The imminent visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog comes at a moment of profound need and for a clear purpose: to offer solace and solidarity to the Australian Jewish community and to the nation in the aftermath of the Bondi terrorist attack. The worst terrorist attack in Australia’s modern history has forced a reckoning about the kind of country we are, and the society we want to be.
The forthcoming Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion will play a critical role in examining how such an atrocity could occur, including how an environment of rising antisemitism and its normalisation contributed to the conditions in which violence became possible. That inquiry will be essential to restoring trust and ensuring that Jewish Australians — indeed, all Australians — can feel safe in their own country.
In his recent article, Josh Bornstein argued that President Herzog’s visit risks undermining social cohesion and fuelling antisemitism. That argument warrants a careful response, because it misdiagnoses both the source of the problem and the role this visit can play in addressing it.
Bornstein’s greatest inversion is his claim that hosting President Herzog will blur the distinction between Jewish Australians and the state of Israel, thereby fuelling antisemitism. This reverses cause and effect. Antisemitism does not arise because Jewish connection to Israel is acknowledged. It arises when that connection, which for most Jews is an intrinsic part of their identity, is treated as uniquely illegitimate, and when Jews are told it must be disavowed in order to be accepted in public life.
When words turn into violence
One uncomfortable reality we must confront is that the climate in which antisemitism has flourished over the past two years did not arise in a vacuum. Alongside legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy, there has been an almost obsessive demonisation of Israel’s legitimacy as a nation state that far exceeds ordinary political protest. The way Israel has been treated by sections of the protest movement is qualitatively different from how other conflicts have been addressed.
Protests against the Iraq war, for example, did not call for the dissolution of the United States, the banning of American leaders or the killing of American soldiers. Calls for Israel’s destruction, for Israelis to be excluded from public life and for engagement with Israel to cease altogether have become commonplace.
Disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli government does not negate Israel’s legitimacy. Nor should it. Australians routinely criticise the histories, policies and actions of American, British and French governments without questioning whether those nations have the right to exist.
When Israel is treated as uniquely illegitimate, when Zionism itself is framed as a moral crime and when Jews are targeted for their connection to the world’s only Jewish state, we are no longer dealing with ordinary political disagreement. We are confronting antisemitism in its modern form.
The consequences of the supposed moral distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not theoretical. The perpetrators of the Bondi attack claimed to be targeting “Zionists”, then opened fire at a Jewish Chanukah celebration. That does not implicate all critics of Israel or all protesters. But it does demonstrate how rhetoric that casts Jews or Zionists as uniquely illegitimate can be exploited by those willing to turn words into violence.
Israel and Jewish identity
Bornstein also suggests that President Herzog’s visit will further divide Australian Jewry. This too misrepresents reality. Jewish communities are diverse, but they are not divided on the question of the centrality of Israel to Jewish life. According to the Monash University Crossroads 23 survey, 86 per cent of Australian Jewish respondents regard “the existence of Israel is essential for the future of the Jewish people”. Connection to Israel is integral to identity, history and peoplehood, regardless of political views about any particular Israeli government.
Yet rather than engaging with expressed views of the majority, Bornstein’s argument elevates a small number of anti-Zionist Jewish voices whose views seem to align with his political position. That is not an expansion of free speech. It is selective amplification. It risks turning a minority position into a substitute for mainstream Jewish experience.
President Herzog comes from the centre-left of Israeli politics and was a long-standing political opponent of Benjamin Netanyahu. As Israel’s head of state, he occupies a constitutional and ceremonial role, without responsibility for government policy or military decision-making. Bornstein focuses on selective statements Herzog made in the immediate aftermath of 7 October 2023, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, while giving no weight to Herzog’s extensive and consistent public record as a proponent of dialogue, coexistence and engagement with Israel’s Palestinian neighbours.
Bornstein himself acknowledges that allegations relating to Israel’s conduct in Gaza are currently before the International Court of Justice. At this stage, they remain allegations, subject to a legal process that has not reached a final determination. Yet much of the anti-Israel protest movement, and sections of the public debate, have already pronounced a verdict. To suggest that the Australian government should do the same, by cancelling engagement with Israel’s head of state or treating him as a criminal suspect, is neither serious nor consistent with respect for international law or due process.
An opportunity, not a provocation
If it is not possible to understand why President Herzog’s visit matters at this moment, regardless of one’s views of the current Israeli government, then I fear it will be impossible to fully confront the antisemitism that has surged in Australia. Much of this antisemitism has manifested under the guise of attacking “Zionists” — a term that has increasingly functioned as a proxy for Jews themselves. Blaming Herzog’s visit for undermining social cohesion mistakes the symptom for the cause. The real fracture lies in an unwillingness to accept Jewish connection to Israel.
The Albanese government should be commended for extending this invitation to President Herzog. It is no secret that there are real and substantive differences between the Australian and Israeli governments on policy — including in relation to Gaza and the West Bank. The invitation does not obscure those differences. But it does model for the broader Australian society that it is possible to show solidarity with Jewish Australians by acknowledging the centrality of Israel to their identity, while still maintaining the capacity to disagree openly and constructively with the policies of the Israeli government. That is how mature relationships between friends and fellow liberal democracies function.
Bondi changed Jewish life in Australia irrevocably. It also challenged all Australians to reflect on the values we claim to hold. President Herzog’s visit should be understood not as a provocation, but as an opportunity: to affirm solidarity in the face of terror, to restore seriousness to a debate overtaken by extremes, and to demonstrate that Australia remains capable of principled engagement in an increasingly polarised world.
That is not a threat to social cohesion. It is a measure of it.
Jeremy Leibler is a partner at Arnold Bloch Leibler and President of the Zionist Federation of Australia.