Submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion
Submission on behalf of Global Reconciliation
by Paul Komesaroff, Suresh Sundram and Paul James
April 2026
Address for correspondence:
Professor Paul Komesaroff AM Paul.komesaroff@monash.edu Telephone: 0417 55 26 59
Table of contents
X. Examples of effective reconciliation strategies in Australia and elsewhere........................ 9
XV. Appendix 1: Biographical notes on the authors............................................................. 15
XVI. Appendix 2: The conceptual structure of antisemitism.................................................. 16
XVII. Appendix 3: Supporters of this submission................................................................... 19
XVIII. Appendix 4: Publications and references...................................................................... 21
Submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion Paul Komesaroff, Suresh Sundram and Paul James
I. Executive summary
This submission, made on behalf of the international NGO Global Reconciliation, addresses the Royal Commission’s terms of reference concerning antisemitism and social cohesion. It argues that antisemitism is not a single phenomenon but encompasses multiple distinct entities, including political conflicts, overtly criminal acts and broader patterns of intolerance, bigotry and racism that require social, ethical and institutional analysis.
In an attempt to develop an effective response to the last of these forms of antisemitism—its broader patterns—this submission analyses what is known about social cohesion, the origins and causes of racism and intolerance, and the kinds of social programs that best mitigate their negative consequences. It argues that strategies that support reconciliation, understood as practical engagement across the boundaries of difference, enhancing communication and dialogue, and creatively working with and respecting difference, have proven effective in overcoming harmful social divisions and diminishing violence. Reconciliation strategies, it argues, should thus be a key part of any practical response.
The submission, which is supported by a number of prominent Australian citizens from diverse backgrounds, suggests that legal and educational responses are necessary but insufficient. To complement these, it proposes the establishment of a national strategy of reconciliation, treated as a coordinated process for rebuilding communicative relationships through shared engagements. It recommends the establishment of a Federal Office of Reconciliation to support such work.
II. Introduction
This submission addresses the following terms of reference of the Royal Commission:
(a) (ii) identifying any opportunities to enhance the responses of governments to antisemitism, including best-practice approaches to strengthening social cohesion;
(a) (iii) making recommendations to counteract and prevent manifestations of antisemitism;
(d) making any other recommendations that would contribute to strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia.
This submission draws on knowledge of social theory, philosophy and ethics, and on extensive practical experience in community activism and dialogue, both within and beyond the Jewish community. It reflects an attempt to build a resilient society based on respect for difference, appreciation of multiculturalism, and a repudiation of violence.
The submission proposes an evidence-based approach to the problems set out by the Commission, based on careful analysis of the relevant issues and concepts, in order to develop more precise definitions of the problems and a characterisation of the kinds of solutions that may be available.
III. The authors and supporters
The authors of this submission, whose bio notes are included in Appendix 1, are as follows:
· Paul Komesaroff AM, a physician, researcher and philosopher at Monash University, where he is Professor of Medicine. He is also Executive Director of Global Reconciliation.
· Suresh Sundram, a psychiatrist and researcher who is Head of the Department of Psychiatry at Monash University and Director of Research of the Mental Health Program at Monash Health.
· Paul James, a social researcher, Emeritus Professor of Globalization and Cultural Diversity at Western Sydney University and Director of Research at Global Reconciliation.
The submission is presented on behalf of Global Reconciliation (www.globalreconciliation.org), an international NGO established in 2004 to promote communication and dialogue across differences of culture, race, religion, gender and other forms of identity. Global Reconciliation has supported projects in more than fifty countries, including extensively in the Middle East and Southern and Southeast Asia, and has initiated and coordinated multiple programs aimed at strengthening community dialogue and cooperation in Australia and elsewhere.
Importantly for the present submission, the work of reconciliation, understood in this positive sense, is distinguished from conflict resolution by recognising, respecting and mobilising difference, not overcoming difference. It seeks to enhance the depth, quality and complexity of social life, not just mitigate violent conflict. The concept of “reconciliation” as applied by Global Reconciliation will be further elaborated in this submission.
References to publications relating to the concept of reconciliation, relevant philosophical and ethical writings, and analyses of contemporary contentious issues in the Middle East and Australia can be found in Appendix 4. The submission is supported by a number of prominent Australian citizens, listed in Appendix 3.
IV. Key assumptions and background
One of us (PK) writes from a Jewish perspective. His family came to Australia fleeing persecution and antisemitism in Europe in the early twentieth century, and he retains a keen awareness of this history and the histories of Jews who have fled other expressions of antisemitism throughout history.
All authors support and value the contribution of Jewish people to Australian society. We acknowledge the strengths of Australian society, including its commitment to multiculturalism, tolerance, and the renunciation of civic violence, of which we have been beneficiaries. We also acknowledge the colonial history of Australia and the dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the continuing legacy of inequality, intolerance and cultural damage that this has generated.
While we share concerns about antisemitism, together with other forms of discrimination and prejudice in Australia, we believe that great care must be taken to avoid politicisation of the term in ways that advantage one group over another. PK has written extensively on Jewish ethics and its applications to medicine and in other settings. He has argued at length that the actions of the IDF and the Israeli government in Gaza are directly contrary to the long tradition of Jewish ethics, as set out in Talmudic and other writings. PJ has written about the role of the Israeli state in effecting displacement and ethnic cleansing. In both cases, it should be self-evident that it is wrong to label criticisms of the Israeli government based on such sources as “antisemitic”. We do not accept that antisemitism is entailed in the act of criticism of the present government of Israel.
We recognise widespread concern in the Australian community about actions in Gaza and elsewhere, as well as about discriminatory Israeli laws affecting Palestinians. We are also well aware of divisions in the Jewish community about the conflict in the Middle East and other matters, including the nature and significance of antisemitism in Australia. We do not consider such concerns and differences of opinion in themselves to be harmful or problematic, but acknowledge that they have at times aroused anxiety and tensions in the Jewish and wider communities.
We are committed to careful analysis of the facts and to the knowledge and understanding provided by well-established social theory, philosophy, and historical and cultural scholarship. This requires that we define terms clearly, identify precisely the issues to be addressed, and work towards practical solutions that can be tested and validated empirically.
