Albo set the tone on Day One, it's all about guns, antisemitism, and security, la-la, nothing to with the tidal wave of low-skill poor-fit mass-migration.

A Royal Commission wouldn't be any different. Not even our Jewish community is prepared to state the obvious - the rapid buildup of a near 1m Muslim enclave was never a good idea. Security (ASIO) treated the Akrams with kid gloves for years, as anything else would have been "racist".

As Sir Humphrey (Yes Minister) once advised "Never hold an inquiry unless you know what its outcomes will be."

Albo has no idea what a Royal Commission's outcome will be and is terrified it might go off the rails and make recommendations that he couldn't implement without alienating his Muslim electoral support.

Hence, no Royal Commission.

Steve S,
Hear hear. More millions wasted by these bandwagon parasitic. They'll never comprehend common sense because if that chance existed they'd use it now.
Do Australians want to remain a Christianity based Nation or not ! Put the question to them before they're outnumbered before the next election. Stop that nonsensical rhetoric about Democracy. Democracy is what enables those out-breeding the Australians in the first place.
Democracy is the most effective tool for those desiring to take over Australia. Anyone remember Colonel Rambuka's fight over the years in Fiji ? How much more evidence & proof to Australians need before they realise what is being done to them ?
Race is not the problem, ethnicity is causing division !

This is a problem that will only be effectively solved from the bottom up.

Jailing organisers of a Cronulla rally against Muslim control of our streets, shows the fear of those at the top of the political elite who engineer and facilitate by neglect, these disasters now unfolding in Bondi.

We are cowering to Muslims. Cancelled Christmas festivals, new year celebrations abandoned, what more proof?

Pathetic cowards. Who is the enemy we are left asking?

You want to hold a royal commission into Bondi because Jews demand it?

What do you want to spend 100 million to find out Islamic extremism has an element of potenial terrorism.
You want to find out that resentments have been rising since Israels killing spree on innocent Palestinian women and kids.

You'd be thinking twice if it was your own money, but spend everyone elses on a cause you support, sure.

Here's a better idea, go spend it on the living.
Genuine Aussie battlers down and out and doing it tough right now.
Give your own Australian people some hope, especially those wo are close to giving up.

The Muslim hero Ahmad Al Ahmad got more gofundme donations than maybe all the Jews combined.

You know I think Sinwar knew the price Palestinians would pay, but I also think he knew that Israelis would expose themselves to the world in the way the Palestinians have lived with for all the world to see.

I think Israel knew in advance of the October 7 attack.
I think Hamas had an idea Israel knew what they planned and Hamas did it anyway.

I think Israel was so determined to use it as a pretense to destroy Gaza and Palestinians, and Hamas decided it mattered not if they did, the world would see them as they truly are.

How about getting Netanyahu to do and investigation into October 7.
(Quick bury these 200 cars Israel blew up with the apache helicopters)

I want a royal commission into Australian government leaders following the demands of foreign countries engaged in systematic mass killings and total destruction.

The shameless political exploitation of grief that we've witnessed from the Coalition and the Murdoch press has been riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and double-standards that make plain their opportunism.

But framing the situation as urgent and existential in order to argue for an RC? That's one I haven't heard yet.

Royal Commissions are slow and disruptive with years-long timelines, overlap with court proceedings, risks to intelligence sources, and the freezing effect they can have on operational agencies.

If urgency were genuinely the concern, the focus would be on rapid intelligence reviews, policing responses, targeted legislative fixes, and interim reforms - precisely the steps governments normally take in the early stages of crises like this - but it's not.

The past week has been a new low in this country, with those on the right demonstrating that capitalising on the deaths of 15 innocent people is more important than unity and swift preventative action.

Give it a rest, Scott. And have some respect for the victims, for God's sake.

It seems JD in anxious that the nation NOT look too closely at the causes and enablers of radical Islam in Australia because it will reflect badly on his gurus.

mhaze,

It seems you're not very good at reading tone. Nor content, for that matter.

I didn't argue against examining radical Islam. I argued that a years-long royal commission is structurally incompatible with claims of urgency, and that urgent threats are normally addressed through intelligence reviews, policing, and targeted reforms.

Calling that "anxiety" or invoking imaginary "gurus" is just motive-guessing to avoid the process question.

If you think a royal commission is the fastest or most effective way to deal with radicalisation, explain how. Otherwise, this is just character assassination standing in for an argument.

I didn't argue against examining radical Islam.
John Daysh,
What is there to examine ? Blatant being in our faces everyday doesn't need examining, it needs repatriation !

I wasn't talking about an RC to "to deal with radicalisation". Nice attempt at changing my point, but your tactics are tooooo easy to recognise these days.

A Royal Commission is not an option, it's a requirement. Terrorism is not a state issue, it's a federal issue. Albanese and Wong have blood on their hands. You too Turnbull and Morrison. It's time to get all their dirty linen out for a thorough public airing. Expose the corrupt (Lib and ALP) immigration ponzi schemes and vote stacking rorts. Make the creators of this horror event face public scrutiny and make them pay the price for creating this shocking evil monster, who has only just begun to play in our backyard.

mhaze,

Then we agree on something important: a royal commission is not a tool for dealing with radicalisation.

Which brings us straight back to the point you keep avoiding. The case being made for an RC is framed as urgent and existential. Royal commissions are neither.

If your argument is now that the RC wouldn't be about prevention, urgency, or operational response, then the urgency rhetoric collapses.

If it is about causes and enablers, explain why a slow, years-long inquiry is preferable to existing intelligence, policing, and security mechanisms.

Accusing me of "tactics" doesn’t answer that dilemma, and pretending that this mystery "tactic" has precident doesn't disguise that.

A fast review for quick results? Isn't that what happened after the protesters made genocidal chants at the Sydney Opera House? What a review that was. An internal review, aka a fig jam review. It found that there was no problem and no reason to change a thing. And all the people who thought they heard things like "f the Jews" and "gas the Jews"? Well, apparently they were suffering from racist hearing.

Bondi was the result of that "fast" review and consequent denial that there was a problem. Now Albo, after years of inaction in the face of rising antisemitism, wants more fig jam reviews. Presumably those reviews will find that despite there being a few minor issues, the authorities did a great job. They will likely also find that the main issue was lax gun laws.

We need a royal commission as it is the best means of recognising and addressing a serious problem. Fig jam reviews are not likely to change anything.

