As Israeli President Isaac Herzog begins his visit to Australia, the Federal Government faces mounting legal pressure over its obligations under international and domestic law, writes DrBinoy Kampmark.

THINGS BECAMErather ropey in the days leading up to the invitation of Israeli PresidentIsaac Herzogto visit Australia on 9 February.

The decision came amidst the anguish following theBondi Beach attacksof 14 December 2025 on attendees of a Hanukkah event by two gunmen, leaving 15 dead. Australian Prime MinisterAnthony Albaneseclearly thought the invitation a sensible measure at the time.

For months, Albanese's government had been snarled at by Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahufor allegedly providing succour to antisemitism. The wretched thesis was that Australias recognition of a Palestinian State at Septembers UN General Assembly meeting had somehow stirred it.

Albanese appeared to believe that dealing with the gargoyle of antisemitism and engendering goodwill could be achieved by inviting Herzog. We need to build social cohesion in this country, heinsisted. The Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) also supported the invitation,describing itas sending a powerful message of solidarity and support... following the tragic events at Bondi and the surge of antisemitism across the country.

Calls to consider the context of President Herzogs visit obscure Israels ban on dozens of NGOs in Gaza and the West Bank.

Such claims of fluffy approval ignored the serious and blindingly obvious prospect that legal grounds might arise regarding Herzogs visit, not to mention the public protest and agitation it would provoke. Australia, being a party both to theUN Genocide Conventionand theRome Statuteestablishing theInternational Criminal Court, must always be wary of the injunctions of membership. A determined opposition, armed with legal arguments and indignation, made clear its intent to prevent the visit from proceeding unchallenged.

On 30 January, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), theJewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) announced that ajoint legal complaintseeking to have Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia had been sent to Attorney-GeneralMichelle Rowland, Home Affairs MinisterTony Burkeand the Australian Federal Police (AFP). As Netanyahu would be unlikely to visit Australia without discomfort, given an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, the complaint asserted that as the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate.

The complaintimploresthe Australian authorities to do any of three things: refuse or cancel any visa held by Herzog under theMigration Act 1958 (Cth), which covers character and public interest grounds; refer him to the AFP for investigation under theCriminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), theGeneva Conventions Act 1957 (Cth)and Australian hate crime legislation; and ensure Australias compliance with international obligations to investigate and prosecute who enter the country who are reasonably suspected of committing serious international crimes.

In their body of evidence, the groupcitesthe Presidents Entire Nation declaration of October 2023 claiming that no civilians in Gaza were uninvolved in that months attack on Israel by Hamas; the grotesque denials of famine in August 2025, suggesting that images of chronic starvation featuring Palestinian children had been staged; and the broader endorsement of military operations entailing the commission of war crimes.

Reference in the complaint is made to a December 2023 visit by Herzog to the Nahal Oz military base, where he provided encouragement to troops two days before their wanton destruction and flattening of the town of Khuzaa in Khan Yunis.

The complaint also rejects any application of Head of State immunity, citing theNuremberg Principlesand international law as removing that shield when it comes to the commission of such grave offences as genocide and war crimes.

As political pressure mounts, the royal commission into the Bondi attack is already facing scrutiny over its independence, scope and purpose.

The complaint is certainly accurate in drawing attention to Herzogs incitements to collectively punish an apparently complicit populace in Gaza.

South Africas filing of proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice, alleging acts of genocide in Gaza,cites Herzog's remarksfrom 12 October 2023:

The submission also notes asocial media postby Herzog showing him addressing reservists and writing messages on bombs destined to be used on Palestinians.

The September 2025analysisby the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which found Israels conduct in Gaza after 7 October 2023 to be genocidal in nature, also references Herzogs October 12 2023 remark, further adding those words of blame that Gazans could have risen up.

In the Commissions view, the President had damned Palestinians to equal responsibility for the attacks on Israel on 7 October that year. Such a statement, along with those of a similar kind made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Israeli Defence MinisterYoav Gallant, constituted direct and public incitement to commit genocide under the Genocide Convention.

The political uproar around antisemitism in Australia this coming year will hinge on what happens in Gaza and the West Bank, as it did in 2025.

AFP CommissionerKrissy Barretthas alsobeen remindedin a submission by theAustralian Centre for International Justice, along with two Palestinian non-government human rights organisations, the West Bank-basedAl-Haqand the Gaza-basedAl Mezan Centre for Human Rights, that Australia hasobligationsto investigate credible allegations of serious international crimes and has domestic laws permitting the initiation of an investigation into their commission.

Even if immunity was enlivened for the Israeli President, it would not prevent the AFP from undertaking preliminary investigative steps, including seeking a voluntary interview with Herzog upon his arrival to Australia.

The AFPstatesthat Division 268 of theCriminal Code Actgrants the Commonwealth jurisdiction to investigate core international crimes that occur offshore. However, it is not usually practical for the AFP to do so. With something of a shrug, the AFP would rather that the country where such alleged offences had taken place pursue the matter. (What a rosy convenience that would be.)

Investigating such crimes would also pose problems, among them evidentiary matters regarding location, identifying and locating witnesses, the occurrence of crimes in an ongoing conflict and the unwillingness of foreign governments to assist.

Australian lawmakers also showed themselves reluctant to block the visit. The waters were tested in anattemptby the Greens SenatorDavid Shoebridgeon 3 February to suspend standing orders to move a motion seeking the Governments rescission of Herzogs invitation.

Shoebridge said:

His effort was thwarted by a large Senate majority. Herzogs five-day visit, with all its combustible precariousness and legal freight, commenced today. A citizens arrest might be in order.

DrBinoy Kampmarkwas a Cambridge Scholar and is a lecturer atRMIT University. You can follow Dr Kampmark@BKampmark.

Related Articles

• Selective context: Why Isaac Herzogs visit deepens Australias moral failure