Australia has announced a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion following the Bondi terrorist attack.
The intent is clear. Antisemitism is real. The grief is real. Jewish Australians deserve safety, dignity, and protection – as all Australians do.
But good intent does not guarantee good outcomes.
And Truth Be Told: this Royal Commission risks doing more harm than good.
What the Royal Commission Will Examine – And What It Will Likely Conclude
The Government has outlined four key areas of inquiry. Let us be honest about what each will almost certainly produce.
1. Investigating the Nature and Drivers of Antisemitism
Predicted outcome:
A detailed confirmation that antisemitism exists, has increased, and is fuelled by online radicalisation, imported ideological conflicts, and extremist echo chambers.
This will not surprise anyone.
Multiple reports – including a government-funded antisemitism review released only months ago – already say this. Universities, intelligence agencies, and community organisations have documented it extensively.
What it will not do:
It will not explain why Australia’s broader social fabric is fraying – only how one strand is being torn.
2. Recommendations for Law Enforcement, Border Control and Security Agencies
Predicted outcome:
Calls for more training, better intelligence sharing, stronger monitoring, and tighter controls.
Necessary? Yes.
Transformational? No.
These recommendations will focus on response, not prevention. They will not address why radicalisation takes hold in the first place – only how to react once it has.
And crucially, they will avoid the uncomfortable truth:
Someone failed in issuing and monitoring a firearms licence that allowed a civilian to own six guns in suburban Australia.
That failure is administrative and political – not ideological.
3. Examining the Bondi Terrorist Attack
Predicted outcome:
A careful reconstruction of events, gaps in intelligence, missed warning signs, and procedural shortcomings – constrained so as not to prejudice legal proceedings.
This will bring clarity. It will also bring limits.
What it will not do is resolve the broader question Australians are asking:
Why are we repeatedly responding after violence occurs, instead of addressing the conditions that allow it to emerge?
4. Strengthening Social Cohesion and Countering Extremism
Predicted outcome:
The vaguest section of all.
Expect language about dialogue, education, harmony, resilience, and “bringing communities together.”
But cohesion cannot be engineered through reports.
And it cannot be achieved by isolating one form of hatred from the ecosystem that produces all of them.
The Core Problem: Singling Out One Hatred Fractures the Whole
Antisemitism must be confronted.
So must Islamophobia.
So must racism.
So must ideological and religious extremism in all forms.
By elevating one expression of hatred into a standalone Royal Commission, the Government risks creating a hierarchy of grievance – intentional or not.
This has consequences:
• Communities begin to compete for recognition and protection
• Resentment grows quietly in others who feel unseen
• A “them versus us” narrative is reinforced, not dismantled
• Social cohesion weakens under the weight of selective focus
This is not unity. It is fragmentation with good branding.
The Dangerous Shift From Root Cause to Permanent Victimhood
There is another risk we must name plainly.
When policy responses centre primarily on protection, security, and exceptionalism, communities can become defined by threat rather than strength.
“As within, so without.”
A society that internalises fear will externalise it.
A nation that sees itself primarily through wounds will govern defensively.
That is not resilience. That is not confidence. That is not Australia.
What We Are Not Saying
Let us be unequivocal.
This is not a denial of antisemitism.
It is not a dismissal of Jewish pain.
It is not an argument against safety or accountability.
Many of our closest friends, colleagues and collaborators are Jewish. We stand firmly against antisemitism – always.
What we are saying is this:
Addressing one hatred in isolation will not prevent the next act of violence.
What Would Actually Strengthen Australia
If the goal is safety, cohesion, and prevention, Australia needs courage – not another expensive inquiry.
We need:
• A whole-of-society approach to extremism, not a single-lens one
• Firm regulation of hate-based proselytisation, online and offline
• A values-based national education framework that teaches responsibility, critical thinking and civic identity
• Clear standards for belonging that apply to everyone, without exception
• Leadership willing to say “no” – not just investigate “why”
Royal Commissions can name problems.
They rarely fix them.
The Uncomfortable Question Australia Must Face
Will this Royal Commission reduce hatred – or entrench division?
Will it strengthen cohesion – or signal that the loudest pain gets the greatest response?
Will it prevent future violence – or simply document the past?
Truth be told, Australia does not need another report to tell us that hatred exists.
It needs leaders brave enough to confront all of it, evenly, firmly, and without fear.
Anything less risks leaving us more divided than before – and no safer at all.
