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.