The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in New South Wales has concluded its hearings without calling any prominent hate preachers or leading anti-Israel protesters to give evidence. Over nearly three years, the inquiry received around 20,000 submissions and heard from 340 witnesses. Yet, no neo-Nazis, jihadist preachers, or central figures from the recent anti-Israel demonstrations were compelled to testify.

This absence is notable given the sustained, often contentious public protests in Sydney following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023. These demonstrations, which involved significant police response and heightened political tensions, prompted widespread concern about a rise in antisemitism in Australia. Despite this, the commission, led by former High Court judge Virginia Bell, chose a more cautious approach, focusing on hearing from victims, experts, and advocacy groups rather than seeking to hold alleged perpetrators directly to account.

Several figures known for controversial or inflammatory statements were notably omitted from testimony. Among them was Matt Chun, a children’s book author who posted content praising the October 7 attack and later dismissed the death toll. Chun, who also participated in a doxxing campaign targeting Jewish creatives, faced criticism for online rhetoric that blurred lines between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Despite police investigations into some of his posts, no formal charges emerged.

Similarly, outspoken figures such as hate preacher Wissam Haddad and Sheik Ibrahim Dadoun, known for incendiary remarks regarding Jewish people and the October attack, were not summoned. The commission also declined to call university leaders or senior figures from bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission, despite calls from politicians including opposition education spokesman Julian Leeser for firmer accountability. Leeser compared the commission unfavorably with previous inquiries that compelled senior executives and officials to testify under oath.

The inquiry granted limited participation rights to certain pro-Palestine groups, such as the Palestine Action Group and the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, but only to cross-examine Jewish Board of Deputies president David Ossip. This move drew criticism as symbolic rather than substantive, with some observers suggesting it unfairly placed blame on Israel’s supporters while allowing vocal critics to avoid scrutiny.

Within the witness testimonies, there were contentious moments. For example, lawyer and human rights advocate Rita Jabri Markwell argued that Jewish individuals identifying as Zionists could be subject to dehumanising language if they supported Israeli government policies. Yasmine Johnson, representing Students for Palestine, expressed support for Israel’s dissolution and the use of violence to achieve that goal, later leading chants endorsing the intifada at public protests.

Sydney academic and activist Randa AbdelFattah, who has been at the centre of public controversy due to her vocal opposition to Israel and her participation in protest events, called for a separate royal commission focusing on Palestinian experiences. AbdelFattah’s critics pointed to the dissonance between her claims of being silenced and her high-profile presence at festivals and political events, as well as her receipt of substantial academic grants. Legal disputes involving her and festival organisers have further highlighted divisions within Australia’s discourse on the issue.

The political landscape has intensified, with the Greens party adopting an increasingly critical stance toward Israel. Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others of politicising the 2023 attack in Australia. Other Greens figures, such as Senators Nick McKim and David Shoebridge, have made statements alleging undue influence of Zionist interests over Australian government policies, sparking backlash from Jewish groups. Calls to summon Greens MPs to the commission to explain their conduct went unheeded.

Community leaders, including Rabbi Mordechai Guth, have expressed concern about what they view as antisemitic undertones in some political rhetoric and public discourse. The commission’s final report, currently being prepared, faces the challenge of distinguishing between legitimate political criticism of Israel and antisemitic sentiment while addressing ongoing tensions in Australian society.

The inquiry’s scope and approach have sparked debate over its effectiveness. Some argue that failing to call key figures to account missed an opportunity to clarify intentions and responsibilities within the heated debates surrounding Israel, Palestine, and antisemitism in Australia. Others caution that opening the witness box to extremist voices risked amplifying divisive rhetoric. As the nation awaits the commission’s conclusions, questions remain about how best to navigate the complex intersection of free expression, political activism, and combating hatred.