Fake Dural caravan plot ‘terrified’ Jewish community: inquiry

A criminal conspiracy behind a spate of anti-Semitic attacks in Greater Sydney would likely have “escalated” and had the effect of “terrifying” the Jewish community, a landmark inquiry into anti-Semitism in NSW has been told.

Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers MP Robert Borsak is chairing the first hearing in state parliament on Monday of the NSW Legislative Council’s inquiry into anti-Semitism in NSW, alongside Greens MLC Amanda Cohn and MLCs from Labor and the Liberals.

The inquiry seeks to examine the underlying causes behind the “increasing prevalence and severity” of anti-Semitism in NSW as well as the “threat to social cohesion” it presents and how the safety of the state’s Jewish community “might be enhanced”.

It comes after a caravan laden with explosives was discovered in Sydney’s northwest.

NSW Premier Chris Minns initially described the discovery as having the potential of being a “mass casualty event”, though it was later revealed by police to have been part of a conspiracy by a man overseas to negotiate with officers on his sentence and not a genuine anti-Semitic terrorist plot.

Sydney’s Great Synagogue board member Jack Pinczewski said while the Dural caravan plot may not have met the criteria under the law to have been a terrorism incident, the end result was that it had “terrified” the Jewish community in NSW.

“The ends were not to terrify Jews, but the means were to terrify Jews,” he said.

“The ends were for this man, whoever he is, in Turkey, to negotiate with police on his bail, and the means by which he was going to do that was to terrify the Jewish community sufficiently to encourage (police) to act.

“If it were the case that multiple car fire bombings, graffiti attacks, attacks on synagogues were not sufficient, how much further would he have gone to convince police that he was someone who could resolve this issue.

“To resolve the seemingly endless attacks on Jewish people, that’s what he was intending on doing. He very likely would have encouraged (alleged criminals) to escalate it even further … They were definitely anti-Semitic, in effect, and an intention.”

A lot of Monday’s debate has, largely from Labor MLC Stephen Lawrence, been centred on the distinction between anti-Israeli sentiment and anti-Semitism, including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.

Women 4 Peace Action Ready Group co-chair Corinne Fagueret told the inquiry that the definition, championed by the Australian Jewish Association and others, stifled critique of human rights issues and criticism of the conduct of the state of Israel.

Turning the tables on the inquiry and receiving applause form the room, Coalition of Women for Justice and Peace founding member Janice Leonie Caulfield asked the committee why “parliament was exceptionalising one form of racism”.

Opponents of the anti-hate laws have criticised them for prioritising them over other forms of racism, including, as Ms Caulfield said, “Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian bigotry, anti-black racism, an ongoing vilification of First Nations people”.

Anti-Semitic tropes of the Jewish people being a monolithic entity and differences in opinion between established Jewish groups and the many Jewish and inter-faith organisations that have sprung up in recent years loomed large on Monday.

Asked about accusations of “Jewish anti-Semitism” made by the Australian Jewish Association, Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney member Cathy Peters told the inquiry that “they don’t speak for us” and said many communities were facing racism.

The inquiry was at times marked by heated exchanges and by personal stories.

Mr Lawrence recalled his own experiences in the Occupied West Bank in his questions, while Jews Against the Occupation ‘48 member and academic Allon Uhlmann was at one point asked to condemn terrorist organisations Hezbollah and Hamas that he said were not anti-Semitic.

The organisations, which have fought wars against Israel, do not, as a point of policy, advocate for the destruction of the state of Israel, Dr Uhlmann said.

Dozens of members of inter-faith and pro-Palestinian Jewish groups voiced concern to the inquiry of equating anti-Israel sentiment with anti-Semitism and called for a nuanced definition of anti-Semitism.

As has been the case, the events in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank played a heavy hand in the debate, with both established groups and newer entities relying on the political and ancient history of the region in their responses.