Julie Andrew’s has the answer:

There are those
I suppose think we're mad
Heaven knows the world is gone
To wrack and to ruin

What we think is chic, unique, and quite adorable
They think is odd and "Sodom and Gomorrable"
But the fact is everything today is thoroughly modern.

Modernity is the problem.

The modern world is inclusiveness of Islamists, so we must compromise and accomodate them.

Good luck with that one!

If you want to reduce tension related to variance within our community, authorities should stop trying to make life in to a kind of contest.
Doing so negatively exaggerates feelings related to difference.
This ploy is especially evident in sport.
If we lose, we should acknowledge it with grace.
Instead of using a rambling diatribe which gives us no dignity.

Better to say something like:
'we played hard.
We used all the skill we had.
We were determined.
But on the day, the better team won.
We congratulate them on a game well played.
We thank them for the sportsmanship they displayed.
We hope we will meet them again.
But next time we hope to win.'

That would be far better, and it gives a sense of kindness.

IF.

#… But next time we hope to win…#

Life is not a game of sport. There are no controls over the players involved in social contests, and right there is the Achilles heel of our daily contest as subjects of a non- inclusive Government such as we have: The Government as we are now saddled with, like it or not, is objectively, for its own ideological ends, divisive. That is not comparable to a game of football.

Neither does a game of football include murderous moments where losers let loose with a hundred rounds of projectiles, deliberately aimed at their perceived enemy which is unarmed and defenceless on the opposing team. That circumstance is not in any rules of sport.

It is perfectly fine to feel rage towards the umpires which preside over an unfair and one sided contest, engineered by their own unwillingness to be ALL inclusive of their subjects, and not the totally opposite!

After Australia’s own Oct 7th moment at Bondi, nothing will remain the same as it didn’t for Israel!
Israel, since that wake-up call moment of theirs, is showing us how to deal with Islamists; hard, rough and merciless, which are the rules now from the revised rule book: Australians should take note and heed advice from Netanyahu, freely given. Israel knows how this game works; it’s not a sporting contest!

"If your argument is now that the RC wouldn't be about prevention, urgency, or operational response, then the urgency rhetoric collapses."

I never said it was about urgency. That was just something you concocted to try to find a way to defend Albo's avoidance of an RC.

"If it is about causes and enablers, explain why a slow, years-long inquiry is preferable to existing intelligence, policing, and security mechanisms"

All indications are that this was a failure of the intelligence and police services who, towing the government line, were more concerned with right wing phantoms than actual Islamist threats. Putting these same people in charge of the inquiry is an exercise in arse covering all around. That's why a truly independent inquiry is required and why the authorities are trying so hard to avoid one.

Fester,

You're arguing that some fast reviews can be inadequate or defensive. That may be true in particular cases.

But that still doesn't resolve the contradiction I raised. Royal commissions are slower again, often taking years, overlapping with prosecutions and intelligence work. If urgency is the claim, they are structurally the least responsive option.

The question isn't "RC or fig-jam review". It's how urgent risks are addressed now versus how broader accountability is handled later. Conflating the two doesn't strengthen the case for an RC.

The contradiction remains, and it continues to expose those seeking to capitalise on the deaths of others.
__

mhaze,

That's a different argument, and it's the first time you've actually made it. But notice what's happened? he case for an RC has now shifted from urgency and prevention to institutional distrust. That alone concedes the point that an RC is not an urgent or operational response.

On your claim of "independence": a royal commission does not bypass intelligence and police agencies. It relies on the same records, witnesses, briefings, and classified material. If those institutions are as captured or incompetent as you assert, an RC doesn't fix that problem, it just interrogates it more slowly and publicly.

Independence is not achieved by assuming existing mechanisms are bad and a royal commission must therefore be good. It has to be shown that the RC is a better instrument for establishing facts, improving prevention, and protecting intelligence sources. You haven't done that.

At the moment, "independent" seems to mean "more likely to reach the conclusions you already hold". That's not a standard of inquiry, it's an outcome preference.

I think that Goldie sums up the situation well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUOw_EDyTUg

What is needed is an independent review. As Avi Yemeni said, Trusting an arsonist to put out a fire is not a good strategy. Trusting a gang of arsonists would seem idiotic.

Bring on the RC.

"Neither does a game of football include murderous moments where losers let loose with a hundred rounds of projectiles, deliberately aimed at their perceived enemy which is unarmed and defenceless on the opposing team. That circumstance is not in any rules of sport."

Yes it is, ask the Jews who shoot kids in Gaza, choosing which part of the body to target each day.
http://youtu.be/Mr6KTccuA7Q

Narrow minded hypocrites
Jews cant complain about a single thing done to them without opening themselves up to counter grievances for things they've done to others.

Hi AC,

Remember that the Palestinians are armed to the teeth and brainwashed with genocidal antisemitism from birth thanks to help from Russia and China delivered via the oppressive theocracy of Iran.

I'm more concerned with the crimes of the Iranian regime against its own citizens. I suspect that without the help of Russia, the regime would have been overthrown long ago, and more probably would not have existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPRGoQNry1Y

#… I think that Goldie sums up the situation well…# Fester

Profoundly true.

What she highlighted in the video, is why we are in such deep water with this government.

Minns is not off the hook with his displays of pure regret either.

It was his city of Sydney displaying the most disgraceful exhibits of gutless political rule and corresponding policing in Australia on Oct 8 th ‘23; ticking off as acceptable, Islamic riots in front of Sydney Opera House, calling for the gassing of Jews and other outrageous calls for their death on our streets: Their official answer? The word “gassing” was not audible.

Even to someone half as deaf as myself, the words were unmistakable and quite obviously chanted in an accent which was used to excuse the Western Suburbs Caliphate of their appalling behaviour.

This exhibit by the Muslim crowd at the Opera House, was then followed by the merry band of supporters of terrorism that crossed the Harbour Bridge in a disgusting show of cowardice and surrender to terrorism, waving ISIS flags and a portrait of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
That one again on Minnses shift. What a sick and pathetic joke!

And I’m one who is not so stupid enough to believe the cynicism of Muslims and their apologetic clap trap following the Bondi massacre as being in anyway genuine.

And again, Goldi is correct, this is a religious war waged by Muslims par-see against Australians as Christian, Jew and callithumpian all.

We are totally undefended against this band of vicious seventh century nut cases.

dan,

I put in the Goldie link as a positive example of immigration and of people being human beings rather than ethnic stereotypes. I think her a bit too effusive about the Shah, but I can always listen to an optimist for humanity.

