Threats to Power, Protected by Law
The Al-Monitor report notes that a 19-year-old Australian faces up to 10 years in jail for alleged online threats against Israeli President Isaac Herzog. This incident, framed as a straightforward application of law against a 'threat to an internationally protected person,' serves as a timely case study in the selective enforcement of legal and diplomatic norms. We are told the charge relates to
threats made via social media in early 2026, ahead of Herzog's planned visit to Australia. FIRST INSTANCE: The Shifting Definition of a 'Threat' Historically, the definition of what constitutes a 'threat' warranting state intervention, especially cross-border, has been remarkably elastic. Consider the 1980s, when political figures in Western nations frequently issued rhetorical 'threats' or calls
for regime change against leaders deemed adversaries, often without facing legal repercussions in their home countries. For example, President Ronald Reagan's administration openly supported Contra rebels against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua throughout the 1980s, effectively sanctioning calls for the removal of a foreign head of state. No US citizen advocating for such actions faced a
decade in prison. REPETITIONS: Selective Application of Protective Laws The principle of 'internationally protected persons' has been selectively invoked. While some leaders receive robust, transnational legal shielding, others do not. In 2002, during the lead-up to the Iraq War, senior US officials openly discussed the removal of Saddam Hussein. Calls for his overthrow, and even death, were not