Reflections on Bondi 14 December Shootings
In common usage, antisemitism refers to hostility, prejudice, or discrimination directed at Jewish people. Zionism refers to support for the existence of a Jewish nation in part of the region of the former British Mandate of Palestine, now the State of Israel, and for its ongoing security. Anti-Zionism, by contrast, is opposition to the establishment or continuation of a Jewish national homeland in that same region. Support for a “two-state solution” means support for resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by recognising two states within that territory, one Jewish and one Palestinian.
With these straightforward definitions in mind, is it reasonable to conclude that many Jewish Australians are Zionists, in the sense that they support the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state? This does not imply endorsement of the policies or actions of any particular Israeli government, past or present. Likewise, non-Jewish Australians who support the ongoing existence of Israel may also, by definition, be considered Zionists. The same applies to those who advocate for a two-state solution, since that proposal explicitly requires acceptance of a Jewish state in the region.
This matters because public criticism directed at “Zionists” cannot plausibly be confined to a narrow or marginal group. It may encompass many Jewish Australians, along with many non-Jewish Australians who support Israel’s existence or a negotiated two-state settlement. Those who believe that criticism toward Zionists is something that affects only Jews may now need to reconsider who is, in fact, being targeted.
Turning to the Bondi massacre, calls for a federal royal commission continue to grow. In addition to the families of those killed and numerous senior figures from the legal, intelligence, sporting, business and law-enforcement communities, three highly respected Australians have now publicly supported such an inquiry. Mick Keelty, former Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mike Kelly, former Labor federal MP and Assistant Secretary of Defence and Peter Leahy, former chief of army have all called for a federal royal commission into this tragedy.
Against this backdrop, it is reasonable to ask why the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, remains reluctant to establish a federal royal commission. Is there concern about what might emerge when Commonwealth agencies, cabinet processes, and classified documents are examined under the full investigatory powers that only a federal royal commission can exercise, powers not available to a state-based inquiry? Or is the hesitation driven by political considerations, such as the length of time a serious royal commission can take and the proximity of the next federal election?
The argument that a royal commission would take too long to be useful does not withstand scrutiny. Royal commissions can, and often do, deliver interim or preliminary findings and recommendations well before a final report is completed. In matters of national significance, public confidence is best served by transparency, independence, and thorough investigation, even when the answers may be uncomfortable.