Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenAustralia
OpinionAustralia

The case for leaving graffiti up for a while

If every piece of antisemitic graffiti remained visible for a specific period, the cumulative effect would be harder for non-Jewish Australians to ignore
Adam Slonim
Print this
Wall with graffiti

Graffiti painted on a suburban wall in Melbourne last year (Image: supplied).

Published: 5 August 2026

Last updated: 6 August 2026

There is a familiar ritual now in Australian cities. A swastika appears on the wall of a synagogue. “Jews Out” is sprayed across a suburban shopping strip. A Star of David is defaced. By first light, volunteers are on the scene with paint rollers, solvent and determination. The police photograph the evidence. Community leaders issue statements. The wall is returned to its original colour. The wound is covered. Life moves on. 

It is an instinctive response. Civilised societies clean up ugliness. We remove broken glass from footpaths, repair vandalised playgrounds and wash away symbols of hate. We refuse to allow those who traffic in intimidation the satisfaction of leaving their mark. There is wisdom in that instinct. 

But there is another question, one that has become increasingly difficult to dismiss. What if, in erasing every trace of antisemitic vandalism almost as quickly as it appears, we are also erasing the evidence? 

Australians have been told repeatedly that antisemitism has reached unprecedented levels. Reports are published. Statistics are released. Political leaders express concern. Yet for many Australians, the phenomenon remains strangely abstract. It exists as numbers in a report or another fleeting television story. They hear of an epidemic but rarely see it. I am uncertain of the broader communal response to the Royal Commission hearings, but feel certain the average Aussie would not watch it, let alone know of its work. 

The walls, however, tell a different story. Imagine if every piece of antisemitic graffiti remained visible – not forever, but for a specific period. Imagine commuters passing swastikas on railway bridges, shoppers encountering hateful slogans on suburban walls, parents explaining to children why someone had written “Jews die” outside a school. The cumulative effect would be impossible to ignore. It would cease to be “a Jewish issue.” It would become unmistakably an Australian one. 

The strongest argument against leaving antisemitic graffiti untouched is not aesthetic but human. 

Billboard in Fitzroy, Melbourne, October 7, 2025 (AAP/Joel Carrett)
Billboard in Fitzroy, Melbourne, October 7, 2025 (AAP/Joel Carrett)

Every swastika is more than paint

Every swastika is more than paint. It is a threat. Every slogan declaring Jews unwelcome is intended to unsettle families who already feel vulnerable. Asking Jewish children to walk past such messages on their way to school risks transforming public memory into private trauma. It is easy for those untouched by antisemitism to advocate preserving the evidence. It is considerably harder for the family attending synagogue beneath that evidence every Saturday morning. 

Communities under siege deserve relief, not daily reminders that someone wishes them harm. 

Nor should we underestimate the possibility of contagion. Graffiti has a social psychology of its own. One untouched swastika may embolden another offender. Visible hatred can normalise hatred. What begins as documentation can become an advertisement. 

These are serious objections. Yet there remains a paradox. 

The speed with which antisemitic graffiti disappears often allows broader society to believe the problem itself has disappeared. Australia has become remarkably efficient at cleaning surfaces while remaining surprisingly slow at confronting the disease beneath them. 

The wall is painted. The television cameras leave. Parliament debates something else. The Jewish family, however, still changes its behaviour. The security guard remains outside the school. The synagogue still hires additional protection. Parents still hesitate before allowing teenagers to wear Jewish symbols publicly. The paint dries, but the fear does not. 

People mobilise against what they see

There is also an uncomfortable truth about human psychology. People rarely mobilise against suffering they cannot see. Domestic violence emerged from behind closed doors only when victims began speaking publicly. The HIV/AIDS epidemic became politically unavoidable when faces replaced statistics. Environmental movements advanced because polluted rivers and burning forests became visible realities rather than scientific abstractions. Visibility matters. 

Perhaps the challenge is not choosing between complete removal and permanent preservation, but rejecting the false assumption that these are the only options available. 

Every act of antisemitic vandalism should be documented professionally before removal. The national government should maintain a publicly accessible visual archive. Temporary signage could mark locations where attacks occurred. National maps could display the accumulation of incidents across suburbs and states. Galleries and museums could curate exhibitions recording this disturbing chapter in Australian civic life while it is unfolding rather than decades later. 