V. How this submission is organised
The submission proceeds through reflection on both the concept and nature of antisemitism, followed by a working definition of social cohesion. It then considers evidence concerning the roots and underlying causes of intolerance, bigotry and racism, including the specific features of antisemitism.
It proceeds to clarify the multiple forms and sources of antisemitism, before developing the concept of reconciliation and its application to proven strategies for addressing intolerance and social division. It then presents evidence from practical experience in Australia and elsewhere, and finally outlines opportunities for the Royal Commission, in particular, a proposal for the establishment of an Australian Office of Reconciliation.
VI. Reflections on antisemitism
Antisemitism can manifest itself in a number of ways and reflect a wide range of underlying beliefs and prejudices. In the mid-twentieth century, antisemitism led to the murder of over 6 million Jewish people in one of the worst expressions of racist ideology the world has seen. Contemporary political movements across the world have also encouraged violence, harassment, threats and vandalism aimed at Jewish people, often driven by antisemitic conspiracy theories and ideologies. Antisemitism can also take hold without underlying ideology or prejudice but can feed off conspiratorial narratives or widely used stereotypes to align with underlying fears or intolerances. Expressions of antisemitism often reveal forms of prejudice and discrimination that arise from broader dynamics of racism, bigotry and intolerance in society.
Antisemitism cannot be equated with criticism of the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza or elsewhere (though of course it is possible to be both critical of the Israeli government and antisemitic at the same time). In Australia there can be no prohibition against free discussion of these issues. Attempts to prevent expressions of opinion are contrary to the interests of all Australians.
Antisemitism can reflect the deep historical experience which in the twentieth century included extreme and atrocious crimes against individuals and communities. It can also include ideological forms linked to contemporary extremist political movements, which for the most part are subject to established legal sanctions. In lesser versions, it may take the form of conspiratorial narratives, harassment, threats and vandalism and include criticism of Jewish people based on their ethnicity, religion and culture, sometimes linked to historically grounded patterns of hatred. Often it gives expression to forms of prejudice and discrimination that arise from broader dynamics of racism, bigotry and intolerance in society.
The different forms of antisemitism arise from different sources, respond to different social dynamics and require different social strategies in response. The responses may include legal prohibition and educational programs. They may also require more complex and nuanced interventions that address the underlying social processes that generate the tensions ultimately expressed as bigoty and intolerance.
In order to ensure clear and effective discussion about the nature and impact of antisemitism in Australian society, and to preserve the force of the concepts underlying it, we believe that care needs to be taken to avoid employing the term loosely and without proper evidence or discrimination. To this end, we have outlined in Appendix 2 a suggested framework for understanding the conceptual structure of antisemitism and the evidentiary requirements associated with its use.
Although—understandably—widespread assumptions have been made about the motivations for the Bondi massacre, it is our view that pending the provision of further evidence a firm conclusion cannot yet be drawn about whether this event was a manifestation of antisemitism in any of these senses. Violent crimes are abhorrent, whatever their supposed motivation and antecedent thought processes. However, it is important not to make assumptions about expressions of extreme violence and to distinguish their different aetiologies and dynamics and develop responses that are appropriate to them. In the absence of further factual information, this submission will not comment further on this terrible event.
The version of antisemitism with which we are concerned is that which is continuous with other forms of racism and discrimination in Australian society. By implication, our response also addresses the processes which generate divisiveness and hostility directed towards Aboriginal people, members of different ethnic or cultural groups, adherents of various religions, including Christianity and Islam, and individuals with social, ethical, political or gender preferences which may deviate from those in the mainstream of society.
Antisemitism, from this perspective, is not a single, undifferentiated phenomenon but rather a heterogeneous set of practices, beliefs and actions. From a policy perspective, these practices, beliefs and actions must be distinguished. While overtly criminal forms require legal enforcement, the more deeply embedded ideological and social forms require careful ethical, social and institutional analysis and response strategies grounded in proven empirical practice. Legal extensions into countering embedded forms of racism and discrimination, and even the usual educational approaches (teaching the young to avoid racism and antisemitism) can be tragically counterproductive in the long term. Witness the backlash in Trump’s America to social attitudes branded (often in polemical discourse) as “woke”.
VII. Social cohesion
The concept of “social cohesion” is complex and is extensively discussed in philosophy and social theory. While serious criticisms of the concept are often advanced, there is good reason to assume that many of the preconditions for its most favourable expressions exist in Australia, including a sense of generosity and respect for cultural difference, universal access to health care, support for people with disabilities, provision for support for those without work or in need of food and housing, low levels of gun and street violence, and a wide consciousness of the legacies of colonialism, Indigenous dispossession and the European Holocaust. Nonetheless, the nature of social cohesion and how it is envisaged as a desirable social project remain to be negotiated. It is imperative then that the nature of social cohesion and how it is envisaged as a desirable social project in the Australian context be negotiated carefully, with community and building on existing evidence.
The substantial tradition of social theory and analysis relating to social cohesion addresses the structure and function, dynamics and fragility, risks and promises of the idea of social cohesion. Émile Durkheim understood cohesion as order and integration, identifying the forces that bind individuals into a society anddistinguishing mechanical solidarity, based on similarity and shared beliefs, from organic solidarity, based on interdependence and division of labour. Max Weber’s theory of legitimacy, authority, and meaningful social action exposed how cohesion arises when social orders are seen as legitimate—whether traditional, charismatic, or legal-rational—and how it remains fragile and contingent on shared meanings and the stability of authority systems. Many subsequent thinkers have studied related ideas, including Talcott Parsons, Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault, Emmanuel Levinas and others.
Arendt and Levinas, both prominent Jewish philosophers whose work has contributed importantly to the developing theory of reconciliation, expressed scepticism about enforced unity and instead valued plurality and difference over uniformity and consensus. For Levinas in particular, ethics is grounded in responsibility to the Other, and cohesion arises through complex patterns of difference and recognition of multiple perspectives as creative sources of shared experience. The German philosopher and social theorist Jürgen Habermas argued that cohesion is grounded in rational discourse, whereby social integration is established and maintained through shared norms generated via “undistorted” communication.
