It’s not too late for Anthony Albanese to withdraw the invitation to the Israeli president, Isaac Herzog. It should be withdrawn for three reasons.
The first is institutional. The president of Israel is a constitutional role that is head of state but not part of the political or military chain of command. The office is similar to that of Australia’s governor general, though with somewhat more power. As head of state, the president embodies and represents the state of Israel.
The international court of justice has found that Israel unlawfully occupies the Palestinian territories, has unlawfully purported to annex parts of the Palestinian territories and unlawfully plants, encourages and maintains unlawful settlements in Palestinian territories. The court is also trying a case in which Israel is accused of genocide.
The international criminal court has issued arrest warrants against the Israeli prime minister and former defence minister, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The same court is investigating other senior Israeli military and political leaders on similar charges. The UN commission of inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory has found evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal intent by Israeli leaders and recommended their prosecution. Israel is a rogue state whose head of state, its supreme representative, should not be permitted to visit Australia.
The second reason is about Herzog himself. The commission of inquiry has found that Herzog has incited genocide. Herzog made the statement that all Palestinians, “an entire nation”, are responsible for the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023. The commission found that, because as president he is not part of the political or military chain of command, he was not responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. But the crime of incitement to genocide stands outside the chain of command. It can be committed by any individual. The commission recommended that he be investigated and prosecuted by the international criminal court.
Herzog denies this and has qualified his statement, saying “there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree” with the actions of Hamas. But the UN commission said it viewed that as an effort “to deflect responsibility for the initial statement”. He has been a vocal head of state and his words have been taken and repeated by Israeli soldiers. Someone who incites genocide does not satisfy the good character test for entering Australia. On the contrary, a person who incites genocide should be arrested on arrival and tried under Australian law and international law for the crime.
Traditionally, a head of state has a special immunity when visiting another country. However, there is now strong legal argument that this immunity does not apply in relation to atrocity crimes, namely war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Australia should not apply immunity in relation to these crimes.
Israel’s foreign ministry has previously rejected the commission’s report as “distorted and false”, and Herzog has said his comments have been taken out of context, noting he also said Israeli soldiers would follow international law.
The third reason for withdrawing the invitation relates to us, Australia, and our current situation. The Hanukkah massacre on 14 December has shaken us all. It was an atrocity. Immediately political leaders across the spectrum expressed concerns for “social cohesion”. They said steps were needed to restore social cohesion and called for national unity at a time of crisis. Eventually a royal commission was appointed for this purpose. And yet it’s hard to imagine a single event at this point in time more likely to harden national division and undermine social cohesion than a visit by the Israeli president. It could be the most divisive state visit to Australia since that of US president Lyndon B Johnson in October 1966 when the Vietnam war was at its height and Australian soldiers were being killed.
What was the prime minister thinking when he invited Herzog? In the days after the massacre, he no doubt thought inviting Herzog was a good way to express support for the traumatised Jewish community. But Herzog is a political leader, not a religious leader. He is divisive in Israel and his visit could be divisive in Australia. If the prime minister wanted to support the Jewish community, he would have done better to invite a respected Jewish religious leader.
For reasons of law, ethics and social cohesion, this divisive political visit should be stopped. The prime minister is widely acclaimed for his willingness to recognise mistakes and change course before it’s too late. He should recognise that he made a terrible mistake, in the emotional, traumatic days after the massacre, in inviting Herzog to visit. It’s not too late to correct the mistake.
