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
Royal CommissionAnalysisAustralia

Anti-Zionist Jewish voices pose a risk at Royal Commission

The Jewish Council of Australia and similar groups deny links between antisemitism and anti-Zionist activism. Their views distort the evidence of both research and lived experience.
Andrew Wirth
Print this
A protester holds a placard expressing her opinion during

A Jewish anti-Zionist protester in Melbourne following the release of the Segal report on antisemitism in 2025 (Ye Myo Khant/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Published: 19 January 2026

Last updated: 6 May 2026

In the aftermath of Bondi, and following an agonising public conversation, the Albanese Government has agreed to a Royal Commission into antisemitism and social cohesion.

It is critical that our community gets this process right given the stakes are so high. Submissions from Jewish communal organisations should reflect deeply and widely-held community concerns, should be careful analytically and explicitly address risk.

The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) has expressed the intention to engage with the Commission, as is their right. However, public positions taken so far by the JCA and other anti-Zionist Jewish groups raise concerns about the nature and impact of their likely submissions.

Denying links to violence

Jewish and Palestinian anti-Zionist commentators have asserted that there is no possible relationship between the language of protest and the attack. "Zero evidence”, according to one commentator.

Such statements ignore the substantial literature linking speech and violence. The Dangerous Speech Project describes how speech “can increase the risk that its audience will condone or commit violence against members of another group”.  Extreme views propagated via  social media can lower the threshold for violence in primed individuals or “lone wolves”. A major review of 55 studies confirmed that exposure to hate leads to a climate of hostility, psychological harm and risk of violence.

In Australia, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess, noted that inflammatory rhetoric and political grievances have “raised the temperature (and) made acts of violence more likely”. The Online Hate Prevention Institute has identified “racist anti-Zionism” as a contributing factor to violence, both before and after Bondi.

This is not an issue of direct causation or “collective blame”.  However, preparedness to acknowledge this well-described phenomenon is essential to constructively engage with its policy implications.

Minimising harms to the Jewish community

The dramatic rise in incidents negatively impacting Australian Jews since October 7 2023 has been well documented, with a measurable effect on their feelings of safety. A survey conducted weeks after the start of the Gaza war reported that one in five Jews surveyed had experienced insults or harassment, and a similar number was less open in showing their identity in public. Similar findings have been reported in the UK, Europe and the US.

Mike Burgess, commenting on anti-Israel activists observed: “Directly or indirectly, their actions can marginalise, stigmatise and frighten sections of the community.”

Against this background of reported adverse Jewish experiences, Jewish anti-Zionist commentary often focuses on issues with definitions, methodology and measurement. There are accusations of “weaponising” antisemitism and conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel. Concerns about the impact of vilifying anti-Zionist speech on communal experience are often met with observations such as “not all Jews are Zionists”. This is not in keeping with the “community-centric” approach to racism advocated by The AHRC Framework.

In accounting for experiences of antisemitism, anti-Zionists also focus heavily on the racism of the far right, rather than engaging with the broader political spectrum and the contribution of anti-Zionist activism to an atmosphere of hostility.

Rejecting specific responses to antisemitism

Jewish anti-Zionists resist specific policies to respond to antisemitism, casting their lot with generalised anti-racism frameworks.

They reject the Special Envoy’s report on antisemitism, in part for reasons of free speech.

In public statements the JCA has argued that calls to curb the most hostile forms of anti-Zionist speech risk making Jews less safe, by exposing them to blame for increased state repression. It is worth asking whether reframing such calls as political manoeuvres rather than expressions of communal fear does not itself heighten that risk — by casting concern for safety as bad faith.

While society-wide approaches to racism are essential, Indigenous Australians, migrants, women, LGBTQ+ communities, Muslims and Jews all have different histories of oppression and face different challenges.

The need for targeted measures for antisemitism is not about moral priority but relates to its specific dynamic. Jews are often not recognised as a vulnerable minority, because they are coded “white” and linked with power, money, conspiracy and influence. A UN report highlighted the lack of awareness of antisemitism’s modern manifestations.

When antisemitism is subsumed under generalised frameworks of disadvantage, it often disappears from view, notes human rights law academic Kenneth Marcus.

The Special Envoy’s plan, while open to criticism, is consonant with Global Guidelines which have been endorsed by over 40 states and regional groups, and consistent with UN recommendations that addressing antisemitism requires specific strategies in addition to general anti-racism measures.

Distorting perceptions of Jewish community representation

The JCA presents itself as an expert voice that provides a counterbalance to allegedly unrepresentative communal leadership bodies such as the ECAJ.

While Jewish peak bodies are not directly elected by the whole of community, they include a wide range of community organisations across the country and are closely aligned the community’s concerns regarding safety and connection with Israel. Around 90% of Australian Jews have close connection with, and concern for Israel, and around three quarters self-identify as Zionist.

The JCA has a small, high-profile leadership and a claimed membership of 1300 supporters (many anonymous).Their views are unlikely to reflect more than a small minority of the community. This doesn’t delegitimise their participation or views but should have bearing on the weight given these views at the Royal Commission.

Rights and risks

Anti-Zionist Jewish positions are often cited by the larger anti-Zionist advocacy community whose agenda they share, and given prominence by segments of the media and civil society.

A practical concern is that this may have a “spoiler effect” on achieving the goals of the broader Jewish community at the Royal Commission.

The recent referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, though set in a different political context, is illustrative. Tanya Muscat and Katharina Wolf from Curtin University described how “No” proponents “… were selectively framed by media to present a picture of broad Indigenous opposition, thereby neutralising support for the Yes campaign…(this)  illustrates the need for communication strategies that are not only inclusive, but genuinely representative and responsive to the diversity within Indigenous communities.”

At a deeper level, there is also an asymmetric risk inherent in what is essentially a free speech versus safety debate. The risks of getting it wrong are not evenly distributed: on one hand, the cost is a degree of restraint in the language and forms of protest; and on the other hand, serious and lasting harm to an Australian minority community already reporting fear and withdrawal from civic spaces.

Jewish anti-Zionists are, of course, entitled to protest, to criticise Israel, and to argue passionately for Palestinian rights - and to make submissions to the Royal Commission.

But those submissions risk lacking substance if they fail to engage with widespread community experience, with the substantial literature on hate speech and harm, and with the specific characteristics of antisemitism that warrant targeted strategies.

Public debate during the Royal Commission demands intellectual seriousness, caution, sensitivity to asymmetric risk and humility in a complex environment, when the stakes are high and the potential for harm is real.

You might also like
  • ‘Our children already belong’: Petition calls Jewish schools to cooperate for disabled support
    Gideon Cohen
  • Freedom Rides: Allyship for dark times
    Eliezer Rubenstein Sturgess
  • Learning from the Jewish refugee story
    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

    Nadia
    ReflectionAustralia

    Between communities: finding Jewish belonging after migration

    Florencia Tuchin
    Online hate
    AnalysisAustralia

    Social media regulation is a necessary brake on harmful speech

    Dean Sherr 1
    Zoe Better pillars of light crop
    FeatureAustralia

    NDIS changes threaten disabled participation in community life

    Jarod Rhine-Davis

About the author

Andrew Wirth

Andrew Wirth

Andrew Wirth is a medical specialist, a member of the Melbourne Jewish community and an active participant in an egalitarian orthodox shul. He is deeply concerned about the future of Israel/Palestine and contributes to the Times of Israel blogs.

More from the author

ReflectionWorld

At home where we are: Salzberg, The Sound of Music and the value of ‘here’

AnalysisAustralia

From the opera house to Bondi: a direct path

ReflectionArts & Culture

Between tribalism and compassion