Some, but not all, of these ideas have passed into contemporary policy usage. While the depth and complexity of the ideas mentioned undoubtedly retain their force, the concept of “social cohesion” has often been applied in a more superficial manner, as a pragmatic concept, particularly in multicultural societies. In these cases, it is often taken to include no more than belonging, participation, trust, and equity, without reference to its normative origins, its theoretical depth and its multiple practical implications. A key problem of policy responses is the treatment of cohesion as harmony, as if discordances necessarily lead to violent differences.
Drawing on this rich theoretical/practical history, we adopt the following working definitions. Positive social cohesion refers to cultural assumptions and practices according to which social differences are accepted and respected (even if still found uncomfortable), and can be incorporated into the working institutions of a society without generating violent conflict. This does not mean excluding disagreement or even conflict—only those forms of conflict that obstruct the effective operation of social institutions, endanger people or lead directly to violence. Indeed, such dynamic tensions themselves may be seen to contribute to the maintenance of stability conditions across interacting social systems, mediated by communicative, normative, and material processes.
As we shall argue, it follows from this analysis that the achievement of a desirable, fecund, fluid form of cohesion requires the active practical engagement of individuals from diverse cultural and social backgrounds around shared meanings and common values. Cohesion, thus understood, incorporates positive plurality as a condition of possibility, alongside the negotiation of stable forms of power and access to social wealth and privilege.
VIII. Roots of intolerance, bigotry and antisemitism
A coherent response to discrimination and intolerance and building a socially cohesive society requires an understanding of its underlying social roots, in relation to which a similar body of knowledge and empirical experience exists. Relevant theories cover psychology, social identity theory, and analysis of economic, legal, political and social structures and dynamics. Contributing factors include ignorance, fear, disadvantage, resentment, disempowerment, lack of opportunity, loss of hope, and a broader cultural environment in which anger, violence, authoritarianism and aggressive nationalism become normalised.
In Australia, as in many places around the world, racist ideologies have shaped cultural, political and economic institutions and structures, arising from colonial legacies and ideologies of the pre-eminence of one culture over another. The effects of this structural racism are still being felt in Australian society and have shaped the cultural and political environment that all Australians experience.
The evidence shows that racism can take shape in the early phases of socialisation. Bigotry can arise without a fully developed ideology and may be embedded within the structures that form identity. Racism is often amplified by perceived competition and threat, not simply by belief. Prejudice is embedded in everyday practices and institutional structures and operates through forms of symbolic violence. All of these pathologies persist not only through belief but through processes of social reproduction. In this sense, racism, prejudice, intolerance and bigotry can function as technologies of governance rather than merely as individual attitudes.
From the perspective of discourse ethics, referred to above, these attitudes become entrenched and spread when communication is distorted, voices are excluded, and mutual understanding fails. Racism reflects a breakdown in the conditions necessary for genuine communication. Hatred is mediated by language, narratives, images, representations and public symbols. Together, they are sustained by repetition of stereotypes, normalisation of coded hostility, circulation of conspiratorial narratives, dissemination of dehumanising tropes, erosion of shared standards of truth, and exclusion from free communicative intercourse. They are reinforced and made more resilient by the operation of digital communication and social media which no longer merely transmit ideologies or local community norms but amplify and extend them through the operation of recursive algorithms and unqualified repetition and apparent validation.
To be clear, racism, bigotry and other forms of intolerance target many different minority groups, including those comprising First Nations People and members of various cultural and religious communities. The version that is manifested in antisemitism has distinctive as well as general features. It has historically been associated with totalitarian movements and has been linked to loneliness, breakdown of social bonds and susceptibility to simplified ideological narratives. It includes conspiratorial narratives concerning hidden power and control, religious and historical roots in theological anti-Judaism, racialisation in modern Europe, and has an unusual capacity to adapt across political ideologies. Contemporary social media amplify these tendencies and identity politics and broader social polarisation intensify boundary-formation and moral absolutism.
Critical contemporary accounts, therefore, treat racism and intolerance as multi-layered phenomena operating at individual, interactional, structural, cultural-discursive and historical levels. They involve cognitive bias, emotional dispositions, identity needs, group dynamics, intergroup contact or conflict, the effects of inequality, institutional arrangements, and the operation of cultural narratives and symbolic systems. They are also shaped by long-standing legacies of colonialism, migration and conflict. Despite the positive features referred to above these ingredients are also present in contemporary Australia. They may be exacerbated by forces favouring social breakdown, such as uneven distribution of opportunity, unfair social processes, and the use of media and political discourse to intensify division and undermine trust in institutions.
In summary, we have argued that antisemitism, as we are conceptualising it, cannot be understood separately from other forms of racism and intolerance, and, if they are to be effective, social responses that undermine its impact and consequences, must address their shared root causes.
IX. Reconciliation
The fundamental problem underlying negative conflict is not merely disagreement or prejudice but a rupture in the fabric of social engagement, including communicative relationships. Racism, intolerance, bigotry and antisemitism arise when the ethical bonds that sustain communicative relationships in society are damaged or collapse, leading to breakdown of dialogue, mutual recognition and restraint. It is not primarily a matter of ignorance, nor simply of attitudes or structural inequality, but of failure.
The positive and creative response to these pathologies we refer to as “reconciliation”, in the sense of the promotion of practices that engender communication and dialogue across differences of culture, race, religion, political ideology, gender and other practical and conceptual commitments. In the deeper sense presented here, reconciliation does not seek or entail the extinction of difference. It goes beyond conflict resolution. To the contrary, positive reconciliation acknowledges differences, which it protects and values as the sources of creative, novel insights that support the dynamic nature of social cohesion described above. Furthermore, the process of positive reconciliation is enacted most productively not through instrumental teaching, abstract moralising or legal enforcement but through practical engagements around shared lifeworld practices (that is, practices in the everyday world of experience, meaning, and cultural assumptions). Positive reconciliation may take many forms, examples of some of which will be provided below. It can be enacted in the domains of health and wellbeing, arts and culture, sport and recreation, celebration and spirituality, learning and education, livelihood and money, place and environment and justice and ethics.
