A documented, replicable framework for turning lived experience into formal evidence — grounded in behavioural science, scaled through social media, and designed for any organisation navigating a government inquiry. Submissions to the Bell Royal Commission are now open.
The Australian Zionist Healthcare Alliance (AZHA) represents doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, researchers, and students across Australia who hold Zionist values. When the Bell Royal Commission into antisemitism in Australian healthcare was announced, AZHA recognised a rare and significant opportunity: a formal government process demanding evidence.
The challenge was not whether the evidence existed. It was whether the community would come forward — and whether that evidence would be structured, coherent, and submitted in time to matter.
AZHA's answer was a coordinated, theory-driven strategy that combined targeted social media advertising with a behavioural science framework — turning individual stories into a collective evidentiary record.
"The royal commission process rewards organised, voluminous, and credible evidence. Informal complaint is invisible. Structured submission is not. Our role was to lower the barrier between experience and record."
AZHA — Royal Commission StrategyAZHA's approach was not reactive. It was designed from first principles — drawing on behavioural economics, social movement theory, and collective action research to structure a campaign that could scale from individual awareness to institutional record.
Targeted social media advertising across Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn reached community members who had never interacted with AZHA's organic channels. Paid reach was non-negotiable — organic reach alone cannot penetrate a dispersed professional community at the volume required by a royal commission.
A dedicated submission portal eliminated every barrier between awareness and action. Guided prompts, structured categories, and plain-language guidance meant that a person who had never made a formal submission could do so in under fifteen minutes. Reducing perceived complexity is the single most important lever in submission volume.
Real-time submission counts, visible community momentum, and targeted retargeting for incomplete submissions applied the full weight of social influence theory. When people see their peers participating, the activation threshold drops dramatically.
Post-deadline, selected submissions are preserved and presented as a permanent memorial — a structured record of what was experienced, by whom, and when. The commission's formal process has a deadline. The evidence does not disappear after it.
The most durable, credible, and actionable strategies are grounded in established social science — not political positioning. AZHA's framework applies three bodies of theory that are widely accepted, empirically validated, and entirely independent of partisan affiliation. Any organisation can use them. Any outcome they generate is defensible.
Social theories describe how people behave, how groups form, and how institutions respond — not what political party to support. They are as useful to a trade union as to a peak medical body. The same framework works regardless of ideology.
Each theory translates directly into a campaign mechanic. Collective action theory tells you how to lower barriers. Social proof theory tells you what to display on screen. Identity theory tells you how to frame the ask. No theory is decorative.
These frameworks have decades of empirical support across multiple disciplines. When your strategy is challenged — by a commission, by funders, by opponents — you can point to the peer-reviewed literature that underpins every decision.
Groups with shared interests do not automatically act collectively — they require selective incentives, reduced barriers, and visible momentum. AZHA's strategy operationalises all three: personal recognition for submitters, a frictionless portal, and a live submission counter. The theoretical prediction is clear: lower the cost, raise the visibility, and collective action follows.
People act when the action is framed as consistent with a valued social identity. "As a healthcare professional who is a Zionist, your experience is evidence" is not a slogan — it is an application of identity-based motivation. When submitting becomes an act of professional and communal identity, not a bureaucratic chore, conversion rates change fundamentally.
Submission drop-off is a predictable result of cognitive load and present bias — not indifference. Guided prompts reduce decision fatigue. Deadline framing activates loss aversion. Default choices eliminate option paralysis. Each design element of the submission portal was chosen because the literature says it works.
People use others' behaviour as information about what is appropriate in uncertain situations. Displaying submission counts, community endorsements, and peer participation is not marketing gloss — it is a direct application of normative social influence. When your community sees that hundreds of their peers have already submitted, the activation barrier drops measurably.
The submission deadline closes the formal intake. It does not close the record. AZHA will maintain a curated public archive of selected evidence — a memorial to what members of this community experienced, witnessed, and endured in Australian healthcare and health education. This archive is not temporary. It exists for as long as the question of antisemitism in Australian healthcare institutions demands an answer.
Submitted accounts are reviewed, de-identified where appropriate, and preserved in a structured format. The evidentiary record does not expire with the commission process.
With submitter consent, selected testimonies are published on this site — ensuring that the experiences documented here remain visible to future institutions, researchers, and policymakers.
Patterns of conduct, institutional responses, and systemic failures documented through submissions become part of the permanent institutional memory of Australian healthcare's relationship with the Zionist and pro-Israel community.
This archive is maintained indefinitely — available to the media, to researchers, to future commissions, and to the community itself. What was experienced will not be forgotten by attrition.
AZHA has developed a two-stage AI classification pipeline to analyse submissions to the Bell Royal Commission. Every submission is evaluated against both the formal IHRA working definition of antisemitism and a multi-dimensional social science framework — producing structured, evidence-grade classification suitable for academic publication and regulatory presentation.
Each submission is evaluated against the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and all eleven contemporary examples. The classifier determines whether the conduct described meets the threshold for antisemitism under internationally recognised standards — the same standard cited by the Australian Government and over 40 countries.
Submissions that pass Stage 1 are scored across seven theoretical dimensions drawn from peer-reviewed social and behavioural science: identity economics, moral utility, moral disengagement, dehumanisation, norm cascades, signalling theory, and structural power. This produces defensible, multi-dimensional evidence grading for each submission.
AZHA's framework was built to work — and it was built to be shared. Any well-resourced, philosophically grounded organisation facing a formal inquiry can deploy the same approach. The theory does not care which community you represent. The mechanics are the same. The outcomes are predictable.
AZHA is available to speak with organisations considering a similar approach for government inquiries, royal commissions, or formal evidence-gathering processes. The conversation is without obligation.
Visit the Submission Portal