Published: 23 July 2024
Last updated: 25 July 2024
What’s in a name? A lot, if you’re trying to muscle your way into the congested world of Jewish community advocacy.
Until a few years ago, the landscape was set in stone. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) speaks for the community on Jewish matters in Australia, the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) does the same for Israel-related issues and the Australia & Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) stands alongside them, advocating across both domains. The outspoken advocacy by these three bodies has been largely uncontested.
Over the past few years, however, the emergence of two new advocacy groups has upset the apple cart. One is on the extreme right – the Australian Jewish Association (AJA), and the other is on the extreme left – the Jewish Council of Australia (Council).
They are both small, private and unrepresentative, but united by their names, which imply that each is an umbrella body (Association, Council) that represents the Jewish community.
The names are designed to appeal to those who google Jewish community groups looking for something that sounds representative.
In a media world where mainstream journalists with no background knowledge of the Jewish community are pressured to get a local Jewish voice in their stories, the names are deceptive, designed to appeal to those who google Jewish community groups looking for something that sounds representative.
The AJA, which was founded in 2017, rejects the right of Palestinians to have their own state. “The land of Israel includes the biblical Jewish homelands of Judea and Samaria,” its mission statement says. It also aggressively opposed the indigenous Voice to parliament and platformed a vile essay by the late Jewish academic Bill Rubenstein, that discussed the prevalence of historical cannibalism within the indigenous community.
At the last federal election, the AJA courted the Teal candidate for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, as she navigated the Israel-BDS debate with the Liberals’ Dave Sharma. As the campaign wore on, media outlets across the political spectrum quoted the AJA prominently and frequently. Two months ago, Senator Sharma felt the AJA was sufficiently respectable for him to agree to appear at an event at Parliament House.
The Jewish Council of Australia was founded in February, in the midst of the Israel-Hamas war. The left-wing group was ostensibly created to fight antisemitism, arguing that “that any criticism of Israel or any sort of pro-Palestinian solidarity activity gets labelled as antisemitic, which cheapens the idea of what antisemitism actually is”.
In practice, the Council has emerged as a strident critic of Israel and outspoken pro-Palestinian voice, which have dominated its responses to incidents of antisemitism. It spoke out in support of the university campus protests, it criticised the government’s recent appointment of an antisemitism envoy on the grounds that it would be divisive, and it has supported the pro-Palestinian Australian academic and author Randa El-Fattah, who has argued that anyone who accepts that Hamas raped Israeli women is promoting “rape atrocity propaganda”.
The Council’s public statements, which stand in stark contrast to those of the major advocacy bodies, have been quoted steadily by mainstream media on the lookout for alternatives to the familiar responses of ECAJ, ZFA and AIJAC.
This has created a huge backlash within the community and driven the ECAJ to publicly criticise the Council. In an article in The Australian last Friday headlined, Executive Council of Australian Jewry smacks down anti-Israel Jewish ‘micro group’, ECAJ described the Council as “a micro-group which represents only a thin sliver of opinion on the far-left margins of the Australian Jewish community”.
The ECAJ's criticism was made last week to a Senate committee hearing into right-wing extremist movements, in response to earlier comments made to the committee by the Jewish Council's co-chief executive, Max Kaiser, which described ECAJ as as a"right-wing Zionist group".
The Australian article then spelled out a detailed list of Jewish institutions that were not represented by the Council, adding that ECAJ says it has “200 organisations under its umbrella” including schools and places of worship.
Why the gulf between the responses? While the AJA represents an ugly face of Israel advocacy, it is, in the end, pro-Israel.
The article also mentioned the launching, one week ago, of a petition titled “The Jewish Council of Australia Does Not Represent Me”, by a Melbourne-based grassroots “Jewish Activist Network” called J-United. The petition and has almost 7000 signatories, with many concerned the Council’s name was misleading.
Max Kaiser said in the article "it was a false premise that 'the Jewish Council purports to represent all Jews'. We have stated in almost every interview that we are not representative. Our view is that no single person or organisation can speak on behalf of all Jews in Australia."
The difference in the response by ECAJ and other members of the Jewish community to the AJA compared to the Council is illuminating. Over the past few years, The Jewish Independent made several approaches to ECAJ and ZFA, seeking their views about the rise of the AJA since its founding in 2017. They repeatedly refused to make any public comment, believing that the best strategy was to deny the group oxygen, but let it be known privately that they took a dim view of the AJA’s extremist positions. Since the start of the war in Gaza, however, ECAJ has spoken out about it twice.