Reconciliation, in this context, refers to the refiguring of relationships and power dynamics in order to open a space for dialogue capable of building trust and confidence and developing productive ways of accommodating difference and healing rupture. It does not require consensus, assimilation or the elimination of conflict. It involves restoration of communication, translation across difference and the creation of shared spaces of meaning. Seen in this way, reconciliation provides a powerful tool for opposing racism and intolerance, including antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bigotry, and building the dynamic form of social cohesion we envisage.
X. Examples of effective reconciliation strategies in Australia and elsewhere
There is extensive empirical support for the effectiveness of reconciliation-based approaches as a response to the social pathologies discussed above. There are many examples of these, from Australia and overseas, to many of which Global Reconciliation and its supporters have contributed:
· Post-conflict reconciliation projects in many countries that have focused on restoring relationships fractured by war and violence by promoting truth-telling, apologies, and forgiveness—for example, South Africa, East Timor, Mozambique, Sri Lanka;
· Projects in many countries to re-engage individuals isolated from communities as a result of HIV infections and its consequences—for example, in Africa and southern and southeast Asia;
· Intercultural arts-based approaches that build belonging, reduce exclusion and foster understanding;
· Recovery after bushfires, giving rise to ongoing programs to build social solidarity;
· Interfaith programs, in schools and civil society, to improve cultural acceptance, reduce prejudice and increased interfaith understanding;
· Youth engagement and employment projects, incorporating training programs, mentoring, sport and other activity-based activities which reduce disengagement, delinquency and substance abuse;
· Literacy programs, which have a long history of building social solidarity and community awareness of common problems, supporting progress towards joint, collaborative solutions;
· Projects to craft peace-promoting language policies for Indigenous populations in various settings around the world, to establish agreements about both what to talk about and how;
· Conduct of dialogues in Australian communities divided by conflicts in their home countries—for example, the Sri Lankan, Vietnamese, Cambodian and Iranian communities;
· In Australia, the multicultural National Community Hubs Program to enhance social inclusion for migrant families through place-based approaches that bring together newly arrived families, established communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities;
· The Neighbour Day, or Neighbours Every Day program, that promotes social connection, reduces loneliness and strengthens neighbourhood identification, with evidence of sustained benefits over time;
· Community-based support groups focused on victims of domestic violence, both to provide protection to women at risk and to reduce the incidence of violent events—as in the Victorian African community;
· Multiple groups, on-line and in person, to provide support for people suffering from specific medical conditions, such as diabetes, various cancers and mental health conditions;
· Provision of food and shelter for homeless people or other people, working across cultural difference, as provided by various charitable organisations and some faith-based groups;
· During the COVID pandemic, provision of meals to elderly or isolated people by volunteers, recognizing different culinary cultures;
· Encouragement and support for young people across different cultural groupings involved in graffiti drawing to apply their skills to producing cultural objects; and
· Sporting programs that encourage participation by people of multiple backgrounds, ages and genders.
To these examples we may add the evidence collected by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from internationally comparative studies of social cohesion and the conditions and factors through which it is achieved and maintained. The OECD conceptualises social cohesion as the capacity of societies to ensure the well-being of all members, minimise disparities, and avoid marginalisation, and its research highlights the key roles of inclusion, participation and trust as core dimensions of societies that foster cohesion. The latter emphasise equitable access to opportunities, the ability of individuals to participate fully in economic and civic life, and the development of interpersonal and intercultural skills that enable cooperation across difference.
The examples provided here, and many others, demonstrate the potency of reconciliation-style interventions that bring together individuals and groups around shared values through common practices which allow them to build caring and respectful relationships and overcome mistrust, fear and resentment. Overall, the most effective interventions are sustained, place-based and institutionally supported.
XI. Opportunities to support social cohesion, oppose social intolerance and enhance reconciliation which may be promoted by the Royal Commission
As discussed, antisemitism is not a single phenomenon. Some forms are criminal and require legal response. Others are ideological or doctrinal. The form on which this submission is focusing is antisemitism as part of broader patterns of intolerance and social division.
Social cohesion is complex and involves dynamic engagement across difference, in a manner that both preserves difference and draws on it for new and creative possibilities. Responses must therefore be multifaceted. A broader, whole-of-society approach is required, consistent with existing policy frameworks.
As we have argued, intolerance and bigotry are part of a larger scourge that has multiple roots, and responses must be carefully designed to address the underlying contributory factors. Australia’s own National Anti-Racism Framework already explicitly adopts a “whole of society” approach across law, justice, health, education, workplaces, media and arts, rather than treating racism as a problem that can be solved only by prohibition or classroom instruction. Critical discussion around social cohesion in Australia likewise treats belonging, trust, participation, fairness, safety and dialogue as interconnected, and warns against reducing cohesion to mere conformity, harmony, assimilation or lack of conflict.
In developing a coherent and effective program of reconciliation strategies, responses need to encompass four cross-cutting domains: psychological and social-identitarian; discursive and symbolic; structural and institutional; and historical and political. They must be able to respond to questions such as the following:
· What fears, anxieties, humiliations, or resentments are being mobilised?
· What emotional patterns make hateful narratives persuasive?
· Where are group boundaries hardening?
· How are belonging and exclusion being narrated?
· Which institutions are failing to protect vulnerable groups?
· Are responses to hatred consistent, principled, and trusted?
· What narratives, symbols, tropes, and media ecologies are normalising hostility?
· How is digital amplification shaping prejudice?
· What inherited narratives and unresolved conflicts are being reactivated?
· How are international conflicts being domesticated into local antagonisms?
We propose that a reconciliation strategy that offers practical, sustained programs which bring people from different backgrounds into cooperative engagements around shared lifeworld concerns is likely to offer the most effective and sustainable response to the problems being addressed by the Commission.
XII. Proposal: The establishment of a Federal Office of Reconciliation
To give practical effect to the anti-racist reconciliation program described above we suggest that the Commission recommend the establishment of a Federal Office of Reconciliation. The objectives of this Office would encompass the development, funding, coordination and evaluation of programs that bring diverse communities together around shared civic and ethical values.
