The differences between what police said they received and what the security agency said it sent cannot be resolved.
In December 2024, two gunmen killed fifteen people at a Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach, and Australia now confronts the uncomfortable question of whether the tragedy was preventable. A royal commission led by former High Court judge Virginia Bell has surfaced a troubling gap: a Jewish security agency warned police of elevated threat levels six days before the attack, yet what was communicated and what was acted upon remains unresolved. The interim findings offer fourteen recommendations and a government pledge to implement them all, but the deeper inquiry — into how antisemitism became the water in which such violence could grow — has only just begun.
- A father and son armed with rifles and shotguns opened fire on a Hanukkah gathering at Bondi Beach, killing fifteen people in one of Australia's most devastating acts of politically motivated violence in recent memory.
- A Jewish security organization sent police a warning six days before the attack flagging a 'high' threat level and requesting dedicated police presence — but whether that warning was specific enough, or heeded at all, is now the fault line at the center of the inquiry.
- NSW Police and the security agency offer conflicting accounts of what was communicated, and the commission has acknowledged the gap cannot yet be resolved, leaving the question of institutional failure suspended between competing testimonies.
- Fourteen recommendations — covering gun reform, expanded police protection at Jewish events, and counter-terrorism restructuring — have been accepted in full by Prime Minister Albanese, though his framing that 'no urgent changes' were needed signals a careful effort to avoid declaring systemic breakdown.
- Jewish community leaders warn that the report, however welcome, addresses only the procedural surface of a deeper crisis: a deteriorating social environment for Jewish Australians that no policing reform alone can repair.
On a Sunday afternoon in December 2024, two gunmen — a father and son — opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, killing fifteen people. Police shot and killed the father, Sajid Akram, at the scene. His son Naveed survived, and now faces 59 charges including fifteen counts of murder and one count of committing a terrorist attack.
Three weeks after the shooting, the Australian government launched a royal commission — the country's most powerful form of public inquiry — appointing former High Court judge Virginia Bell to lead it. Her interim findings, released this week, introduced a detail that has reshaped the public conversation: six days before the attack, a Jewish community security organization called CSG NSW emailed New South Wales Police to warn that the threat level for the Jewish community was 'high,' that a terrorist attack was likely, and that police presence was needed at upcoming Jewish events, including the Hanukkah gathering at Bondi.
What happened to that warning is now the central unresolved question. NSW Police acknowledged receiving a general request for presence at Jewish events but denied receiving a specific request for dedicated resources at the Bondi event itself. CSG NSW's account differs. The commission noted that the discrepancy 'cannot be resolved on the information presently available' and will return to it in final hearings — some of which may be closed to the public.
Bell's interim report issued fourteen recommendations: prioritizing gun reform nationally, extending the police protections typically applied during Jewish high holy days to other major public Jewish events, reviewing counter-terrorism structures, and making the counter-terrorism commissioner's role full-time. Five additional recommendations remain confidential for national security reasons. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese committed to implementing all of them, while carefully noting the report found 'no urgent changes' were required — suggesting the legal framework itself had not failed, only its execution.
The Jewish community received the report with measured concern. Leaders welcomed it as a first step while insisting it captured only part of the picture. Antisemitism, they argued, is not a policing problem alone — it is a societal one, and the environment for Jewish Australians had been worsening long before Bondi. Questions remain about how the Akrams obtained their weapons and why the event was not better resourced. Bell's final report is due on the anniversary of the shooting, though ongoing criminal proceedings against Naveed Akram will constrain what the commission can fully examine or disclose. The community waits.
On a Sunday afternoon in December, two gunmen walked into a park at Bondi Beach during a Hanukkah celebration and opened fire. Fifteen people died. The father-and-son attackers—Sajid Akram, 50, and his son Naveed, 24—were armed with rifles and shotguns. Police killed Sajid at the scene. Naveed survived, critically wounded, and was later moved from hospital to prison, where he now faces 59 charges including 15 counts of murder and one count of committing a terrorist attack.
Three weeks after the shooting, the Australian government launched a royal commission—the country's most powerful form of public inquiry—to examine how the attack happened and what might have prevented it. Former High Court judge Virginia Bell was appointed to lead the investigation. On Thursday, she released her interim findings, and they contained a detail that would reshape the conversation around the shooting: a Jewish security agency had warned police of elevated danger days before the event.