Why the gulf between the responses to the two groups? While the AJA represents an ugly, intolerant face of pro-Israel advocacy which has not a shred of sympathy for the plight of Palestinian people, it is, in the end, pro-Israel. To the communal leaders, and those beneath them, the AJA is on the right side.
If the Council wasn’t gaining so much traction with the mainstream media, it’s unlikely a public campaign would have been mounted.
By contrast, the Council’s persistent criticism of Israel, including calling for sanctions, its support of the Palestinian cause without articulating a position on Hamas, and its limited expression of sympathy for Israeli suffering has seen it characterised as a traitor, reviled by many pro-Israel supporters, including those on the Jewish left.
The Council’s name has certainly played a part in striking the raw nerve but if it wasn’t gaining so much traction with the mainstream media, it’s unlikely a public campaign would have been mounted. NIF Australia must be looking on jealously. It has been critical of the Israeli government for many years but has not received anything like the coverage given to the Council. Its positive work to rebuild Israeli society is less appealing to journalists than the Council’s strategic attacks.
The major media outlets need to be more discerning in how they balance views from the extreme right and extreme left with the range of other voices on Israel and Jewish advocacy.
Meanwhile, the ECAJ blowtorch looks likely to be switched on for some time to come.
An earlier version of this article omitted the fact that ECAJ's criticism of the Jewish Council was made in response to a Senate committee hearing into right-wing extremism. This has now been included. The earlier version also said the Council had shown a "lack of sympathy" for Israelis. This has been adjusted to read "limited sympathy".
RELATED STORIES
Who speaks for Australian Jews? (The Jewish Independent)
Media must sort the wheat from the chaff when reporting Jewish advocacy groups (The Jewish Independent)
A troubling trend: the mainstreaming of the Australian Jewish Association (The Jewish Independent)
Comments13
Kassia Klinger29 July at 09:30 am
Who or what is the NIF Australia?
Kassia Klinger29 July at 09:28 am
Thanks for the article. But who or what is NIJ Australia?
Joseph Silver29 July at 03:51 am
The Jewish Council of Australia appears to be taking its direction from Jewish Voices for Peace in America.
What is particularly irksome is that the JCA started out by claiming to be pre-eminently positioned to deal with antisemitism, but has since transmogrified to reveal a vicious anti-Israel animus.
David Allegheny23 July at 10:37 pm
Only needs to read the foul and inflammatory (not to mention undergraduate-level) tweets from Na’ama Carlin and Sarah Schwartz about ‘the Zionists’ to realise that neither have any intention of engaging with this topic in any good faith whatsoever.
Zionism is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, a constellation of beliefs. I believe strongly in Palestinian freedom from oppression. I also believe in the ancestral Jewish homeland. They are not mutually exclusive. But to this JCA this makes me, a Jew in Australia, complicit.
Norman Davies23 July at 10:13 pm
Also, notice in the comments how the JCA have intriguingly not addressed the substance of the article, especially with regards to Randa Abdel Fattah who got young kids to chant about the intifada and is implicated in the doxing of Australian Jews. Why the silence Naama and Sarah? Many of those doxed were on the left, and supportive of a two state solution.
Anyone who truly cares about Israeli or Palestinian lives – and it is a moral imperative to care for both, especially now – should reject both the AJA and the JCA for framing the entire catastrophe in binary terms and thus only driving a wedge into the Australian community.
David Illberg23 July at 10:08 pm
As I’ve always said. AJA, JCA – same shit, different smell.
Michael Burd23 July at 11:26 am
As a co founding member of AJA with David and Alan it is becoming tiresome to keep hearing all AJA bashing .One of these criticisms include Dr Adler is self appointed well he started the Org and frankly he is no different to Leibler at AIJAC his son Leibler Jnr at ZFA now a offshoot of Aijac father and son team , Alex at ECAJ none of these leaders elected by the Jewish community so get over it . I wish AIJAC,ZFA ,ECAJ JCCV and others were not so obsessed with AJA and just did their own thing and let AJA represent those Jews who unlike the others unconditionally support Israel and Jewish Human rights .
It is no wonder AJA dr Adlers views are mostly sought on SKYNews and not the other Jewish representatives who mostly sit on the fence ,it is also not surprising that AJA has more viewers interactions on social media than all the other Jewish Organisations put together. No one Jewish organisation represents all of the community we are not monolithic just as most other minority religious groups are not . Get over it .
