As this is being written, Gefen Bitton is on his way back to Israel.
He leaves Australia after months defined not by travel or work, but by survival. Since the Bondi terror attack, Gefen has struggled physically and psychologically to recover from an experience few people ever face. He was in Australia when the attack occurred. He acted on instinct to help. Since then, he has been fighting to survive and to heal.
His return to Israel comes as Australia begins a major legal and political process in response to the attack: a Royal Commission into antisemitism and the Bondi terror incident.
For readers outside Australia, it is worth explaining what this means.
A Royal Commission is Australia’s most powerful form of public inquiry. It goes well beyond parliamentary committees or internal reviews. It can compel witnesses, demand documents, and examine the conduct of government agencies, police, and other institutions in public.
The decision to establish such a commission reflects the seriousness with which the Australian government now says it is treating antisemitism and politically motivated violence.
The announcement was made by Anthony Albanese, Australia’s Prime Minister. He appointed Virginia Bell, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, to lead the inquiry.
From an Israeli perspective, the questions are simple.
Will this process focus clearly on antisemitism as a specific threat?
Will it examine whether warning signs were missed before the Bondi attack?
And will it lead to changes in how institutions act, not just how they speak?
The Commission’s terms of reference are broad but defined. It has been asked to examine the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in Australia; where it appears, including schools, universities, workplaces, public protests and online spaces; how police, intelligence, border and security agencies identify and respond to antisemitic threats; whether information relevant to the Bondi attack was missed or not acted on; and how Australia can reduce radicalization and improve what politicians call “social cohesion”.
That last phrase does a lot of work. In Australian political language, “social cohesion” can mean many things. It can involve education, community engagement, law enforcement, or public messaging. Critics worry it can also blur focus, turning a specific security problem into a general social discussion.
Supporters of the Commission argue that antisemitism does not exist in isolation, and that understanding the wider environment is necessary if violence is to be prevented.
Both views will now be tested in public.
Virginia Bell is widely respected within Australia’s legal system. Her background includes community legal work, senior judicial roles in New South Wales, and more than a decade on the High Court. She is known for careful reasoning and a strong commitment to civil liberties, including freedom of political communication and protest.
That record shapes how her appointment is being received.
Some Jewish Australians see her independence and experience as strengths. Others are cautious. Their concern is not about competence, but about whether legal frameworks that strongly protect protest rights have, in recent years, left Jewish communities feeling exposed and insufficiently protected.
The question is whether this process will fully engage with the lived reality of a small minority that feels targeted.
That is something only the Commission’s work will answer.
Gefen Bitton did not come to Australia to become part of a national reckoning. He did not choose to be a reference point in debates about security or antisemitism. He has spent months dealing with the consequences of being present at an act of terror. His struggle to survive, recover, and return home has been personal and ongoing.
From an Israeli point of view, success here is not complicated. It would mean a clear account of what happened before and during the Bondi attack, an honest assessment of whether threats were underestimated, acknowledgment of how antisemitism operates in modern Australia, practical recommendations that change how institutions act, and a willingness to listen carefully to Jewish Australians, including those who feel sceptical about the process.
Royal Commissions do not guarantee change. They create an opportunity for it.
Whether this becomes a turning point or another formal report will depend on how willing the Commission is to confront uncomfortable findings, and how willing the government is to act on them.
Gefen is going home. Australia is staying right where it is, facing questions that will not resolve themselves quickly or easily.
One individual leaves to recover.
A country stays behind to examine itself.
Sharonne Tidhar is a writer, author of two books, and editor of three Australian journals. She makes a habit of getting lost on purpose in new places just to see what she’ll discover, is always looking for new and unusual snacks in the supermarket, and somehow ends up with an unruly stash of chocolate wherever she goes.
