Published: 6 July 2026
Last updated: 6 July 2026
The Australian Jewish News has removed an article calling for respectful debate about Israel-Palestine. The article by Nomi Kaltmann criticised the treatment of Jewish Council Executive Officer Sarah Schwartz and argued that abusive language runs contrary to Jewish values.
The Jewish Independent understands that Editor Gareth Narunksy was told to remove the article by Publisher Bob Magid and Director Anna Pasternak after they received complaints about publishing an article that mounted any kind of defence of Schwartz.
Schwartz, who is an outspoken critic of Israel, gave evidence to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion last week that she had been subject to abuse by other Jews, including being called a “kapo” and a “Judenrat” and having her picture superimposed on the image of a train bound for a concentration camp.
Kaltmann's article argued that the abuse levelled at Schwartz breached the principle that all Jews are one people. “If you call a fellow Jew a kapo or compare them to a rat, you have lost the moral high ground. No matter how strongly you disagree with someone's politics, using language like this means that you have become part of the problem,” Kaltmann wrote.
Kaltmann emphasised that she disagreed with Schwartz's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict but said she was ashamed of how Schwartz has been treated. “To Sarah, and to every other Jew who has been abused in this way by fellow Jews, I want to say: I am sorry. I am ashamed that you have been treated like this by members of our own community,” she wrote.
Kaltmann offerred the article to Narunsky last week and he published it on the AJN website on Friday morning. It was removed on Monday morning. Narunksy told Kaltmann he could not tell her why the article had been removed. Both Narunsky and Magid declined a TJI request for comment.
Comments6
David Schulberg22 July at 05:02 am
When these ‘Jews’ express antiZionist views then they have crossed a red line, where they are in fact giving succour to antisemites who exploit antiZionism as the means for demeaning, demonising and delegitimising the state of Israel and suggesting that Judaism and Israel are not inextricably intertwined.
Simon Krite9 July at 09:52 am
Dear, Rebecca Tran
The common thread linking the UN, B’Tselem, Amnesty Intl and Human Rights Watch is an extraordinary fixation on Israel. Time and again, Israel is subjected to standards that are rarely, if ever, applied to regimes responsible for far greater atrocities.
This is called “selective outrage”.
By repeatedly portraying Israel as uniquely criminal while downplaying or contextualising the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations, these institutions have helped legitimise narratives that fuel global hostility towards Israel and, towards Jews.
Whether through endless UN resolutions, apartheid accusations built on contested legal theories, or reports that minimise Israel’s security realities, the cumulative effect is the same. The delegitimisation of Jewish self-determination.
These institutions reserve a unique standard for the world’s only Jewish nation while treating comparable or worse conduct elsewhere with far less scrutiny, hence this is blatant institutional bias.
Bias dressed up as human rights remains bias.
Rebecca Tran8 July at 11:27 am
Should something purely by its offensiveness not be published, even if credible organisations are calling it that?
But I suspect you’re just going to say that the UN, BTSelem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch are antisemitic for naming what is occurring a genocide too right?
…
Tobias7 July at 09:27 pm
the issue is not just that the Jewish Council of Australia chose a name that makes them sounds more mainstream then they are, but rather it is just so upsetting that supposably “smart” people like Sarah Schwartz, Jordana Silverstein, Clare Wright, etc etc, so frequently use the word “genocide” when it is so offensive to use such a term.
Simon Krite7 July at 12:19 pm
The article wasn’t pulled because it called for “respectful debate.” It was pulled because it fundamentally misrepresented why so many in the Jewish community object to Sarah Schwartz’s public activism.
This is a textbook inversion piece designed to shift attention away from the impact of the activism and onto the reaction to it. No one should casually use terms like “Kapo”, but neither should appeals to “Jewish values” be used to shield public figures from legitimate criticism.
The AJN exercised editorial judgment.
Perhaps The Jewish Independent could learn something about responsible platforming.
Simon6 July at 05:57 pm
Unsurprising by the AJN but still wow