The Office would achieve this by engaging with and supporting local communities to design social projects that build durable relationships, trust, shared civic practices and common ethical commitments across the lines of religion, ethnicity, race, age, gender and culture. It would work with existing institutions and civil society groups to support local initiatives and encourage community-based relational and communicative activities. In the background, it would also support more effective alignment across existing government services and departments to strengthen access to services, improve efficiency and allow for the addressing of national structural issues.
This office would be driven by principles of place-based approaches, national feedback loops and an iterative design that allowed it to learn and improve over time. It would be founded on engagements with community-led organisations to assist with the design of approaches to supporting social cohesion, including in developing contracts tailored to local conditions and needs. This relational contracting approach is already being trialled by the Department of Social Services (DSS).
This approach to addressing national challenges through learning from, and encouraging, local responses is not new. Current work by the Partnerships for Local Action and Community Empowerment (PLACE, also funded in part by DSS) and the National Youth Employment Body (led by the Brotherhood of St Laurence) are aimed at understanding how local action can be supported and lessons synthesised to inform national policy, providing a local-to-national learning loop that is currently rare across government programs and services.
A relational contracting approach would be supported by a national social cohesion program that brings together different communities of practice—community organisations, industry, government, education and faith-based organisations—to share knowledge about what works, allowing local groups to share knowledge, build trust and identify common challenges. As part of this, the Office of Reconciliation would act as a learning partner to the community sector, enabling the testing of new approaches and facilitating the rollout of successful programs nationally where the evidence was strong.
In these ways, the Federal Office of Reconciliation would work as a source of knowledge, funding, ongoing support, and impact assessment for community groups that apply to it to run practical projects that include two or more groupings across perceived cultural/political divides that are causing tension. Its work could take the following form:
1. A regular nation-wide call for projects that meet a simple series of basic principles:
· that the project has a clear management structure that includes members of different communities across a perceived cultural/political divide;
· that the project plan includes members of those different communities working together in a productive and creative way;
· that the project is practical—it does not need to focus narrowly on reconciliation or social cohesion as such—and engages people from the different communities working together in immediate collaboration with concrete and consequential outcomes;
· that the project demonstrates a clear sense of how power and conflict might intrude upon the project and have ways of dealing with it;
· that the project outcomes have consequences that ideally reach beyond the communities in question.
2. Selection of a manageable number of projects and working with the project management groups to refine the budgets and test project directions.
3. Monitoring and evaluating of the impact of the projects—both externally for the wider community and internally for those working on it. Here the officers of the Federal Office of Reconciliation would need to be sensitive to slowness of change and subtlety of impact.
There is a very wide range of programs and projects that could be initiated, supported and empowered by a Federal Office of Reconciliation. These would facilitate and assist with local initiatives and develop evidence-based models, coordinating across sectors, and ensuring inclusive participation across communities.
In keeping with the understanding of communication we are discussing here, which extends beyond the exchange of meanings to the capacity to understand and be understood by others, the Office of Reconciliation would link education, integration, and democratic engagement. It would thereby not merely promote the absence of conflict, bigotry and intolerance but would actively contribute to the construction of inclusive institutions and shared, trust-sustaining civic practices.
Practical activities that could form the basis of such work, in addition to examples such as those referred to in Section X, may include the following:
· Identification of and support for community-based groups in all the areas of interest previously described;
· Support for joint faith-based programs to assist people in need, including through provision of food and shelter, literacy programs, etc.;
· Development of and support for youth support programs, incorporating sharing of skills, mentoring, sporting and cultural activities;
· Support for environmental action groups responding to local needs;
· Encouragement of local festivals, including food and culture-based celebrations, street parties, etc.;
· Support for amateur and professional arts programs, comprising music and dance, the visual arts, book clubs etc.;
· Support for engagement in sporting activities of people from diverse cultures, not necessarily focused on competition or high-level skills but rather sharing of skills and mutual enjoyment;
· Support for community-based craft groups, including women’s groups involved in clothing and fashion creation;
· Support for parent-support groups, including after-schools programs, and play groups that include families from mixed and various cultural backgrounds; and
· Liaising with education authorities to infuse the perspectives promoted in this submission more fully into schooling through expanded civics and similar programs.
A condition of funding and support in each case would thus be documentation of strategies to include a diverse range of participants, with members from designated sections of the community, and balance with respect to culture, religion, gender, age or other variables as appropriate. The establishment of criteria for composition of a social group such as this is in no way exceptional: it forms the basis of the human research ethics committee system which has operated successfully across the country for more than forty years.
There are some caveats and cautions in relation to the creation and role of an Office of National Reconciliation as described. Reconciliation is not a substitute for law, and criminal acts must continue to be addressed through legal mechanisms. It is not a form of assimilation, but must allow plurality and respect for difference. Effective interventions will require sustained engagement, appropriate design and institutional support. Finally, all programs must be evidence-based and incorporate into their conditions of establishment both defined outcomes and a methodology for testing whether or not these have been achieved. This can be done simply and effectively.
In summary, a Federal Office of Reconciliation would develop best-practice, sustainable, evidence-based models to promote community inclusion, while aiding in the identification of weak points in government systems and responses that are not currently supporting social cohesion. It would coordinate engagement across cultures and demographic groups. It would demonstrate that the central task in addressing antisemitism and other forms of intolerance is not to prohibit harmful acts or correct false beliefs but to restore the practical, ethical and communicative conditions that make social life possible. In this way, reconciliation, understood as the flourishing of communicative action across a range of differences by building on common, shared interests and values, may prove to be a robust and flexible weapon in the fight against intolerance, racism and the forces seeking to support and foment social division.
XIII. Conclusions and recommendations
1. Contemporary antisemitism is not a monolithic social phenomenon but has multiple components and expressions which have different origins and drivers—each of which requires different kinds of responses.
2. Antisemitism includes the expressions of political movements and ideologies as well as advocates and perpetrators of overtly criminal acts.
3. Antisemitism can also be a manifestation of a social pathology that is continuous with racism, intolerance, bigotry and discriminatory actions directed at other members of the community in relation to race, culture, gender and other characteristics.
4. There is substantial knowledge and evidence about the social roots and dynamics of this latter form of antisemitism, which include breakdowns of ethical and communicative relations, leading to fear, resentment, and lack of trust in the ability of social institutions to provide recognition, respect and care.
