This week on the New Politics podcast, we examine the political firestorm sparked by the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Sydney, and why what should have been a carefully handled diplomatic event instead became a nationwide flashpoint over Gaza, free speech, protest rights, and the growing debate around Zionism and political influence in Australia. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly spoken about “social cohesion”, yet the scenes on the streets of Sydney told a very different story, with mass protests at Sydney Town Hall and coordinated demonstrations in more than 30 cities and towns across the country opposing the visit. At the heart of the anger was Herzog himself, a political leader who has publicly made statements about Gaza that critics argue amount to incitement, and whose role in Israel’s war in Gaza has drawn accusations of war crimes, apartheid and genocide from many organisations around the world.
Herzog should not have been invited in the first place, and this is why this visit became a lightning rod for broader frustration over Australia’s bipartisan support for Israel amid the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza and escalating violence in the West Bank. The protests in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and beyond were overwhelmingly peaceful, yet faced legal uncertainty, heavy policing and political condemnation, raising fresh concerns about the state of democratic rights in Australia.
Beneath the immediate controversy sits a deeper issue: the rapid introduction and expansion of new hate speech laws across Australia, including legislation in Queensland that would criminalise phrases such as “globalise the intifada” or “from the river to the sea”, with penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment. Supporters of the laws argue they are necessary to combat antisemitism and protect Jewish Australians from intimidation, but they represent a dangerous narrowing of political speech, particularly when neo-Nazi demonstrations outside NSW Parliament House chanting slogans such as “Abolish the Jewish Lobby” or praising Hitler have not led to comparable legislative crackdowns. We analyse the apparent inconsistencies in how protest speech is treated, and ask whether criticism of Israel and Zionism is being conflated with antisemitism in ways that risk undermining both free expression and genuine efforts to combat hatred.
A key question we raise is why Australian governments – federal and state – appear so aligned with Israel’s political leadership at a time when Israel faces mounting international criticism and legal scrutiny. From photo opportunities with the Prime Minister and Governor-General to high-level dinners and tightly managed public appearances, Herzog’s visit was all about achieving undeserved diplomatic normalisation and respectability, and was less about supporting Australia’s Jewish community after the Bondi terror attack, and more about rehabilitating Israel’s global standing amid allegations of genocide and breaches of international law.
We also interrogate the broader issue of political influence and lobbying in Australia, including the role of pro-Israel advocacy groups, corporate ties, defence industry links such as F-35 component supply chains, and technology partnerships including surveillance systems like Palantir. When half of Sydney Harbour is effectively locked down for a visiting foreign president, when new protest laws move at remarkable speed, and when internal party discipline threatens preselections over controversial speech, it raises legitimate questions about power, access and agenda-setting within Australian politics. To point this out is often labelled antisemitic, yet examining lobbying structures and influence networks is a standard part of democratic scrutiny applied to all foreign policy relationships – from China to the United States.
Ultimately, it’s a question of whether Australia has compromised its commitment to international law, human rights and free speech in pursuit of alliance politics and domestic lobbying pressures. And what does this controversy reveal about the limits of protest, the boundaries of political speech, and the future of democratic debate in Australia?