On that note I believe that Minns is acknowledging that mistakes were made and is showing a willingness to make meaningful changes. For that he gets a thumbs up from me. Albo is another matter. Was he opposed to a Royal Commission into Robodebt on the basis that an internal investigation would have been faster and as effective?

There is good reason why Minns was acknowledged and Albo was booed at Bondi. At least he showed more character than Pong and Burka, not that that says much.

JD,

You're the only one raving about urgency. I never have.

You claim that since we all want an urgent solution, the RC is inappropriate. But urgency is your thing, and you've only introduced it in a vain attempt to find a reason to excuse the authority's attempts to avoid scrutiny.

Well I'm fine with taking all the time necessary to get the real answers and then make informed responses.

"On your claim of "independence": a royal commission does not bypass intelligence and police agencies. It relies on the same records, witnesses, briefings, and classified material. If those institutions are as captured or incompetent as you assert, an RC doesn't fix that problem, it just interrogates it more slowly and publicly."

Oh dear, now you're showing yourself to be woefully ill-informed and/or lacking any historic knowledge. Any number of RC's have been held that examine police and other authorities using their own records, and have managed to delve past the arse-covering of those groups. The very nature of an RC is that it can compel evidence, evidence that some are trying to hide.

The very fact that Albo and the Feds are trying to avoid an RC shows that there is evidence to be hidden. Why did their investigation into the perpetrators ISIS links get dropped? Why were they permitted to have guns, knowing of those ISIS links? Why were they permitted t travel to a known ISIS hotspot, given those links? The Feds have said over and over (at Albo's instigation) that their main concern was with right wing groups. Were they too distracted by that to look at the real threats?

All of this would be examined by an RC and ignored by an internal investigation.

"It is perfectly fine to feel rage towards the umpires..."

NO. It is NOT.

Please try to keep up, mhaze.

Urgency was not something I "concocted". It was the framing used by Prasser himself to justify escalation: a "present crisis", claims of policy "sidestepping", and repeated appeals to prevention all only make sense if the risk is live and pressing. You've now explicitly abandoned that framing.

On your core claim: reluctance to hold a royal commission does not prove evidence is being hidden. That's circular reasoning. Under that logic, any government hesitation becomes guilt by definition, and no alternative process could ever be acceptable.

Royal commissions can compel evidence, yes. They do not conjure facts that don't exist, nor do they bypass the same institutional records and security constraints they are examining. Their value depends on evidence, not on prior certainty that wrongdoing must be there.

At this point, your position isn't that an RC is the best instrument, but that only an RC that contradicts existing agencies would count as "independent". That's not independence. That's outcome-driven distrust.

We're no longer arguing about process. We're arguing about presumption.

#… There is good reason why Minns was acknowledged and Albo was booed at Bondi. At least he showed more character than Pong and Burka, not that that says much.…#

That’s not character, that’s is simply a show of charisma. That’s what politicians do..sell second hand cars; they lie, they cheat, they cannot be trusted.

Let us see some real fight, send in the heavily armed police reserved for NY celebrations, to disarm Muslims in the Western suburbs of Sydney.
There are enough illegal weapons there to kick off an insurrection.
The Muslims in the Western suburbs are Australia’s untouchables, for all the wrong reasons.

If Minns were genuine, why didn’t he challenge the activist judge that wrongly ticked off the march across the Harbour Bridge and ruled against the decision of NSW Authorities to ban it.
Obviously collusion at work; It’s a joke.
Minns is no better than Albanese, he’s one of ”them”.

"On your core claim: reluctance to hold a royal commission does not prove evidence is being hidden. "

But it does point in that direction.

Only those who don't want to know the truth because it might be disadvantageous to their fondest held beliefs, don't want a thorough investigation

"Minns is no better than Albanese"

I disagree. Minns has said that he got it wrong and has authorised a royal commission to examine the matter. Albanese has done neither.

Not calling a royal commission is irresponsible in light of the existential threat to Australian Jews after years of government failure to address antisemitism.

At present, we cannot change the 'mental makeup' of people before they are born.
So, a significant number will continue to be born without conscience.
As a matter of interest, I think most animals are born without conscience to hinder them.
For the foreseeable future, it appears potential criminals and serial killers will be born.
So we cannot entirely prevent harm to people, or the senseless destruction of property.
We can only work to minimise it.
Intelligent application of the preset law is preferable to 'ostentatious' and 'grandstanding' investigations.

mhaze,

No, it doesn't "point in that direction". That's still inference dressed up as moral insight. Preferring one investigative mechanism over another does not imply fear of truth, and asserting that it does simply pathologises disagreement.

Wanting the truth is not synonymous with wanting a royal commission. Different tools serve different purposes, and reasonable people can disagree about sequencing, scope, and risk without being accused of protecting "fondest held beliefs".

At this point, your position isn't evidentiary at all. It's moralised: those who agree with you want truth; those who don't must fear it. That's not an argument, it's an assertion of virtue.

If an RC is the right tool, that has to be shown by its merits, not inferred from suspicions about the motives of anyone who disagrees.
__

Fester,

You've just reintroduced the urgency framing that others have been trying to retreat from. An "existential threat" is, by definition, immediate.

Royal commissions are retrospective and years-long. They are about accountability, not protection. Treating them as the responsible response to an ongoing threat collapses two very different functions into one.

Minns authorising a state RC into policing conduct is not comparable to a federal RC into national security and intelligence, and pretending they're morally equivalent ignores jurisdiction, timing, and operational risk.

If the threat is existential now, explain how the slowest mechanism available addresses that reality.

Ipso Fatso,

Fifteen innocent people were murdered at Bondi. The killers believed themselves justified because their victims were Jewish. It was Australia's largest terrorist attack and followed years of failure by governments, state and federal, to act against rising antisemitism.

Wanting a comprehensive investigation into what happened, why it happened, and how best to protect Australians in future, is not an ostentatious or grandstanding exercise. Australians deserve to have this issue properly investigated.

The Royal Commission into home insulation was brought about by the deaths of four installers. Do you think that the cold blooded killing of nearly four times as many people at Bondi does not warrant the same attention? No, of course you don't. It's ostentatious and grandstanding, isn't it?

Albo is a disgusting coward.

John,

As one of Albo's trolls here, I expect nothing but dishonesty from you, and you never disappoint in that regard.

"You've just reintroduced the urgency framing that others have been trying to retreat from. An "existential threat" is, by definition, immediate."

