Respecting an office of state when its holder is controversial or perceived as undeserving presents a profound moral and practical dilemma, particularly in moments of crisis.
This issue came sharply into focus last Shabbat, when Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made an unannounced visit to the Perth Hebrew Congregation, offering solidarity after the suspected arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne.
The visit, arranged with only half an hour’s notice, sparked a storm of debate within the Jewish community and raised broader questions about the interplay between respect for institutions, personal convictions, and the challenges posed by social media discourse.
The backdrop to Albanese’s visit was a tragedy: The Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne had been targeted in what police have described as a likely terror attack. This occurred amidst a surge in antisemitism across Australia, exacerbated by the Israel-Hamas War following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
Albanese, who was in Perth at the time, likely saw the synagogue visit as an opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with Jewish Australians during a deeply unsettling moment for the community.
However, the prime minister’s relationship with the Jewish community is fraught. Many Australian Jews view him as, at best, unsympathetic to Israel and, at worst, indifferent to the rise of antisemitism. His recent appearance at a protest against antisemitism in Sydney was marred by boos, reflecting widespread frustration and distrust. These sentiments complicated his reception at the Perth synagogue and placed the synagogue’s rabbi in an unenviable position.
Respect for the office vs distrust of the individual
The core of the dilemma lay in balancing respect for the office of prime minister with the community’s grievances against the individual holding that office.
In Jewish tradition, the Shabbat service includes a prayer for the welfare of the government, underscoring a recognition of the importance of civic authority and communal responsibility.
Rejecting a sitting prime minister from attending such a service, particularly in the context of a solidarity visit, would have been a profound statement – arguably one of disrespect not just to Albanese as a person but to the institution he represents. Yet, for many congregants, Albanese’s presence felt incongruous, even offensive.
This tension highlights a broader issue faced by faith communities and civic groups worldwide: how to engage with political leaders whose actions or policies are viewed as antithetical to their values. Can one separate the office from its holder? And should respect for the office override personal or communal grievances?
The rabbi of the Perth Hebrew Congregation ultimately chose to welcome Albanese, inviting him to address the congregation briefly and say the prayer for the government.
This decision demonstrated an adherence to the principle of respecting the office while providing the Jewish community an opportunity to receive a gesture of solidarity in a moment of fear and vulnerability. It was a difficult, nuanced decision that placed communal unity and decorum above personal grievances – a stance rooted in the Jewish value of being a mensch (a person of integrity and honor).
Social media amplifying discontent
Following the visit, the rabbi and the synagogue faced a barrage of criticism on social media. Comments ranged from dismay to outright hostility, with many accusing the rabbi of betraying the community by allowing Albanese to participate.
This reaction underscores the toxic potential of social media, where individuals often feel emboldened to express views in ways they might never articulate in person.
The ease with which people can criticize decisions from the safety of anonymity often creates an environment where reasoned debate is replaced by outrage.
The vitriol directed at the rabbi raises critical questions: How many of those criticizing him would have made a different decision had they been in his position? Would they have refused entry to the prime minister, thereby creating a public spectacle and risking further division within the community? In most cases, the answer is likely no.
The disconnect between online behavior and real-world actions reveals a broader societal challenge. Social media platforms often reward hyperbolic and combative rhetoric, making it difficult for leaders to navigate complex situations without facing backlash.
In this instance, the rabbi’s decision required balancing respect for tradition, communal sentiment, and the practical implications of hosting the nation’s leader – a decision far more intricate than many online commentators seemed willing to acknowledge.
The broader implications for leadership
The controversy surrounding Albanese’s visit speaks to a larger issue: the difficulty of leading in a polarized world. Leaders, whether political, religious, or communal, are increasingly scrutinized not only for their decisions but also for how those decisions align with the diverse – and often conflicting – expectations of their constituents.
The rabbi’s handling of the visit demonstrated a commitment to principles of respect and inclusivity, even at personal and communal cost.
For Albanese, the visit was likely an attempt to bridge divides and demonstrate solidarity. However, it also highlighted the challenges political leaders face in engaging with communities that distrust them.
Symbolic gestures, while important, are not always sufficient to overcome deep-seated grievances. Genuine reconciliation requires consistent actions that address underlying issues – in this case, combating antisemitism and affirming support for Jewish Australians in meaningful ways.
Ultimately, the incident serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining respect for civic institutions while advocating for accountability and meaningful action.
It also calls for greater empathy and understanding in navigating disagreements – both within communities and between leaders and their constituents. By prioritizing these values, we can begin to bridge the divides that so often hinder progress and unity.
The writer is a rabbi and physician who lives in Ramat Poleg, Netanya. He is a co-founder of Techelet-Inspiring Judaism.