Netanyahu’s rebuke of Albanese is weak and unprovable but serves his purposes

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to link the arson attack on a Melbourne synagogue to the Albanese government’s alleged “anti-Israel” stance at the United Nations may have befuddled some Australians, but his comments are about something bigger than the policies of federal government.

Emboldened by the re-election of Donald Trump and Israel’s recent battlefield successes, Netanyahu sees himself as a leader of the global populist right who is perhaps the ultimate defender of Israel against an international left that he portrays as hostile and complicit in antisemitism.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has strongly criticised the Albanese government over what Israel says is its lack of support.Credit: AP, Alex Ellinghausen

“Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this reprehensible act from the extreme anti-Israeli position of the Labor government in Australia,” Netanyahu said, claiming “anti-Israel sentiment is antisemitism”.

This is effective, certainly with his base in Israel, but it is also toxic on two levels. First, Netanyahu is increasingly identifying Israel with the political space occupied not only by Trump, but also the likes of Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orban. Second, by conflating all criticism of Israel with antisemitism – a tactic that is far from being supported by most Jews – he risks dragging diaspora Jews into Israel’s messes against their will, and verifying the antisemitic trope about Jewish dual loyalties.

Netanyahu’s rhetoric reflects the confidence of a leader who sees himself riding a wave of political momentum. Trump’s return to the political spotlight, alongside a resurgence of nationalist and right-wing populist leaders worldwide, has strengthened his belief that his hardline approach has vindicated him on the world stage.

For Netanyahu, this is not just about Israel; it’s about leading a broader ideological battle against governments such as Australia’s, which he paints as not only an anti-Israel axis but part of a fundamentally anti-Western phenomenon – a sort of clueless, woke Fifth Column.

Such governments tend to side with the Palestinians, and by framing that as evidence of hostility, Netanyahu aligns himself with the idea that Israel is under siege – not just from Hamas or Iran, but from left-leaning Western governments that he sees as morally confused and dangerously naive.

Moreover, he is emboldened by domestic factors as well. Few believed Netanyahu would survive the debacle of October 7, 2023 when Hamas managed to invade Israel, massacre 1200 people and kidnap about 250. Yet somehow, his coalition has held together and Israel has scored some successes.

In Gaza, Israel has systematically dismantled Hamas’s military infrastructure, targeting and eliminating most of its senior leadership and drastically reducing the group’s military capabilities. This has effectively reduced Hamas from a powerful militant entity to an insurgent force, diminishing its ability to wage sustained large-scale attacks on Israel.

In Lebanon, the Israeli military has dealt a crippling blow to Hezbollah, neutralising much of its leadership and destroying most of its extensive rocket arsenal. These actions have reportedly paved the way for an agreement under which Hezbollah will retreat from the Israeli border, significantly reducing the immediate threat to northern Israel.

The weakening of Hezbollah also appears to have contributed to destabilisation of the Assad regime in Syria.

Iran, the primary sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah and other anti-Israel proxies, has seemingly been deterred by these outcomes. The combined defeats of its allies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have weakened its regional influence and reduced its capacity to project power against Israel.

As with most populists, Netanyahu relies on at least some messages that are genuinely popular and have more than a grain of truth. Many Israelis do feel – rightly – ganged up on at international forums such as the United Nations, and misunderstood in their frontline stand against global jihadism.

Australia surely meant well voting in favour of a UN resolution calling Israel’s presence in the West Bank illegal, but it stepped into a political morass by doing so. The illegality claim is dubious, whereas the more compelling issue – even for Israeli liberals – is perhaps the occupation’s lack of wisdom (and unfairness to the Palestinians).

Netanyahu’s claim that the Albanese government’s rhetoric could have inspired the arson attack on the Adass Israel synagogue is weak and unprovable, but it serves his purposes. It is also not entirely implausible; it’s not inconceivable that governments criticising Israel might inadvertently embolden antisemitism.

But his confidence should not obscure the fact that Israel itself remains deeply divided over his leadership and policies. His hardline approach to the West Bank, his judicial overhaul and his combative diplomacy have sparked massive protests and alienated large segments of the Israeli population. Many Israelis reject the idea that criticising settlement policy or military actions is inherently anti-Israel. These domestic divisions complicate his claim to represent Israel on the world stage as a unified voice of resistance against an international left. Were an election held today, he would probably lose, and badly.

Dan Perry is a former chief editor of the Associated Press in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.