Published: 24 February 2026
Last updated: 26 February 2026
What makes a Jew has long been a matter of debate.
We are a religion but plenty of Jews belong with no faith or religious practice.
We are an ethnicity, but recent conversion and historical absorption mean there are Jews whose DNA profile is not at all Jewish.
We are a nation tied to a land, but a little under half of us live there.
We are a culture, but there is more diversity than unanimity of cultural markers such as language, music or food.
We share history, but our history of dispersion and difference is longer than that of togetherness and commonality.
We share values, but it is almost impossible to find a value on which every Jew agrees.
Little wonder that debate is the modus operandi of Jewish communication and that the limits of community are sometimes the subject of that debate.
Language about Jewish belonging reached a fever point recently when Sarah Schwartz of the Jewish Council of Australia debated Lillian Kline of Project A on ABC Radio, over President Herzog’s visit to Australia. Kline referred to Schwartz as “an anti-Jew whose views are not reflective or representative of the mainstream Jewish community”.
The encounter prompted a debate in the pages of The Jewish Independent. Nomi Kaltmann argued the term “anti-Jew” is always inappropriate because “there are no ideological entrance exams to being a Jew and no political loyalty oaths”. Hannah Chester argued that Klines’s use of the term “anti-Jew” critiqued Schwartz’s actions not her identity, “not that Sarah Schwartz isn't a Jew, but that her work operates against Jewish interests”. In response, Schwartz circulated a letter representing Chester’s article as a personal attack and encouraging complaints to The Jewish Independent.
Comments2
Tamar24 February at 08:29 pm
I understand that TJI wishes to de-escalate, but this editorial was disappointing on so many levels. If you chose to publish the original piece by Kaltmann, then Chester’s right of reply was totally legitimate—and was argued fairly and reasonably, speaking to a fraught issue of real concern in Australia’s Jewish community.
TJI regularly shows what it means to engage in debate, why are you apologizing now? Bending over backwards to accommodate the hurt feelings of a group that has shown little regard for communal safety (cultural and physical), aligns with groups which are unashamedly eliminationist with regard to Israel, and consistently minimize Jewish fears, doesn’t feel like an exercise in pluralism, it feels disingenuous.
eric lundberg24 February at 04:00 am
Hannah Chester’s piece was extremely well based, carefully written and put forward a very balanced view. There is such a thing as a communal consensus on fundamental propositions, and it is not in any way unkind or divisive to acknowledge that fact.
The piece did not question the complainant’s Jewish status. Quite the reverse.
As a left liberal labor member and Zionist I have certainly taken the knocks from all sides both in our community and outside especially since October 7. That is to be expected.
The idea that a founder of the self -proclaimed “Jewish Council of Australia” should claim some particular vulnerability is hard to accept. It would be good if the JCA would consider changing its name to something more realistic. In my opinion it confuses the non-Jewish public about the roles of the excellent and representative organisations in our community.