Connect with us

Uncategorized

One Month After Bondi: The View From Australia

People stand near flowers laid as a tribute at Bondi Beach to honor the victims of a mass shooting that targeted a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on Sunday, in Sydney, Australia, Dec. 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Flavio Brancaleone

It’s been one month since the horrific events of December 14, 2025, when Australia’s Jewish community came under a direct and violent assault at Bondi Beach in Sydney. That attack left 15 people dead and dozens injured — and a deep scar on Australia’s Jewish community, and the nation itself.

Shortly after the attack, I wrote in The Algemeiner that as shocked as the Jewish community was, we were not surprised. Our weary community has endured the highest levels of Jew-hatred in Australian Jewish history.

Since October 7, 2023, the level of antisemitic incidents is about 5.5 times higher than before, according to reports from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) — the largest percentage increase of any country in the “J-7,” the seven nations outside Israel with the largest Jewish populations.

Indeed, less than two weeks after the Bondi massacre, another violent act of Jew-hatred took place, this time in Melbourne, when a rabbi’s family car with Hanukkah decorations was torched in the early hours of Christmas Day, forcing the young family to evacuate their home.

Meanwhile, even Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s formal invitation to Israeli President Isaac Herzog, widely welcomed by the Jewish community, came under fire, with Labor figures urging Albanese to withdraw the invitation, warning it could cause “social unrest.”

Labor Friends of Palestine also urged the Prime Minister to rescind the invitation, while also insisting that if Herzog does enter the country, he should be investigated for “alleged incitement of genocide, and complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The attacks on Jewish institutions or symbols, including the State of Israel, have been relentless these past few years, and Jewish organizations have been increasingly frustrated as we watched parts of our once tolerant and peaceful society descend further into radicalization before our very eyes.

And still, it felt as if we were screaming into a void, our voices ignored and our concerns largely dismissed.

Bondi proved those concerns tragically justified — the deadliest terror attack in Australian history and the greatest loss of Jewish life since October 7, 2023.

As a result, the Australian government was finally forced to act. It initially agreed to establish two reviews — the Gonski Review to look at antisemitism in Australian educational institutions, and the Richardson Review to look at Australia’s federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and whether they could have done more to prevent Bondi.

However, these reviews were limited in scope — not being able to tackle our society’s antisemitism crisis as a whole — and also lacked coercive powers or the ability to subpoena witnesses. The reviews were thus widely regarded as inadequate — and not just by the Jewish community — given the scale and deadly nature of the antisemitism now confronting the country.

Consequently, there was a strong national push — led especially by the families of the victims and survivors of Bondi — for a national Royal Commission to investigate the link between Bondi and Australia’s antisemitism surge over recent years.

A Royal Commission is Australia’s most powerful form of public inquiry, roughly equivalent to a US Congressional investigation, combined with a federal prosecutor’s fact-finding powers. It is established by the government but operates independently, with sweeping legal powers to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath.

When Australia convenes such a commission — judge-led and non-partisan — it signals national recognition that something went deeply wrong and the truth must not be buried.

Yet the government initially strongly resisted such an inquiry for three weeks. Critics suggested the government was perhaps uncomfortable with the kind of questions that would be asked – including how antisemitic incitement became so normalized, why repeated warnings were ignored, how education, media, and political rhetoric contributed to it, and perhaps, most importantly, why Jewish Australians were left feeling unprotected in their own country, despite repeated pleas?

On January 9 of this year, 25 days after the massacre, Prime Minister Albanese finally relented and called for a national Royal Commission to be set up, a decision Jewish leaders welcomed.

But it shouldn’t have been that hard.

It took open letters signed by thousands — victims’ families, rabbis, sporting leaders, business leaders, politicians, security, academic and legal experts — and editorials across the national press to reach this point. Indeed, the amount of support that the Jewish community received from across all walks of Australia has been a ray of light amidst the darkness of our post-Bondi reality.

One month after that terrible day, Australian Jews remain devastated. But that devastation has now hardened into anger, frustration, and a new determination.

Simply put, we want answers.

This Royal Commission will not solve the world’s oldest hatred. But it may finally help answer the major questions Australia’s Jewish community has asked for years. And hopefully, with that clarity, this country can now begin the long and difficult work of reclaiming the values of tolerance, diversity, and warmth it has long claimed as its own.

Justin Amler is a policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC).

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

New Analysis Questions Legality of Campus BDS Efforts Against Israel

Cornell’s divestment protests continued during the university’s commencement ceremony, May 25, 2024, during which students interrupted a speech by President Martha Pollack with chanting and canvas signs. Photo: Reuters Connect

A newly released research paper is raising fresh legal questions about the wave of campus and institutional campaigns calling for divestment from Israel, arguing that such efforts may violate anti-discrimination laws in the United States.

