The “insidious fallout” of the Bondi Royal Commission is upon us. Before the Commission has even reported, the “slippery slope to eroding our freedoms has begun”, writes Jeffrey Loewenstein.
As the Royal Commission into Antisemitism grinds through its 9th and final ‘Hearing Block’, one is now able to make some assessments and judgements about the Commission, the Commissioner and the evidence presented to the Commission.
The Commission has being accused of being influenced by the usual suspects in the Jewish community and in turn the Executive Council of Australia (ECAJ) has accused the Commission as having been
“hijacked” by Palestinian/Arab community interests.
The Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell was quick to stamp on that assertion!
Whilst not being revealed here for the first time, there are certainly troubling aspects relating the Commission when one looks at the whole “picture”.
For starters, the firm of solicitors retained by the Commission to act as its lawyers are Gilbert+Tobin – the very firm selected by Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland (who, surprise! was a partner at the firm) without any open tenders being called.
Israel-aligned law firm appointed to Antisemitism Royal Commission, no tender
The same firm acts for interests closely aligned with Israel such as the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC). The firm is even a sponsor of the organisation.
Then there is Mark Leibler, the chairman of the unelected AIJAC (Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council) and Senior Partner of his firm Arnold Bloch Leibler. Leibler is impeccably connected to senior politicians, acts for many of them and is closely identified with Israel including a close relationship with Mossad.
Enter the Royal Commission and the Commission through the AttorneyGeneral’s Department inviting persons wanting to make submissions but seeking assistance from a lawyer to do so. Here the Department partnered with a previously unknown, murky, and new,
pro-Zionist legal body to assist people in their submissions.
According to Deepcut News, the AG’s Department had “partnered with” this new pro-Israel group, the Jewish Centre for Law and Justice, to solicit submissions.
The Segal agenda
Finally there is the Anti-Semitism Envoy, Jillian Segal. Not only a one-time chairman of lobby group ECAJ but also of the Australian-Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC). It has been clear from the outset that her agenda has been to be promote the Israeli Zionist and Jewish narrative.
She has made misleading assertions
and submissions to the Royal Commission – such as that there were only some 9000 people who marched across Sydney Harbour Bridge in protest during the March for Humanity, that those who did (like those in all other weekly marches around Australia for two and a half years) were antisemitic – and absurdly that anti-Semitism is “rampant” in Australia.
These were recurrent themes echoed by many of the witnesses selected, that the anti-genocide protest movement was antisemitic.
The Bell challenge
Enter the Royal Commissioner, Virginia Bell. It is not known to whom she spoke or what she might have read – one can make a good calculated guess – but without having heard a word of evidence or submissions from anyone, at the outset of Day One of the public hearings, Bell announced that she would proceed on the basis of the IHRA definition even if it was in part contentious.
What makes this more than startling – coming from a lawyer and one-time High Court justice – is that there are serious critical criticisms of the IHRA, including from the lead draftsman of it who has publicly written that
the definition has been “weaponised”.
And that she has ignored the respected Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism (JDA). It is no criticism of the Royal Commissioner personally, but given she is not Jewish she has been prepared to either ignore, or disregard, the JDA – drafted by Jews no less! As noted in Wikipedia:
“The drafting of the declaration was initiated in June 2020 under the auspices of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem by eight coordinators, most of whom were university professors. Upon its completion, the declaration was signed by about 200 scholars in various fields and released in March 2021.”
Evidence untested
As the hearings have unfolded at least two things have been evident. There has been little or no cross-examination, or even gentle questioning, of witnesses. Whatever has been said – some of which has been absurd such as the woman who testified that she felt “uncomfortable” seeing TV bulletins showing Gaza in the lift at her place of work – has simply been left out there.
Then, many important witnesses have been refused an appearance at the Commission. One example is the organiser of the Sydney Harbour Bridge March and many other marches.
As the Commissioner has been charged as part of the Commission to consider social cohesion, many who could speak to the subject have been refused attendance to give evidence, or simply not been called, at the Commission.
The Australian public now awaits the Commissioner’s Report in December. However, in the real world outside the Commission, “interesting” things have occurred which, if nothing else,
ought to give the Commissioner more than pause for thought.
Two court decisions counter Zionist narrative
In the case of Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720 (1 July 2025) – a case brought in the Federal Court by two senior stalwarts of the ECAJ, Justice Stewart acknowledged (as conceded by the Applicants) that political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, was not by its nature criticism of Jewish people in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity.
Justice Stewart distinguished between legitimate political discourse and antisemitism,
stating that, “The conclusion that it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel is the corollary of the conclusion that to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic; the one flows from the other”.
Even more interesting is the recent decision by Justice Fagan in the NSW Supreme Court a few weeks ago. Fagan said the IHRA formulation did not reflect the established Australian meaning of antisemitism and described it as an attempt to “repurpose” the term to encompass both hatred of Jews and criticism of Israel.
Moreover, Fagan said the IHRA definition was
“detached from the reality of common usage”.
His Honour also said that “The … (IHRA) core text is so verbose and imprecise that it could not realistically be attributed to the ordinary, reasonably informed member of the Australian public.”
“Fagan was equally dismissive of the proposition that institutional adoption of the IHRA definition had altered the ordinary meaning of the word. He cited former NSW Supreme Court judge Sir Stephen Spedley, who had criticised the formulation because it
“fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite”.
The fact that governments and several institutions had adopted the IHRA wording did not, Fagan said, “change the established meaning of a word that has been in use in the English language for 150 years”.
Instead, he said, the IHRA formulation “propounds a concept different from that which ‘antisemitism’ has long been understood to describe and appropriates that word to the novel concept”.
Antisemitic, really? Jewish leader speaks out on Royal Commission hypocrisy
Commissioner’s conundrum
Commissioner Bell is now going to be met with a conundrum – determine what has been put before her at the Commission by the usual pro-Israel suspects, including Segal – who would label any criticism of Israel or Australian supporters of Israel as anti-semitic and that IHRA was the appropriate “definition” of what constituted antisemitism – or accept what is being decided by judges confronted with evidence in the real world.
Finally, and insidiously, before the Commissioner has even issued her report, let alone any recommendations, we see the following having already occurred:
- Segal has been deploying her office, utilising taxpayer monies, together with Jewish organisations (Courage to Care being just one of them and backed and supported by the likes of the Gandel Foundation) – and also supported by government grants – out there in the guise of teaching what is antisemitism or guiding local councils around Australia into accepting that the IHRA is the way of determining what is antisemitic. Of concern is that these Jewish groups propounding this narrative are avowed and publicly pro Israel Zionist organisations
- The Federal Education Minister has flagged that universities will be required to appropriately address antisemitism on campus on pain of being fined up to $2 million if found wanting in their efforts.
Be aware! The slippery-slope to curbing our freedoms of expression has begun.
Is Bondi Royal Commission evidence making social cohesion worse?
Jeffrey Loewenstein LL.B was a member of the Victorian Bar and a one-time Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission and member of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.