Melbourne Synagogue Denied Security Funds Before Arson Attack
L'essentiel
- A Melbourne synagogue's board member stated multiple security funding bids were rejected before its 2024 firebombing, which ASIO links to Iran.
- Jewish leaders described rising security costs and safety concerns at a Royal Commission hearing.
Résumé généré par IA
Pourquoi c'est important
The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion investigates security for Jewish communities in Australia after a Melbourne synagogue firebombing in December 2024.
A representative of a Melbourne synagogue razed in a firebombing says multiple bids for additional security funding were knocked back before the building was destroyed in the 2024 arson attack.
Adass Israel Synagogue board member Benjamin Klein was among several Jewish leaders to describe spiralling security expenses and the mounting safety concerns as the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion continued security-focused hearings in Melbourne today.
The synagogue in Melbourne's inner south was open for up to 20 hours a day before it was destroyed in an early morning arson attack that the domestic spy agency, ASIO, believes was ordered by Iran.
While political leaders subsequently committed funding to its rebuild, Mr Klein said the synagogue had been unsuccessful in securing funding from all tiers of government in the lead-up to the December 2024 attack.
"There were technicalities in terms of incorporated entities, unincorporated entities," he said.
Mr Klein told the inquiry the community was left to contend with frequent verbal abuse from strangers at a time when it had lost "the heartbeat and the centre of our community".
"By taking that away, by burning that down, it's really changed the whole fabric of the community," he said.
George Foster OAM, the president of the Australian Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, told the inquiry that his Sydney synagogue had been targeted several times in the past, including a firebombing in 1991.
The building was again targeted with antisemitic graffiti in January 2025.
But Dr Foster said the broader response to the earlier incidents was far more supportive because "there wasn't the overt vilification of Jewish people then".
A fence was installed after the 2025 incident, but Dr Foster said safety remained a key concern for congregants in a post October-2023 environment.
"People would call me and say, 'Is it safe to come to the synagogue?'" he told the commission.
Neither witness was asked detailed questions about the 2024 arson attack or 2025 graffiti because of pending criminal proceedings.
Largest synagogue spends more than half a million on security
The commission has been hearing from Jewish institutions, religious leaders and security agencies as it probes the adequacy of security arrangements for Jewish communities.
It heard the bill for security guards and upgrades at Sydney's Central Synagogue, which is Australia's largest, ran to $640,000 last year.
The synagogue's Rabbi Levi Wolff told the commission that security, stronger legislative protections and education about Jewish life would help curb the threat of antisemitism.
"One of the greatest drivers of antisemitism is ignorance," he said.
He told the commission that many families in his congregation had bought property in Israel as they considered leaving Australia.
Others had taken steps to conceal their Jewish identities, especially on university campuses, he said.
Questioned about pro-Palestinian protesters on those campuses, Rabbi Wolff said people should have the right to criticise the Israeli government but that denying Israel's right to exist was "something fundamentally different".
The commission is expected to hear from police witnesses, a counterterrorism expert and the Department of Home Affairs as hearings continue this week.
À surveiller
Perspective IA — des possibilités, pas des certitudes
The Royal Commission will continue hearings with police, counterterrorism experts, and the Department of Home Affairs.
Très probable · En quelques jours
Questions ouvertes
- What were the specific "technicalities" that led to funding rejections?
- What are the details of the pending criminal proceedings?