5. The concept of “social cohesion” has also been considered at some length and relates to conditions that stabilise and regulate social relationships by accommodating and respecting difference.
6. Evidence indicates that sustained, cooperative engagement across multiple forms of difference, referred to as “positive reconciliation practices”, can strengthen trust, reduce prejudice and improve social cohesion.
7. Australia should therefore complement legal and educational responses to antisemitism with a national reconciliation strategy supported by a Federal Office of Reconciliation.
8. Central tasks of this Office would include not only prevention of harmful actions but also restoration of the ethical and communicative conditions that underpin a flourishing social life.
9. A response to the version of antisemitism that reflects the broader dynamics of racism and social fragmentation, using a reconciliation approach in the manner described, will generate a multi-level approach that responds to needs by fostering local, face-to-face community relationships around practices built around common interests and values.
10. The establishment of a Federal Office of Reconciliation would provide a framework for implementing such strategies.
XIV. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the many people who have contributed to the preparation of this submission through their thoughtful and generous comments. We acknowledge that the Supporters read the evolving document with great care and provided suggestions, including, in a number of cases, examples of their own reconciliation experience, many of which we have been pleased to include in the text.
Appendix 1: Biographical notes on the authors
Paul Komesaroff MB, BS, BSc (Hons), PhD, FRACP, AM is a physician, medical researcher and philosopher at Monash University in Melbourne, where he is a Professor of Medicine. He is a practising clinician, specialising in the field of endocrinology.
Among many other roles, he is Executive Director of the international NGO Global Reconciliation, Director of Palaver Books, a board member of Praxis Australia, Director of the Centre for Ethics in Medicine and Society, former President of Adult Medicine in the Royal Australasian College of Physician, and former President of the Australasian Bioethics Association. He is a present or past member or chair of numerous other committees in professional societies, institutions and government in Australia and internationally.
His work spans a wide range of disciplines, encompassing clinical practice, laboratory, clinical and social science research and ethics. The latter addresses the impact of new technologies on health and society, consent in research, the experience of illness, end of life issues, psychological effects of trauma, the impact of artificial intelligence, and cross-cultural teaching and learning. His international work covers reconciliation and healing after conflict and social crisis, the nature and impact of foreign aid, and capacity building in global health.
He is the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry and Ethics Editor of the Internal Medicine Journal. He is the author of more than 550 articles in science, ethics and philosophy, and author or editor of eighteen books, including Riding a crocodile: a physician’s tale (2014), Experiments in love and death (2014 and 2008), Continent aflame (2020), Pathways to reconciliation (2008), Objectivity, science and society (2nd ed. 2009), and Troubled bodies (1996).
Paul James PhD is Emeritus Professor of Globalization and Cultural Diversity in the Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University. He is 2026 recipient of the James Rosenau Award, honouring the scholar who has across their life’s work made the most important contributions to globalization studies. Paul is author or editor of over 30 books, including Global Crisis and Insecurity: The Human Condition, Darkly (Cambridge University Press, 2025) and Globalization Matters: (with Manfred Steger, Cambridge University Press, 2019).
He has been an advisor to agencies and governments, including to the Berlin Senate, the Canadian G40 process, the Timorese Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Papua New Guinea Minister for Community Development. From 2007 till 2014 he was Director of the United Nations agency, the Global Compact Cities Programme.
Suresh Sundram MB, BS, MMed, PhD, FRANZCP is Head of the Department of Psychiatry, heads of the Translational Molecular Psychiatry and the Asylum Seeker and Refugee Mental Health research, and is part of the Clinical Psychedelic Lab research team.
His research studies involving asylum seekers examine mental health needs, the impact of immigration detention on child asylum seekers, the social determinants of mental health, and the prevalence and types of mental disorders in refugees and asylum seekers. His work in translational molecular psychiatry aims to develop disease modifying novel treatments for psychotic disorders, in particular, schizophrenia using a broad translational approach.
Appendix 2: The conceptual structure of antisemitism
This appendix proposes a framework for clarifying the concept of antisemitism in a way that supports analytical precision and practical applications. The aim is not to offer a comprehensive definition but to identify the necessary conditions under which an act may reasonably be characterised as antisemitic. The argument proceeds by analogy with established distinctions in legal philosophy while adapting these to the specific features of antisemitism as a social and cultural phenomenon.
Act, intention and targeting: Three conditions for calling it “antisemitism”
In many areas of criminal law, the classification of an act depends not only on what is done but also on the mental state accompanying it. The familiar distinction between actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the mental element, comprising an intention to act and, possibly other factors related to the manner in which the act was undertaken) reflects the principle that actions do not speak for themselves. Their meaning depends on intention and context.
In some cases, a further condition is required. For example, in contemporary legal definitions of terrorism, it is not sufficient that a violent act be committed intentionally. A third criterion also needs to be satisfied: that the act is connected to a broader ideological or political purpose which stands behind, directs and motivates both the act and the intention.
A similar, though not identical, structure applies in the case of antisemitism. It is proposed that three conditions are required for an act to be characterised as antisemitic. These comprise: (i) an act (actus reus), consisting of a relevant action, such as violence, harassment, discrimination, or symbolic targeting; (ii) a mental element (mens rea) demonstrating that the act is intentional, rather than accidental; and (iii) a “targeting condition”, showing that the act is directed toward Jews as Jews. The third condition—the targeting condition—is the critical distinguishing feature here. It specifies that the object of the act is not merely a person or group who happen to be Jewish, but Jewish identity itself. In these terms, an act may contribute to antisemitism without itself being antisemitic. To be antisemitic in itself, the act needs to be directed against Jewish people because they are Jewish.
The meaning of the targeting condition needs elaboration, as does how we might establish the presence of antisemitic targeting.