The report, published by Northwestern Law School professor Max M. Schanzenbach and Harvard Law School professor Robert H. Sitkoff, examines the growing push by activists affiliated with the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS), which urges governments, universities, and companies to cut economic ties with Israel in the first step to the Jewish state’s eradication.

According to the paper, divestment campaigns that single out Israeli institutions or businesses could potentially run afoul of state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

BDS advocates argue that their campaign is a form of political protest designed to pressure Israel to change its policies. The movement, formally launched by anti-Israel activists in the mid-2000s, has called for boycotts of Israeli goods, divestment from companies linked to Israel, and government sanctions.

But the new analysis contends that when governments or public institutions adopt such policies, the underlying legality could be questionable. The authors argue that targeting Israel specifically for economic exclusion could conflict with existing anti-discrimination statutes or state laws aimed at preventing boycotts of Israel.

More than half of US states have enacted legislation limiting participation in BDS-related boycotts or requiring government contractors to certify that they are not boycotting Israel. In some states, including California, laws restrict the awarding of public contracts or funding to organizations that participate in boycotts targeting the country.

The paper also challenges the argument frequently made by BDS supporters that such boycotts are protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. While individuals may advocate for boycotts as political speech, the authors argue that institutional policies, particularly those adopted by government bodies or public universities, could still violate anti-discrimination or procurement laws depending on how they are implemented.

The paper raises potential anti-discrimination concerns surrounding divestment campaigns that target Israeli companies. The authors argue that some boycott or divestment proposals could expose universities or public institutions to legal vulnerability if investment decisions are based primarily on a company’s Israeli national origin rather than specific conduct. Under certain US civil rights laws and state policies governing public institutions, actions that single out individuals or entities because of national origin may trigger discrimination claims. The paper suggests that if divestment policies are framed broadly against Israeli businesses as a category, rather than tied to particular corporate activities, institutions implementing them could face legal challenges alleging unequal treatment.

The analysis argues that modern divestment campaigns targeting Israel differ significantly from the anti-apartheid divestment movement against South Africa. The paper contends that while many universities in the 1980s adopted selective restrictions on companies directly tied to South Africa’s apartheid system, often aligned with international sanctions and corporate conduct codes, the current iteration of the BDS campaign against Israel frequently calls for broader exclusions based on a company’s ties to Israel itself, potentially creating legal risks such as national-origin discrimination issues.

Divestment campaigns have become especially prominent in recent years on US college campuses, where student groups have pushed universities to withdraw endowment investments from companies tied to Israel or its military. Critics, however, argue the campaigns unfairly single out the world’s only Jewish state and risk creating discriminatory policies against Israeli businesses or academics.

In the two years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 people and kidnapping of 251 hostages throughout southern Israel, campus activists have intensified efforts to implement divestment policies on university campuses. While universities have mostly resisted these efforts, federal lawmakers have advanced legislation to truncate divestment initiatives before they gain traction. For instance, in 2024, Congress introduced “The Protect Economic Freedom Act,” which would render universities that participate in the BDS movement against Israel ineligible for federal funding under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, prohibiting them from receiving federal student aid. The bill would also mandate that colleges and universities submit evidence that they are not participating in commercial boycotts against the Jewish state.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

UK Holds Four Men on Suspicion of Iranian Spying on Jewish Sites

Director General of MI5 Ken McCallum delivers the annual Director General’s Speech at Thames House, the headquarters of the UK’s Security Service, in London, Britain, Oct. 16, 2025. Photo: Jonathan Brady/Pool via REUTERS

British police arrested four men on Friday on suspicion of helping Iran’s intelligence services carry out surveillance of people and locations linked to the Jewish community in London.

Detectives said one of the men was Iranian, while three had dual British-Iranian nationality. The arrests were part of a “long-running investigation,” police added, indicating the men‘s alleged activities pre-dated the US and Israeli bombardment of Iran, which started last Saturday.

British lawmakers and the domestic spy agency MI5 have long warned of threats posed to Britain by Iran. Three Iranians were charged with offenses under Britain’s National Security Act relating to assisting a foreign intelligence service last May.

In a separate investigation last year, police arrested five men, four of them Iranian, over a suspected plot to target specific premises, which British media said was the Israeli embassy. They were later released without charge.

“The Jewish community and the wider public will understandably be concerned by today’s arrests. We continue to monitor the situation closely,” interior minister Shabana Mahmood said on X.

