A formal request has been made to Australian Federal Police to investigate Israeli President Isaac Herzog for alleged incitement to genocide, just ahead of his planned visit to Australia.
Controversy Surrounds Presidential Visit
President Herzog was invited by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese following the terror attack in Bondi, an invitation the Executive Council of Australian Jewry stated would offer “tremendous comfort” to the victims’ families. However, the Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ) argues that allowing a leader accused of inciting genocide to enter the country without facing scrutiny would be unacceptable.
ACIJ executive director Rawan Arraf emphasized the timing, stating, “At a time when the federal government is criminalising hate speech, a person who is alleged to have incited hate to commit the ultimate crime — genocide — must not be allowed to enter Australian territory without facing accountability for these serious allegations.”
The ACIJ’s request stems from a UN Human Rights Council special commission of inquiry’s findings last year, which determined Israel was committing genocide and identified Mr. Herzog’s comments following the October 7th Hamas attack as evidence of genocidal intent. These comments are also part of South Africa’s case against Israel currently before the International Court of Justice.
New Laws and Conflicting Reactions
The request for an investigation comes shortly after the Australian government passed new laws criminalizing the incitement of politically motivated or communal violence in response to the Bondi attack. These laws introduce harsher penalties for those who advocate violence.
While Foreign Minister Penny Wong has expressed support for the visit, stating it would signal the importance of Australia’s relationship with Israel, the invitation has drawn criticism. The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) labelled it a “grave moral failure.” Conversely, Alex Ryvchin of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry believes the visit will “lift the spirits” of those affected by the Bondi attack and strengthen the bilateral relationship.
Immunity and Potential Next Steps
Foreign leaders typically benefit from head of state immunity, shielding them from prosecution in other countries. However, the ACIJ argues this immunity should not apply given the severity of the allegations against Mr. Herzog, stating, “No person, a head of state or otherwise should be immune from facing accountability for such serious and credible allegations.” The ACIJ also contends that immunity should not preclude a preliminary investigation by the AFP.
The AFP has not commented on the request or the issue of immunity. Should the AFP decide to investigate, it could potentially seek legal advice regarding the applicability of head of state immunity. Alternatively, the government could choose to allow the visit to proceed without intervention. It is also possible that the issue could be addressed through diplomatic channels. The ACIJ, along with Palestinian legal group Al-Haq, is calling for Mr. Herzog’s arrest, investigation, and prosecution.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the request for an investigation into President Herzog?
The request was prompted by allegations of incitement to genocide, based on comments made by President Herzog following the October 7th attack and included in South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice, as well as findings from a UN Human Rights Council inquiry.
What is head of state immunity and how does it apply in this situation?
Head of state immunity is a legal doctrine that generally protects foreign leaders from prosecution in other countries. The ACIJ argues this immunity should not apply in this case due to the seriousness of the allegations against President Herzog.
What was the stated reason for President Herzog’s invitation to Australia?
President Herzog was invited by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to “honour and remember victims of the Bondi antisemitic terrorist attack and provide support for Jewish Australians and the Australian Jewish community.”
Given the conflicting perspectives and legal complexities, how will the Australian government navigate this sensitive situation to balance its domestic laws, international obligations, and diplomatic relationships?
Keep reading