No, that is crap (as usual). Existential means a threat to your life. It doesn't necessarily mean an immediate threat. For example, humanity faces an existential threat as the Sun gets warmer, but that eventuality might be a billion years away.

You're just an Albotard trying to justify his pathetic cowardice. Much was made of the three suicides that possibly resulted from robodebt to justify a Royal Commission, yet five times as many killed and many more wounded at Bondi, and all we we need is an emasculated investigation?

Fester,

Abuse aside, your reply actually helps clarify the problem. You're now explicitly detaching "existential threat" from urgency in order to preserve a conclusion you'd already reached.

In policy and security contexts, existential doesn't just mean "something that could, in principle, end lives at some indeterminate point". It refers to a threat that is structural, ongoing, and plausibly capable of eliminating a group's ability to live safely as such. That is precisely why the term is invoked alongside immediacy and prevention, not billion-year hypotheticals about stellar evolution.

Your sun analogy proves the opposite of what you think. It shows that when a threat is remote and non-actionable, we do not respond with emergency instruments. We plan proportionally. That is exactly the point being made.

Regarding Robodebt, the Royal Commission wasn't convened because of a body count. It was convened because there was prima facie evidence of systemic, deliberate government illegality, document destruction, and institutional evasion across multiple departments. None of that is remotely analogous here.

Invoking victim numbers as if Royal Commissions are triggered by arithmetic rather than jurisdiction, evidence, and scope is emotional accounting, not governance.

Finally, calling an inquiry "emasculated" before it has even reported gives your game away. You're not asking whether failures occurred - you're asserting that they did, who is responsible, and that any process not validating that claim is illegitimate.

That is not an argument for truth-seeking. It's an argument for a show trial.

If you want a Royal Commission, the burden is on you to demonstrate:

1. federal responsibility,
2. systemic failure that cannot be examined by existing mechanisms, and
3. evidence that precedes your conclusion.

So far, you've done none of that.

Those calling for an RC are already convinced of Albanese's guilt, and would reject the findings of the RC if it concluded otherwise anyway. That's a very long, expensive, and resource-diverting gamble just for some support for a position that you clearly don't even need.

Let that sink in.

John

You say “Those calling for an RC are already convinced of Albanese's guilt”. They include the victims’ families, every leading Jewish organisation in Australia, Former High Court Justice Robert French, former GG Peter Cosgrove, former Labor defence minister Mike Kelly, former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty, former Department of Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo, senior Labor figures Peter Beattie and Ed Husic, and more than 100 senior barristers and judges.

If all of these are “convinced of Albanese’s guilt” then they may be onto something. But I suspect most are not – they simply want an inquiry of the depth and with the powers that only a RC can muster.

You are right that other measures can be taken more expeditiously and focussed on particular areas that clearly warrant attention. I think both reform of gun laws and an inquiry into police and security responses are good ideas. But we also need something more far-reaching to examine in detail how we came to this situation. They are not mutually exclusive.

Rhian,

You're right that the calls for a Royal Commission have broadened. That said, I would add the following addendum:

"…or are reacting to a media environment, driven by Murdoch outlets, that has persistently framed a Royal Commission as urgent, morally compulsory, and obstructed only by federal cowardice."

The public pressure for a Royal Commission has been driven primarily by a framing that presumes Albanese's culpability, and that this framing has done much of the work in generating urgency around an RC before key procedural thresholds have been demonstrated.

The list of eminent figures you cite is important, but it doesn't establish what it's being asked to establish. It shows that many serious people believe a Royal Commission could be appropriate. It does not demonstrate that the evidentiary or jurisdictional threshold for invoking a Commonwealth RC has already been met, nor that existing mechanisms are incapable of establishing the relevant facts.

Regarding the families and community organisations specifically: their fear, anger, and desire for the strongest possible response is entirely understandable. But moral urgency and evidentiary necessity aren't the same thing. Governments cannot collapse that distinction without turning process into a plebiscite driven by grief and outrage rather than by scope, responsibility, and proof.

You're right that reforms and inquiries are not mutually exclusive in the abstract. In practice, however, Royal Commissions reshape incentives, slow operational change, and reframe every interim finding through a prosecutorial lens. That is precisely why governments normally exhaust targeted reviews and jurisdictionally appropriate inquiries first, and only escalate if those mechanisms demonstrably fail.

So the disagreement isn't about whether truth matters or whether systemic issues should be examined. It's about sequencing and burden of proof.

Refusing a Royal Commission now doesn't preclude one later if evidence warrants it. What would be corrosive is treating the refusal itself as evidence of guilt.

Israel’s Australia Antisemitism Report Just Backfired Badly
http://youtu.be/T9dTYqJH8OY

A new report proves that Israel now fears criticism more than antisemitism - and once that’s on the record, there's no going back.
Right, so Israel has just published a report on antisemitism in Australia, and in doing so it’s managed to expose something far more damaging than any protest ever could. Because once you strip away the solemn language and read it for structure, not reassurance, what becomes clear is that Israel now treats critics of its actions as a bigger problem than people who actually attack Jews. That’s not an accusation. It’s what the document shows.
This isn’t just about one report, or one country, or one three-month snapshot. It’s part of a pattern that’s been hardening for years, where antisemitism stops being treated as a specific crime and starts being used as a political filter. Who gets named. Who gets tracked. Who gets framed as dangerous. And who quietly fades into the background.
And here’s why it matters. Once a state starts confusing accountability with hatred, it doesn’t just weaken its argument. It weakens the very warning system it claims to defend — and that damage doesn’t go away.
Right, so Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism has released a report on what it claims is antisemitism in Australia, covering the final months of 2025, and the first thing that has to be said is that this document cannot be treated as a valid source on antisemitism at all. Not because antisemitism does not exist in Australia, because it does and always has, but because this report has chosen to weaponise the category so aggressively that it contaminates its own evidence. Once a document treats political critics of a state as the primary generators of antisemitism, it disqualifies itself from diagnosing antisemitism as a social harm. From that moment on, it becomes evidence of political priority, not of hatred.

John

I very much doubt that the likes of Mick Keelty and Peter Cosgrove are swayed by Sky News editorials.

The prominent Australians calling for a Royal Commission don’t argue it “could be appropriate”. They say it is a necessary and vital response to a profound and complex crisis. The latest additions to the chorus of voices supporting a RC are the relatives and community of victims of the Christchurch massacre, who argue that New Zealand’s RC into that terror attack was an important part of the response.

