decisively than Australia. Their experiences provide valuable lessons.
Germany – Zero Tolerance Means Exactly That
No country carries a greater historical responsibility than Germany.
Perhaps because of that history, German leaders moved quickly to make clear that support for Hamas or antisemitic intimidation would not be tolerated.
Authorities:
prosecuted incitement and glorification of terrorism;
banned demonstrations where organisers promoted Hamas or celebrated the October 7 attacks;
increased police protection for Jewish schools and synagogues;
strengthened surveillance of extremist organisations; and
reinforced the message that antisemitism is incompatible with Germany's constitutional values.
Germany understood something Australia seemed slow to appreciate:
Freedom of speech does not include freedom to intimidate or glorify terrorism.
Austria – Education and Enforcement Together
Austria adopted a different but equally instructive approach.
Rather than relying solely on criminal law, it strengthened its National Strategy Against Antisemitism by combining:
criminal enforcement;
improved protection for Jewish institutions;
Holocaust education;
monitoring of extremist activity; and
coordinated government leadership.
Austria recognised that education matters—but education alone cannot stop organised hatred.
The law must also have teeth.
France – Protecting Public Order
France has long struggled with antisemitism and therefore recognised the danger early.
Following October 7, French authorities:
prohibited demonstrations celebrating Hamas;
intervened quickly when protests crossed into support for terrorism;
deployed thousands of police to protect Jewish institutions;
publicly condemned antisemitism from the highest levels of government.
France still experienced significant antisemitism.
But it drew a clear line between peaceful political protest and public support for terrorist violence.
That distinction matters.
United Kingdom – Treating Antisemitism as a Security Issue
Britain also saw a dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents.
Its response focused heavily on security.
Government funding increased protection for Jewish schools, synagogues and community organisations.
Counter-terrorism agencies intensified monitoring of extremist groups, while political leaders repeatedly reinforced that Jewish citizens should never have to fear practising their faith.
Again, Britain has not eliminated antisemitism.
But it demonstrated that governments have an obligation to protect vulnerable communities rather than merely condemn attacks after they occur.
Australia's Response
Australia certainly was not inactive.
Governments eventually strengthened hate speech legislation, increased security funding and established the Royal Commission after the Bondi attack. The Commission's interim report has already recommended stronger counter-terrorism coordination and additional measures to improve security.(Royal Commission on Antisemitism)
However, many Australians believe these measures came far too late.
While other countries acted quickly to define clear boundaries, Australia appeared hesitant.
Many observers believe authorities were often reluctant to enforce existing laws against intimidation, public incitement or support for terrorist organisations. Universities struggled to protect Jewish students. Police responses appeared inconsistent between jurisdictions. Political leadership sometimes seemed more concerned with avoiding controversy than confronting extremism.
Whether one agrees entirely with that assessment or not, one fact is undeniable:
Australia has reached the point where a Royal Commission has become necessary.
That alone suggests our earlier response was inadequate.
The Common Lessons
Looking across Germany, Austria, France and Britain, several themes emerge.
Successful governments generally:
acted early rather than waiting for violence to escalate;
enforced existing criminal laws consistently;
distinguished legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy from antisemitic hatred;
protected Jewish communities through visible security;
prosecuted support for terrorist organisations;
demonstrated clear political leadership;
treated organised antisemitism as both a law-enforcement and national security issue.
None of these countries solved the problem.
But all demonstrated that governments are not powerless.
Leadership matters.
Recommendations for Australia's Royal Commission
The Royal Commission has an opportunity not merely to document failures but to recommend reforms that restore confidence and prevent history repeating itself.
Based on international experience, I believe it should consider the following recommendations.
1. Adopt Genuine Zero Tolerance
Public support for designated terrorist organisations should always attract swift legal consequences.
There should be no ambiguity.
2. Treat Organised Antisemitism as a National Security Issue
Where extremist networks coordinate intimidation or violence, responsibility should rest not only with police but also with ASIO, the AFP and national security agencies.
3. Enforce Existing Laws Consistently
Australia already possesses many of the necessary laws.
The challenge has too often been inconsistent enforcement.
Justice delayed quickly becomes permission granted.
4. Strengthen Visa and Immigration Controls
Support for terrorist organisations or repeated incitement to hatred should carry serious immigration consequences for non-citizens, including visa cancellation where appropriate.
5. Hold Universities Accountable
Every Australian student should be able to attend university without intimidation.
Universities that repeatedly fail to provide a safe learning environment should face meaningful financial and regulatory consequences.
6. Expand Protection for Jewish Institutions
Security funding for schools, synagogues and community centres should become permanent rather than reactive.
Citizens should not need to fear attending school or worship.
7. Improve Education
Holocaust education remains essential.
But it should be accompanied by broader education about democratic values, religious tolerance, freedom of expression and the dangers of political extremism.
8. Improve Intelligence Sharing
ASIO, the AFP, state police and community organisations should operate through integrated intelligence-sharing arrangements to identify emerging extremist threats before violence occurs.
9. Increase Institutional Accountability
Government agencies, universities and police should publicly report on progress implementing the Commission's recommendations.
Transparency builds confidence.
10. Protect Freedom of Speech While Opposing Hatred
Australians must remain free to criticise governments—including Israel's.
But there is a fundamental distinction between political disagreement and intimidation of Jewish Australians.
A mature democracy can protect both free speech and public safety.
The Real Test
The Royal Commission will undoubtedly produce a lengthy report.
The real question is whether Australia has the political courage to implement it.
History shows that hatred grows when governments hesitate.
Germany, Austria, France and Britain have all learned—through painful experience—that early intervention is vastly preferable to later regret.
Australia now has the opportunity to learn from those experiences rather than repeating their mistakes.
If this Royal Commission merely produces another report that gathers dust, it will have failed.
If, however, it restores confidence that every Australian—regardless of religion—can live free from intimidation and violence, it may become one of the most important Royal Commissions in our nation's history.
The victims of Bondi deserve nothing less.
No comments:
Post a Comment