Right-wing Jewish group grilled

Australian Jewish Association chief executive Robert Gregory and community engagement director Teneille Murray told the inquiry that “Jewish institutions (now) resemble fortresses” and claimed taxpayer funds were going to organisations espousing anti-Semitism.

But, it was a claim in the organisation’s submission to the inquiry about “Jewish anti-Semitism” and “a tiny, fringe group claiming Jewish heritage (which) parrots anti-Jewish rhetoric, rejected by the broader Jewish community” that stirred debate.

Labor MLC Stephen Lawrence asked Mr Gregory whether “your organisation might be falling into the trap of actually furthering anti-Semitism by presenting a monolithic view of Jewish people” and referenced social media posts connected to the organisation.

In one, by former president David Adler, comments were made about former SBS presenter Stan Grant’s complexion “which seems to have changed” and another, which Mr Lawrence said “openly advocates for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in the West Bank”.

In response, Mr Gregory said he thought it was “quite strange at a committee here on anti-Semitism that the Jewish groups and Jewish people are being attacked by the committee members” – though, Mr Lawrence refuted that it was an “attack”.

Asked again later if the AJA supported the statement about “Arabs”, Mr Gregory said “if, as our friend who did, you wanted to scroll through and try and find a post, an offensive post, out of 10s of 1000s of posts, maybe they would be able to”.

He also stated that the AJA “does not have a policy on these types of issues”.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president David Ossip told the inquiry that “the past 20 months had seen an unprecedented and shocking rise in anti-Semitism” following the October 7 attack in Israel and the subsequent protests over the invasion of Gaza.

“For the first time, the Jewish community of Australia and NSW has felt unsafe and at risk, not because of anything it has done, but because of who we are,” he said.

“There have been moments where we have been completely overwhelmed as an organisation by the sheer volume and seriousness of anti-Semitic incidents which have been

reported to us … No sphere of life has been immune to the virus of anti-Semitism.”

The inquiry was told of incidents reported to the organisation in which students were targeted because of their Jewish identity, including one in which a student was asked “Are you Jewish? F**king Jews. You should kill yourself”.

“This all previously would have been unthinkable,” Mr Ossip told the inquiry.

In its submission, the board said there was a 339 per cent increase in incidents.

It comes after a spate of high-profile anti-Semitic incidents across Greater Sydney this past summer that led to the passing of controversial new anti-hate laws that outlawed protests outside places of worship among other strict measures.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Michele Goldman told the inquiry that the board welcomed the new anti-hate speech laws, and it was “something we’ve been advocating for some time” and a “first step” but called for more action to be taken.

“What we really need to see now is consistent application of the law to ensure that those people who are guilty of vilification, of harassment, of intimidation face the law and that there is effective deterrence to others,” Ms Goldman told the inquiry.

“A clear message is that this is not OK in our society. This is not for Australia.”

Opponents of the laws, including civil society groups and Jewish groups and individuals who made submissions to the inquiry, claim the laws limit free speech and were a “kneejerk” reaction and warned about conflations between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.

Asked about those concerns, Mr Ossip said “getting into this discussion is a bit of a red herring” and the overwhelming majority of incidents reported to the organisation were “textbook anti-Semitism … (which) have nothing to do with Israel or Zionism”.

“I think where the line is crossed is where hatred of Israel spills over into suspicion of Jews more broadly or a view that Jews are pernicious, dangerous, or particularly egregious in their actions,” Mr Ossip told the inquiry.

“I think it’s when protesters will deny the rights of Jews for self-determination and saying that Israel’s very existence is illegitimate or inherently racist.”

Mr Ossip told the inquiry that Holocaust education “isn’t sufficient to combat anti-Semitism”.

He singled out “tropes” that were often “subtle and pernicious”.

On far-right extremism, Mr Ossip went on to add that “they’re obviously an immense concern to us, but we’ve been making mistakes just to describe it as anti-Semitism”.

More to come