On December 8th, six days before the attack, CSG NSW—a Jewish community security organization—sent an email to New South Wales Police. The message flagged that the security alert level for the Jewish community was "high." A terrorist attack against the NSW Jewish community was likely, the email stated, and there was a high level of antisemitic vilification in the environment. The organization requested police presence at upcoming Jewish events, including the Hanukkah gathering at Bondi Beach.
But here is where the account fractures. NSW Police acknowledged receiving a request for police presence at Jewish events. They insisted, however, that they had received no specific request for dedicated police resources at the Hanukkah event itself. CSG NSW's account differs. The commission noted in its report that the differences between what police said they received and what the security agency said it sent "cannot be resolved on the information presently available." The question of who failed to communicate clearly—or whether the communication simply got lost—remains open. The commission said it would examine this gap in its final hearings, though some of those proceedings may be closed to the public.
Bell's interim report contained 14 recommendations. Gun reform should be prioritized at the national level. Police procedures currently used to protect Jewish communities during their high holy days should be extended to other major Jewish festivals and events, especially those open to the public. Counter-terrorism teams made up of federal and state police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation should be reviewed. The counter-terrorism commissioner's role should become full-time. Prime ministers and national cabinet ministers should participate in counter-terrorism exercises within nine months of each federal election. Five additional recommendations remain confidential for national security reasons.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that his National Security Committee had agreed to implement all of Bell's recommendations. Yet he also said the report showed "no urgent changes" were required—a careful formulation that suggested the existing legal framework had not failed, that no gap in law or procedure had directly enabled the shooting. The commission found no such gap. Whatever failures occurred, they were failures of execution, not design.
The response from the Jewish community was measured but pointed. David Ossip, president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, called the report "an important first step" but emphasized it was "only part of the picture." Antisemitism, he said, was not merely a law enforcement problem. It was a societal problem. The environment for Jewish Australians had been deteriorating well before Bondi. Alex Ryvchin of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry told the ABC that "burning questions" remained: How did the Akrams acquire their firearms? Why wasn't the festival better resourced by police? These questions point toward a different kind of failure—one rooted not in procedure but in the broader culture that made such an attack possible.
Bell's inquiry will deliver its final report on the anniversary of the shooting. The scope of what she can examine is limited by ongoing court proceedings against Naveed Akram. The commission has signaled that some of its final findings may remain closed to public view. What emerges will be partial, constrained by the demands of justice in a criminal case still unfolding. The community waits to see what it will reveal.
Notable Quotes
The environment for Jewish Australians had been deteriorating well before Bondi— David Ossip, President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies
There are still 'burning questions' surrounding the attack including how the Akrams were able to acquire firearms and why the festival hadn't been better resourced by police— Alex Ryvchin, Executive Council of Australian Jewry
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
The security agency warned police six days before. How does that warning not prevent what happened?
Because a warning isn't the same as a response. CSG NSW said the threat level was high and asked for police presence. Police say they acknowledged the request but didn't understand it as a specific ask for the Hanukkah event itself. That gap—whether it's a failure to communicate or a failure to listen—is what the commission couldn't resolve.
So the police just didn't show up?
Not exactly. The commission hasn't said whether police were present or absent. What it's saying is that there's a discrepancy in what each side claims happened, and that discrepancy matters because it might explain why the festival wasn't as protected as it could have been.
The report says there's no gap in the law that would have prevented this. What does that mean?
It means the legal tools existed. The police had the authority to respond. The counter-terrorism framework was in place. So the commission is saying this wasn't a failure of what the law allowed—it was a failure of how people acted within the law.
But the community leaders aren't satisfied with that answer.
No. They're saying that even if the law is fine and the procedures are fine, something deeper is broken. Antisemitism has been rising. The environment has been hostile for years. You can have perfect security procedures and still lose people if the broader culture is poisoning itself.
What happens now?
The final report comes out on the anniversary of the shooting. Some hearings will be public, some closed. The government has committed to implementing the recommendations. But the real question—how do you fix a societal problem through law enforcement?—that one's still open.