Graffiti in Woollahra, Sydney, December 11, 2024 (AAP/Mick Tsikas)
Graffiti in Woollahra, Sydney, December 11, 2024 (AAP/Mick Tsikas)

In other words, we can preserve the truth without requiring Jewish communities to live permanently inside its physical manifestation. 

There is another audience that deserves consideration. The perpetrators themselves. Many vandals seek invisibility. They assume their graffiti will briefly terrorise its intended victims before disappearing into statistics that few people read. But if every incident became part of a growing national record, a visible archive of Australia's moral failure, then they would lose control of the narrative. Their attempts at intimidation would instead become evidence against the society that produced them. 

And then there are the copy-cat perpetrators, who get a thrill from extending the life of hate, inflicting pain on others. But the tsunami of graffiti that may be caused is exactly my point. We may not be the decent society we think and hope we are.  

History sometimes judges nations less by the existence of hatred than by their willingness to acknowledge it. Australia likes to imagine itself as uniquely tolerant. Most days, that self-image is deserved. However, genuine tolerance is measured not by the stories we tell ourselves but by how honestly we confront the moments when we fall short. 

No easy answer to graffiti

There is no easy answer to whether antisemitic graffiti should remain on our walls. Those who remove it immediately are motivated by compassion. Those who argue for preserving its visibility are also motivated by compassion, though directed towards a different objective. One seeks to reduce immediate pain; the other hopes to awaken a nation before indifference becomes permanent. 

Perhaps the deeper question is not what should happen to the graffiti. It is why so many Australians can still pass through public life unaware that their Jewish neighbours increasingly navigate it under the shadow of threats, abuse and intimidation. 

If the walls must be cleaned, then let the evidence remain somewhere impossible to ignore. As has been suggested, councils could very simply create a QR Code which records the actual antisemitic graffiti underneath. Passers-by can see the gallery of hate occurring in their community, without the graffiti itself still visible.

The QR Code could stay “live” over the course of, say, a year or even longer. As more QR codes appear, imagine the public outrage. Some will want to close down the “QR Codes of Hate”, but the truth is a nation that continually paints over hatred without ever truly seeing it risks mistaking a freshly coloured wall for a healed society. 

You might also like
  • When the state faltered, civil society and Diaspora Jewry stepped up
    Shahar Burla
  • New ‘spoken word’ festival in Sydney offers stories directly from creators
    Miriam Hechtman
  • Security challenges on the road back to safety
    Peter Kohn
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    neo-nazis white supremacists corowaTEST
    Royal CommissionOpinionAustralia

    Antisemitism, homophobia and a radical response to both

    Dennis Altman
    Tame
    Australia

    Tame apologises – but with little grace

    Deborah Stone 1
    Lobby
    OpinionAustralia

    Confronting Richard Flanagan and the myth of the Israel lobby

    Mary Garden 8

About the author

Adam Slonim

Adam Slonim

(He/Him)

Adam is Director of the Middle East Policy Forum, a founder of Labor Friends of Israel, and is writing a book on the Gaza War, “The Gaslighting of Israel”.

More from the author

DebateAustralia

The one minority whose self-definition of prejudice is rejected

OpinionIsrael

The story isn’t the smashed statue, it’s the response

AnalysisWorld

The law wasn’t written for this war

Comments2

  • Avatar of Anton Grodeck

    Anton Grodeck7 August at 06:20 am

    It’s an interesting idea to leave the graffiti as a symbol. I have noticed that posts on facebook by the ECAJ and AJN about the Royal Commission have elicited the most horrible comments, and these seem to be left there for all to read. This provides the evidence as to why the Royal Commission is needed, and why laws on online hate need to be strongly considered.

  • Avatar of Ian Freeman

    Ian Freeman6 August at 12:56 pm

    Clever.
    Counter intuitive.
    As someone who has personally not been exposed to such antisemitc behavior the concept of keeping the evidence “alive” through QR codes is creative. At the same time there is an attmept to protect the passerby from trauma.
    The concept needs much more research before implementation.