Why Jewish Australians are right to demand protection

On 14 December 2025, gunmen attacked people celebrating Chanukah at Bondi Beach. The royal commission’s April 2026 interim report records 15 people killed and identifies Sydney’s Jewish community as the evident target. Its first recommendation calls for NSW Police’s High Holy Days procedures to apply to other high-risk Jewish festivals and events, especially public gatherings.^[1]

The demand for protection begins there: with people who should have been able to attend a public celebration and return home. A government has a duty to protect that ordinary freedom. Jewish Australians should be able to demand it without first establishing their distance from Israel, defending an Israeli government or agreeing with one another about Zionism.

Safety is part of equal participation

The Bondi attack followed the arson attack on Melbourne’s Adass Israel synagogue on 6 December 2024. The Australian Federal Police’s annual report records significant damage to the synagogue and the announcement, three days later, of Special Operation Avalite to counter antisemitic threats and violence.^[2] Destruction of a place of worship changes the conditions under which a community can practise its religion. It makes security an immediate question for congregations and public authorities.

Physical protection is also a condition of civic equality. A public event is less accessible when attending it carries a credible risk of being targeted. A place of worship ceases to function freely when its congregation has to organise its life around threats. The practical burden falls on the people whose ordinary activities become dangerous.

Consider a family deciding whether to take a child to a festival. They need to know how threats are assessed, who will respond and whether the organisers can obtain appropriate help. An argument about the family’s views on a foreign government answers none of those questions. Public protection should attach to their right to attend.

That principle should guide funding and policing decisions. Resources should follow assessed threats, the vulnerability of a site or event and the measures likely to reduce harm. Fairness requires public authorities to explain those choices and apply comparable criteria when other communities face danger. The obligation to protect Jewish Australians stands on the same foundation as the obligation to protect everyone else.

Collective blame is discrimination

Antisemitism can enter political argument through the treatment of people as answerable for acts they did not commit. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism identifies holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct, treating them as Israeli agents because they are Jewish and requiring them to condemn Israel because of their identity as forms of antisemitism. Its guidelines also protect evidence-based criticism of Israel and advocacy of Palestinian rights.^[3]

The Nexus Document makes a related distinction. It identifies presumptions of Jewish culpability for Israel’s actions and antisemitic conspiracy theories as forms of discrimination. It also states that criticism of Zionism or Israel and nonviolent action against Israeli policies should generally be assessed as political expression.^[4] These frameworks differ in some applications, but both direct attention to the conduct and the people it targets.

The distinction has everyday consequences. An Australian Jew should be able to enter a workplace, join a campaign or perform at a cultural event without undergoing an identity-based examination about Israel. Asking a political candidate to explain their own statements is ordinary accountability. Demanding a declaration from a colleague solely because they are Jewish imposes a political test on belonging.

The same standard protects disagreement among Jews. Someone’s criticism of Israel should never make their Jewish identity less authentic; support for Israel should never make them collectively responsible for its government. Nexus expressly includes denigrating a person’s Jewish identity because they hold the supposedly wrong position on Israel among its examples of antisemitism.^[4] Institutions should respond to what a person has said or done and apply their rules consistently.

Take reports seriously and count accurately

The strongest objection is that accusations of antisemitism can be used to restrict legitimate expression. That danger deserves scrutiny. Nexus itself warns that using such accusations to suppress criticism of Israel damages both free expression and the effort against antisemitism.^[4] A complaint should trigger a fair assessment of the evidence, with reasons for the outcome and a route to review.

Care with evidence also means describing numbers accurately. In its August 2025 parliamentary response, NSW Police distinguished its databases, reported incidents, charges and court outcomes. It explained that its hate-crime database assesses information reported to police and should not be read as confirmation that a criminal act occurred.^[5] Each category answers a different question. Combining them under a single count of attacks can obscure the conduct that needs a response.

Precision strengthens protection. A school receiving a threat needs an assessment of that threat. A person reporting exclusion needs a process capable of examining discrimination. A criminal allegation needs investigation and the safeguards of the justice system. Each response requires evidence suited to the conduct being assessed.

Public bodies should explain how reports are classified, how duplicate entries are handled and what happened to complaints. Community organisations can contribute evidence and identify risks while public authorities retain responsibility for their own judgements. Accurate recording helps distinguish a threat requiring immediate action from expression that is offensive, contested or lawful.

Protection must work in practice

The royal commission’s recommendation provides a concrete starting point. It proposes extending NSW Police procedures already used for high-risk Jewish occasions, drawing on planning and consultation with community security organisations.^[1] NSW Police should explain how it applies the recommendation: which public festivals receive planning support, who coordinates it, what information is shared and how the response is reviewed.

The interim report says agencies identified no gap in existing legal and regulatory frameworks that impeded their ability to prevent or respond to an attack like Bondi. It also recommended an updated National Firearms Agreement and a National Gun Buyback Scheme.^[6] The seriousness of the danger should direct attention to how protection operates as well as which powers exist.

Institutions have responsibilities within their own control. A university should provide a clear route for reporting threats and discriminatory exclusion, protect complainants from retaliation and explain its decisions. An employer should investigate conduct directed at Jewish staff with the seriousness it applies to other discrimination. An event organiser should arrange proportionate protection and seek police assistance when the evidence warrants it.

Those responsibilities extend to people who disagree sharply about Israel and Palestine. A Jewish student should be able to join a Palestinian-rights campaign without having to conceal their identity. A student who supports Israel should receive the same protection against threats and harassment. Fair procedures make room for political disagreement while protecting the people taking part.

Belonging carries no foreign-policy test

Democratic life depends on people being able to appear in public as themselves. Requiring Jewish Australians to minimise their identity, withdraw from events or prove an acceptable political outlook would diminish that freedom. Government, institutions and fellow citizens each have a part in defending it.

Jewish Australians’ safety belongs among the basic obligations of Australian public life. Their right to protection is unconditional on agreement about Israel. A society that requires a political declaration before it protects a neighbour has already compromised that neighbour’s equality.