It may be that the opposition and right-wing media hope a RC will be critical of the Government’s actions in the lead-up to the Bondi atrocity. It’s looking increasingly like the Government is refusing to call a RC for precisely that reason.

Rhian,

I've questioned the sincerity of the early calls because of how quickly grief was leveraged into escalation rhetoric. That remains part of my criticism, and I don't withdraw it.

But even setting motive aside, the argument still fails on institutional grounds. The question is what a royal commission is meant to achieve and when. The Christchurch commission followed immediate operational responses, it wasn't treated as the primary response to an ongoing threat. That sequencing matters.

Calling an RC "necessary" doesn't explain how a years-long, retrospective inquiry addresses a claimed existential risk in real time. Disagreement about instrument choice isn't fear of scrutiny, and hesitation alone isn't evidence of concealment.

The question here isn’t whether serious people support a royal commission - that was an aside of mine that required updating - it's whether a royal commission is the right instrument, at the right time, for the problem being described.

"So far, you've done none of that."

And you continue to treat people like fools here. That is far worse than being called out for it.

1. federal responsibility,

Given the inaction since October 7 and subsequent rise in antisemitism nationally, yes it is a federal responsibility. And if existential implies urgent from a problem that can be addressed, doing nothing for over two years does not suggest that the government even recognises a problem.

2. systemic failure that cannot be examined by existing mechanisms

Albanese's proposed review is hardly equipped to examine the mechanisms of failure that a Royal Commission could.

3. evidence that precedes your conclusion.

How about fifteen dead and forty wounded in the worst terrorist attack on mainland Australia? How about Jewish schools and nursing homes that need armed guards. How about the thousands of Jewish Australians who are living in fear?

Anyway, who are the expert advisers telling Albo that he doesn't need to have a Royal Commission?

"Finally, calling an inquiry "emasculated" before it has even reported gives your game away."

Yeah, I think your cult leader a revolting Jew hating grub. So what?

"You're not asking whether failures occurred - you're asserting that they did, who is responsible, and that any process not validating that claim is illegitimate."

Again, more verballing from you. A Royal Commission is not a lynching. Rather, it is a comprehensive judicial review empowered to examine a problem, recommend changes to address the problem, and by so doing make the nation better and restore public trust.

John

The Christchurch RC was commissioned 10 days after the massacre.

The opposition may be optimistic in calling for an Australian RC to report by mid-2026 but there is no reason why it should necessarily take years. The Robodebt RC took less than a year. The NZ Christchurch RC took less than two. Most RCs also publish interim findings and results as they progress, so we will not need to wait years for useful information even if it does take that long for a final report.

I agree that an RC is not the only response the government should make to the Bondi atrocity. But it should call one, because the explosion of antisemitism in recent years has complex and multifaceted causes that appear to have led to the worst terrorist atrocity on Australian soil. The Richardson review is not going to be able to address that

Fester,

I'll deal with the substance and leave the abuse aside.

1. Federal responsibility

Antisemitism is a national concern. That does not establish federal responsibility for the Bondi attack, nor a causal chain between Commonwealth action or inaction and that specific act of violence. You're collapsing a social problem, state-level policing and security, and personal culpability of the Prime Minister into one. That's rhetorical, not evidentiary. Responsibility in governance is determined by jurisdiction, authority, and demonstrated failure within scope.

2. Systemic failure beyond existing mechanisms

Saying a Royal Commission would be "better equipped" is a preference, not an argument. The question is whether existing mechanisms have been shown to be incapable of establishing the facts. You've skipped that step entirely. Reviews, police inquiries, coronial processes, intelligence assessments, and state inquiries exist precisely to determine whether escalation is warranted. Declaring them inadequate in advance is prejudgment.

3. Evidence

Body counts, fear, and social harm are reasons to investigate, not evidence of Commonwealth culpability or systemic federal failure. If fifteen deaths automatically justified a federal RC, every mass-casualty crime would trigger one. That has never been the standard. Tragedy does not substitute for proof.

On advisers

Prime ministers don't publish a list of advisers to validate constitutional judgement. Advice comes through departments, agencies, legal counsel, and established processes. Demanding names is performative suspicion, not accountability.

On "emasculated"

Calling an inquiry inadequate before it has begun shows you've already decided that anything short of a Royal Commission is illegitimate. That was my point, and you've confirmed it.

If you want a Royal Commission, the burden remains unchanged: demonstrate Commonwealth responsibility, a systemic failure within federal jurisdiction, and that existing mechanisms cannot establish the facts. You've asserted all three, and shown none.

Rhian,

The Christchurch comparison is useful, but it can't do all the work being asked of it.

The New Zealand Royal Commission was commissioned quickly because there was an immediate, unresolved question about national-level intelligence failure in a unitary state with far fewer jurisdictional layers. It wasn't simply "a horrific atrocity therefore an RC". It was an atrocity plus a prima facie case that national agencies may have failed in ways that could not be examined elsewhere.

That distinction matters.

On timing, you're right that Royal Commissions don't always take years and that interim findings can be valuable. But speed isn't the core issue. The issue is whether the problem definition has stabilised enough to justify deploying the most disruptive instrument available. An RC launched before scope and responsibility are clear risks becoming a rolling referendum on guilt rather than a targeted fact-finding exercise.

Robodebt reinforces the point. That RC followed substantial evidence of deliberate illegality, document destruction, and institutional evasion at Commonwealth level. Again, evidence preceded escalation.

Where I still part company with you is here: that the explosion of antisemitism "appears to have led to" Bondi. Antisemitism is real and deeply concerning, but that claim bundles correlation, background conditions, and causation. Whether and how it connects to Bondi is precisely what needs to be established, not assumed, before an RC's terms are set.

You're right that the Richardson review won't examine the entire sociopolitical ecology of antisemitism. But that raises a prior question: are we investigating a specific act and potential failures around it, or a broad societal phenomenon with international, cultural, media, and state-level dimensions? Those are very different inquiries.

My position remains one of sequencing. Establish the facts first. Identify where responsibility actually lies. Then decide whether escalation is warranted. Refusing an RC now doesn't preclude one later. Treating refusal itself as proof of guilt would be corrosive.

John,

You're Albo's mouth on here, and a grub for not owning up to it. You might like to have a guess at who the expert was who advised Albo against a rc. You might also guess some of the groups and people Albo engaged with in his "wide consultation" before deciding on a review, because no one is owning up, and many are claiming they never heard from him.