Zephaniah Waks23 July at 08:16 am
and exactly how representative are ECAJ (“speaks for the community on Jewish matters in Australia”), ZFA & AIJAC?
debbie wiener23 July at 07:50 am
The fact that the Jewish council attends events promoted by and endorses virulently anti Israel campaigners such as Mashni and Abdel-Fattah tells you everything you need to know.
Jewish Council of Australia23 July at 06:32 am
There are a number of glaring and reckless inaccuracies in this article, which appears to disregard the content of what the Council has stated publicly, in favour of lobby spin. This is disappointing from an outlet with the word ‘independent’ in its name.
1. The article’s contention that we have a “lack of sympathy for Israeli suffering” is completely baseless and unwarranted. Our core principles, signed by over 770 Jews in Australia, state “We support calls for freedom, equality and justice for all Palestinians and Israelis”. In almost every interview we have given we have expressed concern for Israeli lives lost on Oct 7, as well as the hostages. In our first op-ed, we stated “Jews here and around the world, particularly those with personal connections to Israel, are still reeling from the killing of more than 1100 people in Israel, the majority civilians, on October 7.” In fact, in Michael Visontay’s own article about the Council, Dr Max Kaiser said “everyone comes from a place of wanting freedom and equality for all people in the region.” Michael also wrote “As for Hamas, both Schwartz and Kaiser are appalled by the attacks on October 7.” Sarah Schwartz has stated in numerous interviews, including on ABC, that we have concerns for the safety of Israeli lives, and believe that Israel’s current violence endangers both Israeli and Palestinian lives. This author should reflect on his own assumption that we don’t care about Israeli lives, which appears to be solely based on us advocating for an end to Israel’s killing of Palestinian lives. As we state in our core principles, “Jewish safety is not at odds with Palestinian freedom”.
2. The article’s contention that our group is ‘private’ is incorrect and designed to mislead. All of our executive and advisory committee are listed publicly on our website. We have also listed the 770+ Jewish signatories to our statement of core principles.
3. The article’s contention that our name is ‘deceptive’. In every interview we have done, we are clear that we are not representative and do not believe that any group has authority to speak on behalf of all Jews in Australia, as all of the mainstream Jewish groups do regularly when lobbying for Israel. The reasons behind our name, and its historical resonance with the Jewish Council to combat fascism and antisemitism, have been broadly reported.
4. The Petition you mentioned was signed by many non-Jewish people and promoted by the far-right Christian Zionist Never Again is Now movement, which has been exposed as having links to fascists. As much is clear from the petition’s comments. It cannot be taken as representing any proportion of Jews in Australia.
Naama Carlin23 July at 06:24 am
Michael & TJI falsely claim that the Jewish Council has a “lack of sympathy for Israeli suffering”. As one of the israelis on the Council’s Advisory, who has most my extended & immediate family there, this is news to me. From the outset, the Jewish Council has called for peace and freedom for all people who live in occupied Palestine and israel. To suggest that this equates to a lack of sympathy for Israelis is only possible if you think that wanting Palestinian safety should come at the cost of israeli safety. Here, Michael & TJI’s editorial agenda is revealed. A shonda.
Sharon Kuper23 July at 03:42 am
This article is so arbitrary, biased and factually incorrect when it describes AJA as ‘far right’, and not representative, backed up by the claim that it supported the NO vote. Considering 60% of Australians supported the NO vote which sought to classify people on the basis of race and allocate resources, not on the basis of need, but on race, this demonstrates that it is the author and not AJA which doesn’t adequately represent the Jewish community.
Alan Freedman23 July at 02:28 am
After almost eight years, it is oh so tiresome, so here are the facts around the Australian Jewish Association’s name.
I am a founding member of the AJA and when the time came to discuss a name, we agreed that the name should reflect the fact that we were Australian, we were Jewish and we would be an association.
We also wanted to include some reference to our political leanings, but the word ‘conservative’ was problematic as it could easily be misinterpreted to suggest that the organisation was Masorti, or religiously Conservative, which we were not. But no matter how we juggled the words, it didn’t sound right, so in the end we just omitted it.
In fact, other than deciding to use the broad terminology of having views based on genuine Torah values, we had no interest in being religiously aligned in any way.
Those paranoid people advocating the conspiracy theory that we want to surreptitiously represent the whole community are simply searching for an agenda that isn’t there. We have never claimed to represent the Australian Jewish community, only those Jews who hold more conservative political views.
And despite your wishes to the contrary, the AJA has garnered the interest of much of the community, having a larger presence on social media than all the other communal organisations combined.
Everyone knows that, so can people who have a problem with the AJA’s name find something more important to whine about?