“Sham” Anti-Zionist Ad Opposing Herzog’s Australia Visit Sparks Outrage

Earlier this February, a full-page newspaper advertisement opposing Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s state visit to Australia ignited a firestorm of criticism. Why? Because the ad included a bizarre and offensive mix of names — some belonging to Nazi kapos, others outright fabricated, and even one translating to “a**e licker” in Hebrew.

The ad, which appeared in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, was funded by a group calling itself the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA). It claimed that over 1,000 Jewish Australians opposed Herzog’s visit. On paper, it sounded like a significant statement — but a closer look quickly revealed glaring problems.

When history goes wrong

Some of the names on the list were shocking: kapos from Nazi concentration camps. For those unfamiliar, kapos were prisoners in Nazi camps who were given positions of authority by the Nazis, often forced to supervise fellow inmates, and in many cases notorious for brutal behavior. The inclusion of names like Josef Heiden (Dachau), Eliezer Gruenbaum (Auschwitz), and Carmen Mory (Ravensbrück) was not only historically inaccurate but deeply offensive.

It’s one thing to debate political issues; it’s another to throw in Holocaust-era collaborators as if it were a casual political statement. Jewish community leaders were quick to call out the ad for its tone-deafness and disregard for historical sensitivity.

Fabricated and offensive entries

If that wasn’t enough, the ad also included clearly fake and offensive entries. One name, transliterated in Hebrew as “Milkek Tachat,” literally means “a**e licker.” Others belonged to real individuals who publicly denied ever signing the petition. David Slade, a prominent Zionist figure, described the inclusion of his name as an “ethical failure” by both the JCA and the newspapers that published the ad.

Clearly, there was little to no verification of the list before it went public. Critics have argued that this negligence turned what could have been a legitimate political opinion piece into a laughingstock — and worse, a source of genuine offense.

Community response

Jewish organizations in Australia were quick to condemn the ad. Many stressed that it misrepresented the views of the community. Surveys and public statements suggest that most Australian Jews support strong ties with Israel and view Herzog’s visit positively, particularly in the context of responding to rising antisemitism.

That doesn’t mean dissent is forbidden. Protests against political figures are part of democracy. But the consensus among mainstream Jewish leaders was clear: if you are going to speak on behalf of a community, you need to do it responsibly.

JCA responds

After the backlash, the Jewish Council of Australia admitted that some names were incorrect and blamed “malicious actors” who had inserted false entries. They claimed they had tried to remove duplicates and offensive names but acknowledged that some slipped through. The digital version of the ad was taken down, and the newspapers later amended the list.

Still, many observers felt the apology didn’t address the deeper problem: the group’s credibility and approach to advocacy. Publishing unverified, offensive names undermines public trust and fuels division rather than productive debate.

Political and social context

Herzog’s visit comes at a tense time. Following a terror attack in Bondi Beach in December 2025, the visit was meant to express solidarity with the Jewish community in Australia. But it also coincided with protests and debates over Middle East politics, free speech, and the definitions of antisemitism.

In this context, the ad was particularly ill-timed. By including Nazi collaborators and offensive jokes, it distracted from real issues and risked trivializing Holocaust history. Leaders within the Jewish community stressed that such tactics are counterproductive, alienating allies rather than fostering discussion.

Lessons from the controversy

The ad controversy highlights a few key lessons for public campaigns and political discourse:

Fact-check everything – Using names without permission or verification can quickly turn a campaign into a scandal.

Respect history – Invoking sensitive historical figures like Nazi kapos demands extreme care; casual references are never acceptable.

Community consent matters – Claiming to represent a community requires transparency and accountability.

Ethics over shock value – Offensive or fabricated entries may grab attention, but they damage credibility and trust.

Moving forward

Australia now faces the challenge of reflecting on this incident. While freedom of expression is vital, it comes with responsibility. The controversy has sparked important conversations about how communities engage in political debate, how historical references are used, and how public discourse can stay grounded in truth and respect.

For the Jewish community, it has reinforced the need to protect historical memory and ensure that voices speaking on behalf of the community are authentic and ethical.

At the same time, it’s a reminder for all of us: in an era of polarizing politics, mistakes — whether careless or malicious — can spread quickly and leave a lasting mark.

This blog format keeps the tone informative yet conversational, breaks content into digestible sections, and emphasizes storytelling rather than just reporting.