As for saying I provide no reason or evidence, that's just your lying style here, but you can listen to an interview with Mick Keelty and a relative of one of the Bondi victims, both concerned with the shortcomings of Albo's proposed review and calling for a Royal Commission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3k-2oWXAZo

No doubt you will claim that both actually supported the Richardson review.

Fester,

I've watched the interview. It doesn't establish what you claim it does. What the video shows is:

- a grieving family member arguing that only an RC can deliver accountability and answers, and
- Mick Keelty arguing that antisemitism is a national problem and that an RC would have broader scope than the Richardson review.

Both positions are understandable. Neither constitutes evidence of Commonwealth culpability, nor do they demonstrate that existing mechanisms are incapable of establishing the relevant facts.

Keelty's core critique is about scope preference, not proven failure. He repeatedly says the Richardson review looks at "one component" and that an RC could look at "a much bigger problem". That's an argument for breadth, not proof that federal agencies failed, concealed information, or acted unlawfully.

Likewise, the families' demand for an RC is framed entirely in terms of:

- independence,
- accountability,
- and reassurance.

Those are morally compelling reasons to want the strongest possible process. They are not evidence that the PM, or the Commonwealth, bears responsibility for the attack itself.

You keep making the same category error: treating fear, harm, and moral urgency as if they were proof of jurisdictional failure.

Regarding consultation, "people saying they weren't consulted" is not evidence that no consultation occurred, nor that advice was illegitimate. Governments consult selectively and confidentially as a matter of course. Suspicion is not proof.

Most importantly, nothing in the interview establishes the causal claim you keep asserting: that the rise in antisemitism "led to" Bondi in a way that implicates federal action or inaction. Keelty explicitly speaks in terms of concern, risk, and scale, not demonstrated causation.

So no, I'm not claiming Keelty supports the Richardson review. I'm saying something much simpler and much more basic:

Advocacy for an RC, even by serious people, is not evidence that the threshold for one has been met.

If you want escalation, the burden hasn't changed: show Commonwealth responsibility, show systemic federal failure, and show that existing mechanisms cannot establish the facts.

The video does none of that.

John

I used “appear to” deliberately. We know at least one of the murderers came to authorities’ attention several years ago for their extremist views, before the recent explosion of antisemitism.

They brought ISIS flags to the massacre. ISIS terrorists worldwide are particularly keen on murdering Jews, but they have also killed Christians, Kurds, tourists, concert-goers, cartoonists, Starbucks customers, gay nightclubbers, and Christmas market shoppers, among many other targets. Most of their victims globally are fellow Muslims.

We will probably never know if the Akrams would have attempted mass murder regardless of the recent upsurge in antisemitism, or if they would have targeted some other group/s. But we know for certain that this Government has been warned repeatedly about the growing prevalence and vehemence of antisemitism and support for violent Islamism since October 2023, and the risks these posed to Jewish Australians (and indeed all Australians), and that we have just seen the worst terrorist attacks ever recorded in Australia directed at Jews practicing their faith. We need to find out how these issues are linked, and what to do about them. It is precisely the need to identify “correlation, background conditions, and causation” that makes a RC so important

Rhian,

I take the point about your use of "appear to", and I agree with the underlying caution you're exercising there. You're right that ISIS ideology is not reducible to antisemitism alone, and that its targets globally have been varied, with Muslims themselves often the primary victims. That matters, because it underscores precisely how careful we need to be about causal claims.

You're also right that we may never know whether the Akrams would have attempted mass murder regardless of the recent upsurge in antisemitism, or whether the timing and targeting were shaped by it. That uncertainty is real, and it shouldn't be minimised.

Where I still diverge is on what follows from that uncertainty.

You say that because we need to disentangle correlation, background conditions, and causation, a Royal Commission is therefore required. My concern is that this conclusion skips a step. The need to identify those relationships doesn't, by itself, establish that only a Commonwealth RC can do so, or that such an instrument should be invoked before narrower mechanisms have clarified the factual terrain.

There are at least two analytically distinct questions here:

1. What failures, if any, occurred in relation to this specific attack, including intelligence, policing, and threat assessment?

2. How should Australia respond to the broader rise in antisemitism and violent Islamist ideology as social and security phenomena?

Those are both serious questions, but they are not the same inquiry. Treating them as one risks producing a commission that is vast in scope but unclear in findings, especially while prosecutions, inquests, and targeted reviews are still live.

I don't dispute that the government had been warned about rising antisemitism, nor that this warrants serious national action. I'm questioning whether escalation to a Royal Commission now is the correct procedural move, rather than something justified once existing processes establish where responsibility actually lies and what gaps genuinely remain.

In other words, we agree on the problem space. We still disagree on sequencing.

"We will probably never know if the Akrams would have attempted mass murder regardless of the recent upsurge in antisemitism, or if they would have targeted some other group/s"

'upsurge in anti-semitism'?
You mean 'a community reaction towards specific religious and ethnic groups after Israels response to October 7' and it's been fairly minimal actually in my opinion given the footage I've seen since then of Israeli's killing Muslims, and we'd see a lot worse footage if Israel wasn't assassinating journalists, and focused on speaking shite and censoring the truth.

You see when you start assassinating journalists and their families in airstrikes, sudden;y you can't in any way accurately quantify the potential rage and frustration you're creating, because not only do people see a genocide unfold with their own eyes, they see an active attempt to hide it from worldview, as well as Israel lying and making every possible argument to deny or minimise or justify what they're doing.

'Mr. Netanyahu, why does your nation support raping Palestinian children and why did you allow a pro-rape protest in Israel?'

None of the Western presstitutes would dare to ask that.

And fyi, that phrase 'a community reaction towards specific religious and ethnic groups' was used in government documentation to describe Cronulla Riots.

We have a million Muslims in Australia, if you accept that Australians themselves had a community response to terrorist attacks and other events in the Cronulla Riots, if you accept that Jews had a community response to the Bondi terrorist attacks, emotions were running high in both cases, then why not accept that Bondi itself is a response to events in Gaza? We saw that anger and frustration cross a line with the 2 nurses who said they'd kill Israeli patients.

Any talk or accusations of anti=Semitism should be banned until Israel stops it's genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why should I follow these made up rules if Israel won't follow the highest court in the planet, and attacks them too.

I'm not physically harming anyone, just having my 2 cents.

