silverguide.site –
From the moment the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, belatedly announced the royal commission into antisemitism and social cohesion, he clearly wanted the inquiry to be short and tightly focussed. No detours.
By setting Commissioner Virginia Bell a deadline of December 14 – the anniversary of the Bondi massacre – to deliver her report, the PM signalled he had no appetite for surprises or delays.
He seems to have got his wish. The public hearings started in May and wrapped up this week, less than four months in total. Given that there were several intertwined agendas – the spread of antisemitism, a probe into the Bondi massacre, and the impact on social cohesion – it always felt like a race against time.
The commission’s signal achievement has been to hold a mirror to the broader Australian community about the breadth and intensity of hostility that has been directed at Jews since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023 and the following war in Gaza.
The testimony of lived experience highlighted the extent to which intimidation and victimisation of Jews has permeated virtually every corner of life in this country, from children’s sporting fields to schools and universities, the public service, union movement, arts and entertainment, politics and even the healthcare system.
Much of it grew out of anger at Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza, which does not excuse a single act. But Australian Jews cannot be held responsible for the actions of another government. The repeated rejection of this twisted logic at the hearings has been a crucial takeaway.
Another shocking byproduct was the hatred unleashed towards the witnesses who had been brave enough to step up, identify themselves and give testimony. Just three weeks in, Commissioner Bell said “we have received reports from a number of witnesses concerning a dramatic increase in online hate messages”. This outpouring reinforced the sense that Jews were still fair game.
We had already seen a man outside the commission building in Sydney, during the first week, wearing a T-shirt with a swastika around a Star of David and the words “Antisemitism. Proud to be accused” written on it. In the lead-up to the commission, Jewish communal leaders asserted that antisemitism was being expressed so openly that it had become normalised. The brazenness of the T-shirt incident made it all too clear.
As the hearings moved from individuals to public servants, heads of institutions and civil society organisations, there was a creeping sense that the commission missed a few opportunities to bare its teeth. Yes, the NSW police got a grilling about the Opera House demonstration and security stuff-ups ahead of Bondi, and university chiefs felt the blowtorch over their passivity around the student encampments.
But key gatekeepers of the arts and cultural sector were not called. Noticeably absent were the heads of Creative Australia. It would have been illuminating to hear it explain how it draws the line between funding an individual project and the applicant’s broader activities.
Similarly, I would have liked to hear the Sydney Biennale Board asked about the American DJ who unleashed a rant at the opening night party against the “Zio-Australian-Epstein empire” and declared that “one day we will all be free from the Zionist entity”.
Her performance pointed to a toxic conundrum that often went under the commission’s radar: the intertwining of Zionism and coded language – “Zio” for Zionists – to vilify Jews (and their defenders) over their support for Israel. The subject was not thoroughly interrogated, even after the eminent indigenous activist Marcia Langton told the Commission last week she had been labelled a “Zio” for expressing her support for Jewish Australians.
Finally, it was also open to Commissioner Bell to call the prime minister to appear. While there are limits to what governments can do to mitigate social bigotry, Albanese, as the leader of this country, had more power than anyone to make a difference.
In the wake of the Bondi massacre on December 14, the PM openly admitted that he could have done more to address rising antisemitism. Was this admission performative or genuine? Either way, it provided the commission with a legitimate reason to call him to spell out exactly what measures and policies he had in mind when he made this admission.
I say this not in the name of blaming him for Bondi, as many in the Jewish community have done, but in the hope he may have shared tangible ideas about how to navigate the future. Australian society, from the top down and the ground up, must leave no stone unturned in eradicating the scourge that has taken hold. Even if that means taking a detour off the straight and narrow.
Comment