The nature of the targeting condition
The targeting condition does not require the presence of a fully articulated ideology or political doctrine. Unlike terrorism, where a formal ideological or political objective is often central, antisemitism may operate at a more diffuse level. The relevant condition may take a variety of forms, including explicit belief or doctrine, implicit prejudice or bias, affective dispositions such as fear, resentment or hostility, symbolic associations derived from cultural narratives or patterns of attribution that associate Jewish identity with particular negative characteristics. In this sense, antisemitism may be understood not only as a set of explicit propositions but as a structure of thought—a way of organising perceptions and meanings that shapes how individuals or groups are identified and treated. This means that the condition rests heavily on the claim that the act is directed against Jewish people because they are Jewish.
This understanding is consistent with a range of scholarly approaches on the nature of prejudice and the psychological structures underlying it, and the analysis of antisemitism, where antisemitism is treated as a pattern of projection and social cognition rather than a purely doctrinal position.
Establishing the presence of targeting
In practice, the targeting condition is rarely established through explicit statements of intent alone. It must often be inferred from the context. Relevant considerations may include the selection of victims or targets, the use of language, symbols or imagery, the setting or circumstances in which the act occurs, patterns of behaviour over time, and associations with known narratives or tropes.
For all of this, as indicated, the presence of Jewish victims, on its own, is not sufficient to establish antisemitism. The critical question is whether Jewish identity forms part of the object of the act. This reflects a broader principle in legal and social analysis that the classification of an act depends on its meaning, not only on its observable features.
The importance of the targeting condition can be illustrated by considering cases in which Jewish individuals or groups are involved in conflict for reasons that are not related to their Jewish identity. For example, political or territorial conflicts may involve individuals who happen to be Jewish. Opposition to such individuals or groups, where it is based on their role in a political or military context, does not necessarily constitute antisemitism. The relevant question is whether the opposition is directed toward them as Jews, or toward their actions, roles or affiliations. Similarly, acts of violence arising from broader ideological or religious frameworks may affect individuals of many different backgrounds. Where such acts are not specifically directed at Jews as Jews, they may be characterised differently, even if Jewish individuals are among the victims. An analogy here is that we don’t presume that people who open fire on others in shopping centres are “anti-shopper” or that those responsible for shootings in schools are “anti-child”.
These distinctions are not intended to justify or minimise any form of violence. Rather, they are necessary for analytical clarity, to allow different forms of conduct to be understood and addressed appropriately.
Implications for policy and practice
The distinctions outlined above have practical consequences. If antisemitism is understood as requiring a specific form of targeting, then responses must be calibrated accordingly. Acts that are directed toward Jews as Jews call for responses appropriate to antisemitism, including legal, educational and social interventions designed to address prejudice and discrimination. By contrast, acts arising from other forms of violence or conflict may require different forms of analysis and response, even where Jewish individuals are affected. Failure to make these distinctions risks both over-estimation of the incidence of antisemitism and, in some cases, lack of recognition of when it is occurring. Over-estimation may dilute the concept of antisemitism by applying it to cases where it is not analytically appropriate. Under-recognition may fail to identify genuine instances of antisemitism where the targeting condition is present but not immediately explicit. For these reasons, a clear conceptual framework is essential for effective policy.
Concluding remarks
Obviously, at Bondi, many people were killed (actus reus, the act) and the preparation and other circumstances prove intention, so there is an overwhelming case that the conditions for murder were satisfied (mens rea, the intention). In addition, many Jewish people were killed, creating an implication—possibly a strong implication—that the motivation was specifically directed at Jews. However, acts do not speak for themselves: that is why we make this distinction.
The distinction has consequences, both in relation to Bondi and in other contexts, because it directs the focus on both causes and responses with precision. For example, antisemitism is different from actions arising from a murderous quasi-religious cult engaged in indiscriminate acts of violence, and requires different social, cultural and legal responses.
In summary:
· The framework proposed here emphasises that antisemitism cannot be inferred solely from the identity of those affected;
· It requires satisfaction of three precise criteria, including an act, an intention, and the presence of a specific form of targeting directed toward Jews as Jews;
· This targeting may be grounded in explicit belief, implicit bias, affective disposition, or symbolic association;
· It may operate as a structured pattern of thought rather than a fully articulated ideology;
· Careful attention to these distinctions allows for greater precision in analysis and more appropriate responses in practice;
· This approach aligns with long traditions of ethical and legal reasoning in which the classification of actions depends on both their form and their meaning.
Appendix 3: Supporters of this submission
Professor Fiona Stanley AC, FAA, FASSA, FAHMS: Patron, The Kids Institute, Australia. Distinguished Research Professor, University of Western Australia
Professor John Funder AC: Distinguished professor Monash University and the Hudson Institute
Professor Alberto Gomes MA, PhD: Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, La Trobe University.
Professor Cameron Stewart BEc LLB (Hons) (Macquarie) GradDipJur GradDipLegalPrac (College of Law) PhD (Sydney), FACLM (Hon): Professor of Health, Law and Ethics, Sydney Health Law, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney
Dr Lionel Bopage PhD: Social and community activist.
Ms Frida Komesaroff BA (Hons): Economist working in youth employment and social integration programs
Mr Ilya Komesaroff BA (Hons), JD: Barrister interested in the role of the law in responding to social conflict and inequity
Professor Philipa Rothfield PhD: Honorary staff member, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University
Professor Rob Moodie AM MBBS MPH FAFPHM FRACGP: Professor of Public Health, University of Melbourne
Mr Jeremiah Kenner BA, MTS, JD: Ethics, Law, Policy, Cultural and religious studies
Mr Christopher Lamb PSM. BA LLB (ANU): Retired diplomat (DFAT and international Red Cross) and former president of the Australia Myanmar Institute
Professor Peter Brooks AM: Honorary Professor, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne
Emeritus Professor Joseph Lo Bianco AM, FAHA: Language and Literacy, University of Melbourne, Former President Australian Academy of the Humanities, Current President, Australia Myanmar Institute.