You think Francesca Albanese hasn't been attacked, punished.
She can't even withdraw money or even hold a bank account at all due to U.S. sanctions.

If you think any of this stuff is ok, then you can't see the mess the worlds in.

Albo is a pussy.

When Netanyahu publicly chastised Albo, Albo should've said:
'Why don't you shut your lying mouth and worry about your own country, your own war crimes and your own court cases.
You are the one who should be on trial mate'.

What if the surviving perpetrator when asked 'Why did you do it?',
says 'I followed the events since October 7 and I became enraged at what was happening to my Muslim brothers, I witnessed a lot of footage of war crimes and harm done to innocents, I saw that no-one could do a thing about it, I took matters into my own hands, I wanted these Jews to feel the same terror they inflicted upon others, I wanted them to feel the same loss and outrage for their lost loved ones as those they have been systematically slaughtering, and I'm not sorry. Or I am sorry', does it make any difference?

They're not coming back and nor are innocent Palestinian victims shot for sport.

What is the cause of the conflict?
- GAZA

How do people even mention anti-Semitism without mentioning Gaza, like it's some unrelated event, and think you're being honest to others, you're either not capable of being honest with your own self, or you're racist in some form and think the 'innocent' Palestinians aren't 'innocent' at all, are conceived evil in the womb and deserve it, women, kids, elderly pensioners, the lot.

2005 Cabinet papers 'a community reaction towards specific religious and ethnic groups' Cronulla Riots
http://youtu.be/R46SP2ZXVtM

What are you going to say if the surviving perpetrator says that?

Do we say, 'Oh shite, it was our fault for blatently letting Bibi go too far with his genocide and we did little, we underestimated the power of social media to share footage of atrocities and enrage people with thousands of murdered kids?'

Israel certainly didn't underestimate the power of social media, that's why Larry Ellison bought Tik Tok, Netanyahu even made a video concerned about Tik Tik and X as his number 1 priority, and so it shouldn't be anti-Semetic to say Jews wish to own and control media, despite the IHRC definition of anti-semitism which will prevent me from saying it, even though its true and Netanyahu stated it himself.

Good way to outlaw guns, letting Muslims from countries overthrown by western governments immigrate here though btw.
Like that wasn't an accident waiting to happen.

If you're not prepared for all these ugly truths, including Israelis killing others for religious beliefs then maybe you can't handle the real truth of all this, and you just want a witch-hunt that pins the blame on Albo, when you all know damn well it wasn't he that pulled the trigger.

Hi AC,

Thinking it okay to abuse or kill someone for what you think their nation or religion guilty of seems a bit silly. Would you go to a park in the US and randomly shoot people because you didn't approve of the military action against Venezuela? I'll grant that some people think that way and quite a few expressed the view after the Bondi massacre.

Would you agree that the world would be far more peaceful if people didn't think race, religion or nationality justification for hatred?

I would argue that your kind of thinking is a far more important thing to understand than the operational standards of intelligence and law enforcement. If you want to understand a problem you have to understand the hatred it is based upon.

One more thing AC.

Are you aware of the current protests in Iran? It's like Tianamen Square, but on a national scale. The Republican Guard are shooting protestors. Where is the international media? Where is the UN? Where are the national leaders denouncing the murder of protestors? Where are all the protestors in nations like ours marching in solidarity, denouncing the atrocities, and calling for international action? Why not the same attention given to people who brainwash their kids (with Albo and PenPen's help) to think it their duty to murder Jews?

No, I guess your myopic view differs little from cult leader Albo. Perhaps Albo, with his history of attending protests with his Jew hating buddies, thinks that hating Jews is normal and acceptable? Maybe he thinks that all the hullabaloo after Bondi is just political exploitation of a tragedy?

But you are well above Johnny AC, the guy who comes here pretending to be independent and impartial, when in reality he is here to push the interests of his mates.

"The Labor Party’s Wentworth federal electoral council, which covers Bondi and other large Jewish communities in Sydney’s east, called for the Albanese government to reject the Segal report “in its entirety”.
The Australian has obtained the minutes, marked “confidential”, of the Wentworth FEC meeting held on November 5, which show the motion was passed after noting the “strong representations” of ABC Friends and ABC Alumni.
The motion, from the ALP’s Bronte Waverley branch, was moved by Michael Collins and seconded by Catherine Dovey, daughter of Whitlam and wife of ABC chair Kim Williams.
The vote has sparked outrage within Labor and been described as “a betrayal” by Jewish leaders, as the federal government ramps up its response to the Segal report in the wake of Sunday’s terror attack at Bondi Beach.
Anthony Albanese on Thursday conceded the government “could have always done more” to combat anti-Semitism after announcing landmark changes to hate speech laws and immigration powers.
Labor’s Wentworth FEC is responsible for organising election campaigns and selecting candidates in the eastern suburbs electorate, home to one of the largest Jewish communities in Australia."

"Thinking it okay to abuse or kill someone for what you think their nation or religion guilty of seems a bit silly. Would you go to a park in the US and randomly shoot people because you didn't approve of the military action against Venezuela?"

It seems to be exactly what the US ad Israel are doing.
And no I wouldn't do that, it'd make me the exact thing I oppose.
I support diplomacy, dialogue and compromise over conflict.
I don't support the harm of innocent non combatants.

"I'll grant that some people think that way and quite a few expressed the view after the Bondi massacre."
- People will act out and do stupid things when frustrated and emotional and you can't really stop an idiot from running over a crowd of people.

"Would you agree that the world would be far more peaceful if people didn't think race, religion or nationality justification for hatred?"
- I think nationality is somewhat important, as it connects to being a nation and local issues that affect us, but when a government with 30% of the vote thinks it can speak for the entire nation, I think that's a little unrealistic.

"I would argue that your kind of thinking is a far more important thing to understand than the operational standards of intelligence and law enforcement. If you want to understand a problem you have to understand the hatred it is based upon."

I certainly think the law enforcement or police side was a poor response especially when we saw unarmed members of the public taking on the perpetrators while armed police hid behind cars

"People will act out and do stupid things when frustrated and emotional"

That's true, but in the case of the Bondi shooters, they planned their action over months (?), so that's more indicative of ideologically motivated hatred. Where did that hatred come from? Did their associates approve of what they did? Did they engage in protest marches? What did they get up to in the Philippines?

