Jewish Australians Must Be Safe From Fear or Harassment. But Shielding Isaac Herzog From Legitimate Protest Is Not the Answer

Australia faces a difficult but necessary balancing act: ensuring the safety and dignity of Jewish Australians while also protecting the democratic right to peaceful protest. This tension came into sharp focus following heightened security measures surrounding the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog, with authorities moving to restrict or discourage demonstrations in the name of public order. While concerns over antisemitism and public safety are legitimate, shielding political leaders from lawful protest risks undermining the very freedoms that define Australian democracy.
The Real Threat of Antisemitism
There is no question that antisemitism has increased globally in recent years, including in Australia. Jewish community organizations have reported a rise in verbal abuse, vandalism, and online harassment. For many Jewish Australians, international conflicts have translated into local anxiety, as political rhetoric spills into social spaces, workplaces, and schools.
The responsibility of the Australian government is clear: Jewish citizens must be protected from fear, intimidation, and violence. Harassment based on religion or ethnicity is unacceptable, and law enforcement must respond decisively to threats or hate crimes. These protections, however, should not be conflated with efforts to silence political criticism or suppress public dissent.
Criticism of the Israeli government or its policies is not inherently antisemitic. Equating protest with hatred risks diluting the meaning of antisemitism and weakening the fight against genuine prejudice.
The Role of Protest in a Democracy
Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democratic society. From civil rights movements to anti-war campaigns, public demonstrations have long served as a means for citizens to express opposition to policies they believe are unjust. Australia’s democratic tradition depends on the ability of people to gather, speak, and challenge power without fear of reprisal.
Isaac Herzog’s visit, as that of a foreign head of state, naturally involves heightened security. However, the decision to curtail or tightly control demonstrations around his presence raises serious questions. When governments preemptively restrict protests to avoid political discomfort, they risk turning public safety into a tool of political insulation.
Protest does not equate to disorder. In fact, well-organized demonstrations often strengthen democratic legitimacy by allowing grievances to be aired openly rather than suppressed and driven underground.
Separating Safety From Silence
Authorities often argue that restrictions on protests are necessary to prevent clashes or threats. But this logic becomes problematic when applied too broadly. The presence of protest does not automatically endanger Jewish Australians. On the contrary, conflating political opposition with communal threat risks deepening divisions and creating a false narrative that Jewish identity and Israeli state policy are inseparable.
Many Jewish Australians themselves hold diverse views on Israeli politics. Some support the government; others strongly oppose it. Treating criticism of Israel as inherently hostile to Jewish people denies this diversity and risks marginalizing voices within the Jewish community who advocate for peace, reform, or accountability.
Protecting Jewish Australians means ensuring their safety from harassment—not shielding political leaders from scrutiny.
A Precedent With Consequences
Restricting protests around Herzog’s visit sets a troubling precedent. If authorities can silence demonstrations for one foreign leader due to political sensitivity, what prevents the same approach from being applied to others? Democracy weakens when leaders are insulated from criticism, especially on controversial international issues.
Civil liberties advocates warn that such measures normalize exceptional powers that can later be used more broadly. The language of security, once expanded, is rarely narrowed again. What begins as protection can evolve into permanent limitation on public expression.
This concern is not theoretical. History shows that emergency measures introduced during tense political moments often linger long after the immediate crisis passes.
The Risk of Polarization
Suppressing protest may also inflame tensions rather than calm them. When people feel silenced, frustration grows. Open, visible protest allows grievances to be expressed within lawful boundaries. It gives communities an outlet for disagreement and encourages dialogue rather than confrontation.
Moreover, portraying protesters as threats can harden attitudes on both sides. Jewish Australians may feel they are being targeted for political reasons, while protesters may feel their rights are being sacrificed for diplomatic convenience. Neither outcome fosters social cohesion.
True safety is not achieved through silence but through trust in democratic institutions and mutual respect among communities.
What a Better Approach Looks Like
A more balanced response would protect both community safety and democratic rights. This means:
Enforcing laws against hate speech and violence without criminalizing political expression.
Allowing peaceful protests in designated areas with appropriate security measures.
Engaging with community leaders to reduce tension and clarify that protest is directed at policy, not people.
Publicly distinguishing between antisemitism and political criticism.
Such an approach affirms that Jewish Australians deserve protection from harassment while also affirming that political leaders—domestic or foreign—are not above scrutiny.
A Test of Democratic Maturity
Australia’s response to controversial visits and international conflicts is a test of its democratic maturity. It must show that it can protect minorities without eroding civil liberties. Shielding Isaac Herzog from legitimate protest may appear to offer short-term stability, but it risks long-term damage to democratic norms.
The goal should not be to eliminate discomfort but to manage disagreement peacefully. Democracy is not defined by the absence of conflict but by how conflict is handled.
Conclusion
Jewish Australians must be safe from fear, intimidation, and harassment—this is non-negotiable. But safety cannot come at the expense of free expression and peaceful protest. Protecting one community should not require silencing another.
Legitimate protest against political leaders, including Isaac Herzog, is not a threat to democracy; it is a sign of it working. The challenge for Australia is to uphold both security and freedom, proving that it can defend its citizens without abandoning its principles.
In moments of political tension, restraint and clarity matter most. A society confident in its values does not hide its disagreements—it confronts them openly, lawfully, and with respect.