Professor Ian Kerridge BA BMed(Hons), MPhil(Cantab), FRACP, FRCPA, AM: Professor of Bioethics and Medicine, University of Sydney and Haematologist/Bone Marrow Transplant Physician, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney
Dr Sue Wareham OAM: President, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia)
Dr Peter Greenberg OAM MD PhD FRACP: Retired consultant physician in general internal medicine
Dr Jeanne Daly BSc MEnvSc PhD: Public health academic. Former editor of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
Sr Aileen Crowe PhD UNSW, BA Hons UPNG: Religious Studies, BA (multi-disciplinary) La Trobe University, former teacher in PNG and former co-ordinator of the Justice and Peace Office, Sydney Catholic Archdiocese. Currently Refugee advocacy and pastoral care
Associate Professor Hadia Haikal-Mukhtar OAM MBBS FRACGP LLB Hons: Senior academic general practitioner
Appendix 4: Publications and references
Adorno, T. W. (1950). The authoritarian personality, Harper & Brothers.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2025). National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship 2024: Public report. https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/nap-sample/nap-cc-2024-public-report.pdf
Bannon, M. (2018). The relationship between racism and anti-semitism. Race and racialization: Essential readings, 141-151.
Berger, P. L. (2018). The limits of social cohesion: Conflict and mediation in pluralist societies. Routledge.
Cousin, G., & Fine, R. (2012). A common cause: Reconnecting the study of racism and antisemitism. European Societies, 14(2), 166-185.
Cousin, G. and Fine, R. (2017). A Common Cause: Reconnecting the study of racism and antisemitism. In Antisemitism and Racism (pp. 14-33). Routledge.
Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30(1), 409-425.
Gardner, S., and Komesaroff, P.A. (2020). “The struggle for gender diversity”. Australasian psychiatry. September. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856220930676
Goonatileke. M., and Komesaroff P.A. (2017). “Globalization, human rights and health.” In Farazmand A. ed. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Springer.
Grant, M., Philip, J., Deliens, L., and Komesaroff, P.A. (2019). “Communal Responsibility: a History of Health Collectives in Australia”. Internal Medicine Journal Sep;49(9):1177-1180.
Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. W., and Noeri, G. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press.
James P. and Kath E (2014). ‘Global Reconciliation’, in Paul Battersby, Manfred B. Steger, and Joe Siracusa, eds, Handbook of Globalization, Sage Publications.
James P. (2018). ‘Creating Capacities for Human Flourishing: An Alternative Approach to Human Development’, in Paola Spinozzi and Mazzanti Massimiliano, eds, Cultures of Sustainability and Wellbeing: Theories, Histories, Policies, Routledge.
James, P, (2008). ‘Reconciliation: From the Usually Unspoken to the Almost Unimaginable’, Philippa Rothfield, Cleo Fleming, Paul A. Komesaroff, eds, Pathways to Reconciliation: Between Theory and Practice, Ashgate.
James, P, (2025). Global Crisis and Insecurity: The Human Condition, Darkly—Towards a Theory of Abstract Community, Vol. III, Cambridge University Press.
James, P. (2012). ‘Arguing for Deep Diversity in a Globalizing Era’, in Manfred B. Steger, ed., Globalization and Culture, Volume 1, Edward Elgar.
Kath, E., Long, D., and Komesaroff, P.A. (2017). “Globalization and public health”. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Springer.
Kellner, D. (1988), Postmodernism as social theory: Some challenges and problems. Theory, Culture & Society, 5(2-3), 239-269.
Komesaroff, P. A. and Kenner J. Z. (2025). “This is not Judaism: IDF actions in Gaza contradict Jewish ethical tradition” The Jewish Independent August 2025: https://thejewishindependent.com.au/idf-actions-in-gaza-contradict-jewish-ethical-tradition
Komesaroff P. A., Kath, E., and James P. (2011). “Reconciliation and the technics of healing”. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8(3); 2-4.
Komesaroff P. A. and Kenner J. "Is this Judaism? The question of the consistency of Israeli policy and actions in Gaza with Jewish thought and ethics. Part 1: Formulation of the question and methodological and hermeneutic issues" Journal of bioethical inquiry Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 22(3), 745-750.
Komesaroff, P.A and Kenner J. "Is this Judaism? The question of the consistency of Israeli policy and actions in Gaza with Jewish thought and ethics. Part 2: The evidence and conclusions" Journal of bioethical inquiry Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 22(3), 751-766.
Komesaroff, P.A., “Ethics in Geopolitical Conflicts: The First Casualty”. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. DOI : 10.1007/s11673-025-10445-4.
Komesaroff, P.A. (2024). “It is not too late for reconciliation between Israel and Palestine, even in its darkest hour.” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry; 21(1):29-45.
Komesaroff, P.A. (2024). “There are no valid ethical arguments in support of attacks on health facilities in Gaza”. Pearls and Irritations July 2024. https://johnmenadue.com/there-are-no-valid-ethical-arguments-in-support-of-attacks-on-health-facilities-in-gaza/
Komesaroff, P. A. (2016). Introduction pathways to reconciliation: Bringing diverse voices into conversation. In Pathways to Reconciliation (pp. 19-30). Routledge.
Lingis, A., and Komesaroff, P.A. 2025). “Ethics that Fails to Regulate War, Ethics that Enhances War.” Bioethical Inquiry 22, 47–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10395-3.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Perspectives on global development 2012: Social cohesion in a shifting world. OECD Publishing.
Rothfield P, Fleming C and Komesaroff PA eds (2008). Pathways to reconciliation: Between theory and practice (UK, Ashgate, 2008).
Sachs, J. D. and Komesaroff, P. (2025). Proposal for a UN Peace and Development Fund: A possible pathway for political and ethical renewal in the modern world. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 22(1), 51-55.
Schiefer, D., and Van der Noll, J. (2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 579-603.
Steinacher, G. J. (2023). The rise of racism and antisemitism in the age of globalization. In Research Handbook on the Sociology of Globalization (pp. 225-237). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Thesnaar, C. H. (2014). Seeking feasible reconciliation: A transdisciplinary contextual approach to reconciliation. HTS: Theological Studies, 70(2), 1-8.
Trimikliniotis, N. (2013). Sociology of reconciliation: Learning from comparing violent conflicts and reconciliation processes. Current Sociology, 61(2), 244-264.
Velthuizen, A. G. and Ferguson, K. D. (2018). The poetics of peace: From aesthetic knowledge to reconciliation. TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 14(1), 1-10.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2024). Antisemitism is a Form of Racism–or is it?. Sociology, 58(4), 779-795.