The recent royal commission into antisemitism in Australia has sparked intense debate over its scope and the focus of its inquiry, particularly regarding the role of local antisemitism versus international issues related to Israel and Palestine.

The commission, established to investigate the rise of antisemitic incidents within Australia, notably followed a violent and hateful rally on October 9, 2023. That event, which included the burning of an Israeli flag and chants of anti-Jewish threats outside the Sydney Opera House, has been described by community leaders as a disturbing eruption of hatred unprecedented in the nation’s history. The rally took place before the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Gaza, and it coincided with a climate of increasing hostility and violence targeting Jewish Australians.

Witnesses including David Ossip, president of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, testified about the deep and ongoing harm antisemitism has inflicted on local Jewish communities. Ossip’s testimony highlighted the need to address antisemitism as a domestic issue, emphasizing the damage caused by violent and hateful actions directed at Jewish Australians. He was supported by Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, who criticized legal representatives from the Palestine Action Group (PAG) for attempting to redirect the commission’s attention toward criticisms of the Israeli government’s actions.

Some parties involved in the proceedings sought to question Ossip on broader geopolitical matters, including the conduct of Israel and the perspectives of Palestinians. These lines of questioning were met with resistance by both Ossip and others, who argued that linking local antisemitic violence to foreign policy issues constitutes victim-blaming and risks legitimizing antisemitism within Australia. Critics of this approach maintain that such tactics could embolden those who propagate hatred against Jewish Australians.

Legal representatives from Palestinian advocacy groups—specifically PAG and the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN)—were granted permission to cross-examine Ossip, a decision that drew criticism from members of the Jewish community and other observers. They argued that the focus should have remained squarely on those organizing and inciting antisemitic violence locally, rather than on shifting scrutiny to Israeli military actions or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Calls were made for the inquiry to investigate the organizing and funding behind the October 9 rally, as well as the specific content of chants and slogans that contributed to the atmosphere of intimidation.

Some observers also expressed disappointment in the presiding judge, Virginia Bell, for limiting the scope of questioning about Israeli Defense Force actions prior to October 7, 2023. These critics argued that such inquiries fall outside the commission’s mandate, which is strictly to examine antisemitism within Australia rather than broader geopolitical conflicts.

Overall, the royal commission has illuminated complex tensions between addressing domestic antisemitism and navigating the international dimensions that some parties seek to bring into the discussion. The prevailing consensus among many community leaders and commissioners remains that the inquiry must maintain a clear focus on antisemitic acts and attitudes within Australia to protect the Jewish community and combat hatred effectively.