Police said the four detained men were aged between 22 and 55. Six others were also arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender, and police said searches were ongoing.

Speaking about the current Iranian conflict on Thursday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned that people would use it to divide the country.

“The government is reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom – Jewish and Muslim alike – making sure communities and places of worship have appropriate, protective security in place,” he told a press conference.

Illustrating the threat from Iran, Britain’s MI5 spy boss said that over two years from 2022-2024, his service and British police had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots to kidnap or kill British nationals or individuals based in Britain who were regarded by Tehran as a threat.

Britain also recorded a 4% rise in antisemitic incidents in 2025, making it the second-worst year on record, a charity said. Two men were killed last October during an attack on a synagogue in the northern English city of Manchester.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Turkey Asks Britain’s MI6 to Step Up Protection of Syria’s Sharaa, Sources Say; Ankara Denies Report

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa attends the Ministry of Awqaf conference titled “Unity of Islamic Discourse” at the Conference Palace in Damascus, Syria, Feb. 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

Turkey’s intelligence agency asked its British counterpart MI6 last month to take a larger role in protecting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa after recent assassination plots, according to five people familiar with the matter.

After this story was published, Turkey denied that its intelligence agency MIT had made any such request to MI6.

The request highlights efforts by foreign allies to shore up a country still shaken by sporadic violence 15 months after the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, with the US-Israeli war on Iran now rattling the wider region.

Those allies see Sharaa as crucial to preventing a relapse into sectarian fighting or civil war, after 14 years of civil conflict drove millions of refugees abroad and allowed Islamic State to control swathes of Syria.

The militants last month stepped up attacks on military and security personnel across Syria and declared Sharaa, a former rebel, their “number one foe.”

It was unclear what specifically Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, or MIT, had asked of MI6, or what new role, if any, MI6 had taken up.

The Turkish presidency said in a statement issued by its communications directorate that MIT maintains effective cooperation in the fight against terrorism with the international intelligence community and security units in Syria, but that this story did not reflect the truth.

“Contrary to what is claimed in the report in question, it is not true that MIT has made any request to MI6 regarding the protection of the Syrian President or sought to assume such a role,” it said.

ANXIETY RISES IN SYRIA OVER ISLAMIC STATE

Turkey, Britain, and the US last year threw their backing behind Sharaa to try to reunite and rebuild his country of 26 million. London and Washington have scrapped most sanctions on Syria and on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Islamist group he once led.

The sources who spoke to Reuters requested anonymity owing to the sensitivity of the matter.

MIT, the Turkish foreign ministry, Britain’s foreign office and Syria’s defense and interior ministries did not comment when contacted ahead of publication.

The sources, including Syrian and foreign officials, all cited rising anxiety over a series of reported Islamic State plots to kill Sharaa.

A Turkish source said that MIT, which has played a key role in helping the new government to establish itself, appealed to MI6 for more support after one such incident last month. A senior Syrian security source said the request came after a “high-risk assassination plot,” adding that MIT, MI6, and Syrian authorities were constantly sharing intelligence.

Details of the plot were unclear.

A separate Western intelligence source briefed on the matter believed Turkey wanted to introduce a Western presence in Damascus to provide something of a buffer between the agencies of Turkey and Israel, currently at loggerheads.

REPORTED ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS AGAINST SHARAA

Last year, Sharaa and two senior cabinet ministers were targeted by Islamic State in five foiled assassination attempts, according to the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism. In November, Reuters reported that Syrian authorities had foiled two of the attempts.

Describing Sharaa as a “watchdog” of the global anti-Islamic State coalition, the group mounted six attacks on Syrian authorities last month in what it called a “new phase.”

On Thursday, Damascus openly acknowledged for the first time that it coordinates with MIT, saying they had cooperated to foil an Islamic State attack in the capital.

Turkish security sources said MIT had identified a team of three preparing remote bomb attacks, enabling Syrian counterparts to prevent an “imminent assault.”

A US diplomat briefed on the matter said MIT’s request to MI6 had been prompted by the Islamic State resurgence.

The Western intelligence source said the two agencies could intensify joint planning and technical operations, but that no decision had been made on whether to send British personnel to Damascus.

A Syrian security source said a physical British presence would be “highly risky.” They said MI6 had been discussed at a meeting in Damascus on Feb. 26 between a delegation headed by Britain’s special envoy for Syria, Ann Snow, and Syria’s deputy interior minister, Major General Abdulqader Tahan.

Sharaa was a commander of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria before cutting ties with the group in 2016, then led a coalition of Islamist rebel factions in late 2024 to topple Assad.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News