Key Takeaways
- Jeremy Stowe‑Lindner, principal of an Australian Jewish school, testified before the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion about the harassment his community faces.
- He described online hate, physical intimidation (Nazi salutes, verbal abuse, fascist stickers), and personal attacks that escalated after his appearance.
- Respondents employed classic antisemitic tropes—accusations of Nazi‑like behaviour, claims of “no feelings for Palestinian children,” and demands that Jews denounce Israel to be accepted.
- The abuse illustrates how broader societal anxieties are projected onto a tiny Jewish minority (≈0.4 % of Australia’s population), often cloaked in the guise of political criticism.
- Despite the vitriol, Stowe‑Lindner finds a grim irony in commentators’ frankness, suggesting their hatred is seen as socially permissible.
Testimony Before the Royal Commission
Two weeks ago I appeared before the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion to give evidence on behalf of my school, our students, and their families. My purpose was to illuminate the rising tide of hostility directed at Jewish Australians and to request the same dignity afforded to other minority groups. I outlined specific incidents of hateful rhetoric we have endured online, as well as security concerns around our school perimeter, including Nazi salutes, shouted epithets such as “F— the Jews,” shooting gestures from passers‑by, and fascist stickers plastered on our gates.
Concrete Examples of Harassment
During my testimony I recounted concrete experiences: children being spat on, screamed at, and ordered to leave public transport; our students subjected to racial abuse during sports matches; and parents from other schools engaging in intimidating behaviour toward our families. I also detailed the personal security measures I have been forced to adopt after receiving targeted abuse, ranging from increased vigilance at home to altered travel routes. I assumed that presenting this evidence would mark the end of the matter, hoping the commission’s scrutiny would deter further vilification.
Escalation of Online Abuse After the Hearing
Contrary to my expectation, the days following my appearance saw an intensification of online abuse. Since testifying, I have been labelled a paedophile, a monster, a supporter of baby killing, a parasite, a warmonger, a Nazi, a normaliser of genocide, a child eater, and a vulgar epithet—much of it posted directly on the school’s Facebook page. One commentator dismissively told me to stop “whining,” while another replied with a profanity‑laden retort, “I refuse to ‘f— off idiot.’” The sheer volume and virulence of the messages revealed a coordinated effort to vilify not only me but the institution I represent.
Transparency of the Abusers
What is striking is that most commenters attach their real names to their abuse. Their openness suggests they believe their views are sufficiently normalised that concealment is unnecessary. This lack of anonymity indicates a perception that antisemitic sentiment has migrated from fringe circles into mainstream discourse, emboldening individuals to express hatred publicly without fear of social sanction.
Mirroring Commission Concerns
Many of the insults echo the very concerns raised before the Royal Commission. For instance, accusers repeatedly claimed I behave like a Nazi—a trope that is particularly painful for a community whose members are largely descended from Holocaust survivors. One commenter called me an “anaemic‑complexioned Ashkenazi fake,” attempting to delegitimize my Jewish identity while invoking racist pseudoscience. Others insisted I have “no feelings for Palestinian children,” demanding ritual disclaimers about Palestinian suffering before any Jewish experience can be acknowledged—a demand that mirrors the commission’s hearing about the pressure on Jews to qualify their narratives.
Debates Over Zionism and Jewish Identity
The discussion frequently pivoted to Zionism. Commenters asserted that “Judaism is not Zionism,” that “Zionism is antisemitic,” and that “Zionism is violent genocidal colonialism.” Some suggested that societal acceptance hinges on publicly renouncing any connection to Israel, with one advising me to “denounce Israel and the barbarism into which it is sunk.” Another insisted that any Zionist who does not loudly and explicitly condemn Israel bears “blood on their hands.” These statements reveal a growing expectation that Jews must distance themselves from Israel to be deemed acceptable—a condition not imposed on other ethnic or religious groups.
Accusations of Genocide and Personal Attacks
Among the most incendiary allegations were accusations that I am “normalising genocide” and that I have personally “butchered” Palestinian children. One commenter asked, “How many Palestinian kids have you been butchering in the past few years?” The reality, aside from the answer being “none,” is that the last Palestinian children I encountered were in an Israeli school where Jewish and Muslim students studied together—a fact that contradicts the caricature of Jews as indiscriminate aggressors. Such baseless claims serve to dehumanise Jewish individuals and to frame any defence of Jewish safety as complicity in violence.
Projection of Societal Anxieties onto a Tiny Minority
The Royal Commission heard testimony about how broader societal anxieties—ranging from geopolitical tensions to economic insecurity—are increasingly projected onto Australia’s Jewish community, which comprises roughly 0.4 % of the population. One commenter even called for a royal commission into “Israel’s influence on Australian governments, politics and business,” a claim that inflates Jewish power despite the community’s minimal demographic footprint. This pattern reflects classic conspiracy thinking, wherein a visible minority is scapegoated for complex national problems.
A Grim Irony in the Commenters’ Candor
Amid the hostility, I find a grim irony in the frankness of the attackers. One commentator remarked, “It’s amazing you got that much stupid in one head,” to which I can only agree after sifting through the torrent of abuse. Their willingness to own their vitriol suggests they view their hatred not as a fringe aberration but as an acceptable, even justified, response. This perception underscores the urgency of the Royal Commission’s work: to challenge the normalisation of antisemitism and to reaffirm that no group should be subjected to vilification simply for existing.
Conclusion and Call for Action
The episode following my testimony illustrates a disturbing escalation: hateful rhetoric, security threats, and personal vilification have intensified rather than subsided. The abuse draws on longstanding antisemitic tropes, demands conditional acceptance based on political denunciations, and projects societal anxieties onto a minuscule minority. Addressing this phenomenon requires not only legal and institutional responses but also a cultural shift that rejects the normalisation of hate, protects the right of Jewish Australians to define their own identity, and ensures that safety and dignity are afforded to all, regardless of background.