The Geopolitics of Protocol: When 'Genocide' Becomes a Backbencher's Problem
THE ACTORS: Who dares speak truth to protocol? On one side, we have NSW Labor backbenchers, notably MLC Cameron Murphy, articulating what a significant chunk of the global population is already screaming: that Australia shouldn't roll out the red carpet for the head of a state accused of 'ongoing genocide.' On the other, the NSW Premier and, by extension, the broader Australian Labor Party
establishment, keen to maintain the diplomatic niceties. Then there's Isaac Herzog, the President of Israel, who, despite his largely ceremonial role, serves as the convenient face for a government facing intense international scrutiny over its actions in Gaza. THE FUNDING: The quiet incentives of 'diplomacy' While direct funding flows to Australian politicians for hosting a dignitary are
negligible, the real 'funding' in this equation comes in the form of geopolitical capital and access. Australia, like many Western nations, operates within a network of alliances where supporting Israel often translates to perceived alignment with US foreign policy objectives. According to OpenSecrets, pro-Israel lobbying groups spent over $11.5 million in 2023 in the US alone – a figure
indicative of the vast resources deployed to shape narratives and influence policy (OpenSecrets, 2023). While Australian figures are less transparent, the pattern of influence is consistent. Refusing a high-profile visit like Herzog's can be seen as 'rocking the boat,' potentially jeopardizing trade deals, intelligence sharing, or even invitations to certain diplomatic tables down the line. It's