Albo, in my view, has been a divisive leader by taking a "them and us" approach to indigenous Australians (the voice), misinformation and disinformation, and Jews and Palestinians. In so doing he has allowed hatred to flourish in Australia. I think that Albo has been the enabler of the guy who thinks "Yeah, it was horrible what they did in Bondi, but you can understand their frustration when you see what the IDF is doing to kids in Gaza.".

[Continued from my earlier comment]
Typical roided up cops wanting to act tough and authoritative standing over and talking down to average people.
They had their chance to be heroes.
If a civilian can put himself in the line of fire to try and stop the perpetrators then the police deserve criticism.
Their incompetence gives rise to Jews having their own private armed police force, that's not good.

The intelligence side seems like its just begging for enough public outrage to give greater permission for mass surveillance.

Beyond that, my attitude is 'What is the cause of the conflict?'
And people shouldn't lie to themselves or avoid ugly truths.

As for John, I don't mind him, but I see you two bicker.
I like his attention to detail, and willingness to try and dispel bs
But he waits for facts and doesn't do much working theory, even when one can anticipate some 'If X, then Y' outcomes.

"Are you aware of the current protests in Iran?"
Yes I saw your comment and video the other day and wasn't aware of it prior.

It's a complicated situation, the government is trying to do things differently and give protesters a dialogue mechanism for legitimate protest grievances.

The protests started with legitimate grievances, but there are some protestors amongst them who wish to incite peaceful protests into becoming a bloody conflict.

It's difficult for these countries, targeted by the West with sanctions and regime change, to walk a line and not allow protests to get out of hand when there's an element of foreign interference that seeks to see legitimate concerns spiral into outright violence.

'ideologically motivated hatred', I don't disagree.
'Where did that hatred come from?'
I don't know the cause of his grievances
Does they hate Jews for 'no reason' or for 'some reason'?
If it's 'some reason', then what's the reason/s?

Hi AC,

I often have a chuckle of how polarised our perspectives are, yet it is inconceivable that I would hold you accountable for what I perceive as the crimes of a nation or religion, nor you of me. I think it a very empowering thing and leads to a very optimistic view of the world where people who think differently are not your enemies.

The tragedy of Bondi was that the gunmen held Jewish people accountable for what they perceived as the crimes of Israel, to the extent that they felt themselves justified in randomly shooting people at a Hanukkah celebration.

The Richardson review will not examine that motivation. A Royal Commission would.

Hi Fester,
People may not like or agree with things I say.
Even I don't like the way I carry on myself at times
- but I always try to base my opinions on reason, on their own merits and provide links to back up my arguments.
Mostly I try to be factual, sometimes there's a little working theory.
The world's a complicated and confusing place.

I truly believe that diplomacy, dialogue and compromise is better than conflict, so yes it's good to be able to share ones views and disagree without things becoming toxic.

I like to point out the hypocrisy and stupidity of things
As an Aussie, it's a part of my DNA to point out when others are full of shite or their ideas are stupid.

"The tragedy of Bondi was that the gunmen held Jewish people accountable for what they perceived as the crimes of Israel, to the extent that they felt themselves justified in randomly shooting people at a Hanukkah celebration."

I said something similar.

The people responsible for this Bondi tragedy are the 2 people who decided that killing other people was necessary.
But beyond that I contend that Gaza caused Bondi, blowback.

If we are going to start pointing the finger at everything, might as well first face this likely fact.

[Cont.]
I can understand the victims families wanting a RC.
- To know that the lives of their loved ones held enough value to warrant it, anything less for a terrorist attack might make them feel that the government didn't care about the lives of their loved ones enough.
But I'm not certain that a full fledged investigation into Anti-Semitism is what Zionists really want.

They want to know the cause of conflict?
They want to know the reasons for criticism and animosity towards Jews
- And open that entire can of worms for public consumption in the town square.
I think not.

Why do some people criticise, dislike, resent or have animosity for Jews, Judaism or Israel?

Are they going to give the 'haters' a platform?

Are they going to allow the Neo NAZI's to put in their submissions
Will the Muslims get to weigh in on why they've peeved with Jews
Will average non-religious people get to have their say or are we already completely prevented from making our arguments because our ability to speak freely has already been criminalised?

"The Richardson review will not examine that motivation. A Royal Commission would."
I'm not scared of the truth, I welcome it.

What is the cause of conflict?

Is this about Jews as a minority fearing non-Jews and manipulating everything they can to 'feel' safe regardless of anyone else?
Or do I have a right to say things which make them uneasy but are true nonetheless?
The new definition (which is actually a working definition and can be updated by non Australians to become Australian law at anytime.

And there are genuine issues at play, national security and loyalty to our nation, an ability for citizens to stand up for what's important to them and speak freely about it without fear of retribution, defending the innocent victims of unjust wars, criticising nations that commit atrocities and not giving my silent consent, opposing a Zionist- occupied government if my own becomes compromised as I would against any undue foreign influence, standing up for international law.

We have freedom of religion, but religions sometimes preach and teach hate.

We might like our Christmas Carols in the park...
If Jews religious celebrations commemorate some ancient biblical conquest, should it be allowed.
And if so, by that measure why can't Palestinians celebrate October 7
Or if Muslims celebrate some special day of lopping off heads of Jews, shouldn't all this stuff be examined..

Religions condone and celebrate many atrocities.

These Chabad Jews support settlement building against international law and sending money to IDF who commit war crimes.

Do Palestinian protesters get to raise money for Hamas, just so there's a fair fight, not open slaughter of innocents.

You know, you kill my wife and kids, I'm out for revenge on those who made it happen.
Are non-combatant Jews screaming to wipe the Palestinians out like Amalek not indirectly responsible for the murder of someone elses wife and kids.

Somehow my anti-Semitism is responsible for Bondi, yet I'm not a member of ISIS and I was here at home haven't been to Bondi since I was a kid.
All I do is criticise a nation that genuinely deserves the criticism it's earned.
I'm an innocent non-combatant, yet somehow I'm getting the blame.
Why can't they play by their own rules?

When religious celebrations are divisive and cause conflict, should they be allowed under freedom of religion?
Was Bondi Hannukuh celebration an IDF or Settler fundraiser?

My final point.

Did Benjamin Netanyahu know that diaspora Jews would be the subject of increased Anti-Semitism because of his attacks in Gaza and West Bank after October 7 and if so, how much is he himself responsible for Bondi ON OUR SOIL?

And what about Anti-Zionist Jews or those critical of Israel themselves that are disgusted at what they see Israel doing?
Will these new laws even target Jews who speak out against wrongdoing by Israel?