Published: 21 May 2025
Last updated: 21 May 2025
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This quote, often attributed to Voltaire but probably put into his mouth by his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall, captures the principle that even when ideas are polarising, the right to voice them remains a cornerstone of democratic societies.
The Jewish Council of Australia is the latest group in the Jewish community to challenge our willingness to give freedom to those with whom we disagree. Many in the Jewish community have voiced outrage, questioning how a group seen as sharing the views of only a sliver of Jewish Australians could possibly position themselves as a voice of Jewish Australians.
Claims that one group or another does or does not represent Australian Jews beg the question of whether it is possible to capture and express the view of the Jewish community in Australia on any given issue? Views on issues from religion to Zionism to Australian politics vary. Is there a majority view? And if so, who gets to define it, express it, and be seen as its voice?
Representing diversity
We’re likely all familiar with the old saying: two Jews, three opinions. It’s often delivered with a knowing smile, but in moments like this, it cuts to something deeper—how difficult it is, maybe even impossible, to pin down a singular Jewish perspective. And yet, we continue to have peak bodies and public figures who claim to represent us as though we were a homogenous bloc.
This is not unique to the Jewish community. Only two years ago, the Indigenous people of this country were the focus of a national conversation around the Voice to Parliament. Many different representative bodies came forward to speak on behalf of Indigenous Australians, however, frustration was also expressed in various pockets about how some views weren’t being heard and that there also wasn’t one singular, simple stance from this diverse group.
As someone who has spent the last five years working in democratic innovation, this question of representation—fair representation—has been of deep fascination to me. Overall, we’ve been taught that in a democracy, we are represented simply through the occasional act of voting. We choose a candidate or a party, based on what they campaign on, and hope they carry our voices forward. But we’re witnessing increasing frustration with and decline of trust in our political representatives, not just in Australia but in many democratic countries around the world. So, does that mechanism fairly enable the depth and diversity of any group’s views? Can one leader—or even one organisation—really embody the full spectrum of Jewish thought in Australia?
Introducing the citizens' assembly
Over the past few years, I’ve been advocating for democratic practices that go beyond the ballot box—avenues that give everyday people a genuine seat at the table, not just a checkbox on a form. One of the most powerful tools I’ve seen is called a citizens’ assembly (sometimes called a deliberative panel or mini-public). It’s a deceptively simple idea. A large random group of citizens is selected, then stratified to reflect the diversity of a community—different ages, backgrounds, beliefs. The resultant assembly is given the time, information, and support to deliberate on a complex issue.
A citizens’ assembly does not give precedence to the loudest loudest voice or conduct a debate with the aim of finding a winning argument. It’s about making space for disagreement, listening, learning, and—when possible—finding common ground on solutions or ways forward. These assemblies have been used all over the world to address everything from climate policy to assisted dying to constitutional reform. They work best when the issue is nuanced, and difficult to resolve through a simple yes-or-no vote.
What would Jewish representation look like if we applied this approach to our community? What if, instead of fighting over who gets to be the voice of Jewish Australians, we acknowledge that there are many voices, and make room to hear them properly and increase ways for the breadth of the community to be heard?
What if we invited a representative group of Jewish Australians—across generations, denominations, political beliefs, levels of observance, and cultural traditions—to sit down and listen to one another? To talk honestly about what matters to us, where we diverge, and where we align. To ask the tough questions: What does it mean to be represented? Who gets to speak for us? And what responsibilities come with that voice?
I support the Jewish Council of Australia’s right to free speech (despite myself having some different views) and welcome the opportunity for them to voice their opinions, preferably in a space where those opinions are respectfully challenged.
But anyone who claims authority to represent the diverse Jewish community should be challenged, not just those we happen to disagree with.
Democracy demands participation and a Jewish community citizens assembly would enable our community to practice participatory democracy.. –Who can speak for us, if we do not speak for ourselves?
Comments19
Deborah Stone30 May at 09:34 am
I am closing this exchange.
Judy29 May at 06:32 pm
(responding to Simon Krite, 29 May at 04:53 am)
To Mr Krite,
I will not grab the “bait,” and I will not continue this sad … um … “debate” following this response. I am OK with letting you “have the last word.” All yours.
No matter what I write or do not write, it appears that you have made up your mind about who and what I am, about what I believe or challenge, about the “moral fibre” that makes me me. So be it. I leave you to your conclusions; I am not bothered one bit.
Your words assert that my “position is pretty clear”; please let me confirm that from your words, I conclude that you have no clue what my position is.
I have no clue what the obsession is with my surname. TJI knows fully well who I am, or they would not be publishing my comments. That eliminates “anonymity” from the discussion.
As for this – “It’s about protecting a community from those working to undermine it while cloaking themselves in its name.”:
Precisely who / what is this “community”? Who / what determines its membership – you? me? TJI? ECAJ? JCA? The government?
Who / what has requested “protection”? How / where was this request made? I missed it …
What constitutes “protection”? Silencing voices with which we disagree?
Who / what is “undermining” this “community”? What form does this “undermining” take? Is presenting disparate views considered “undermining”? Heaven help democracy itself if “disparate views” == “undermining”! Democracy is built on the premise and empowerment of “disparate views” – when presented honourably and respectfully.
…
I now leave the closing argument to you …
Peace, Judy
Simon Krite29 May at 04:53 am
Hi Judy (still anonymous),
Thanks for confirming you’re just “observing” , though quoting APAN, defending JCA, softening Mashni, and brushing off calls for genocide as “over the top” makes your position pretty clear.
As for your response:- dodging the IHRA, downplaying Mashni’s record, reframing Abdel-Fattah’s campaign as “just one person,” and defending JCA on the basis of maybe ten “righteous people” isn’t really a serious argument IMO – Personally It just looks and smells like apologism in soft focus.
This isn’t about debate. It’s about protecting a community from those working to undermine it while cloaking themselves in its name. That’s the value of calling it out – surname or not.
Simon
Judy28 May at 05:56 am
Answering questions from Simon Krite (23 May at 03:28 am)
Apologies for the length of this response …
My connection to JCA: I observe, as I observe TJI, ECAJ, etc.
My surname: I use my surname when I believe it adds value to what I am saying. I see no value-added here.
(1) I am not comfortable with all parts of the IHRA definition of antisemitism … does that make me “nefarious”? Many Jewish organisations and scholars are equally-or-more uncomfortable with the IHRA definition and how it is being used (“weaponised” according to many) – including the originator of the definition. I also believe that in some ways, the IHRA definition of antisemitism “muddies the water between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism.” [Oops – I just quoted APAN; am I “nefarious” now?! Sad smiles … ]
(2) “JCA members appear with [Mashni] regularly and have never once distanced themselves. … [G]oogle will help you here, unfortunately it’s that easy to find ‘evidence’.”
I must be doing the wrong Google search; I could not find anything supporting JCA members and Mashni appearing together at all, let alone “regularly.” Yes; a few times, they are quoted in the same article … but … appearing together? It would help me if you could share the Google search string you use to display this “evidence.”
(3) “JCA backs activists who call Israel genocidal … defended Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah, who accuses Israel of genocide, supports BDS, and denies Zionism altogether.”
Dr Abdel-Fattah is not “activists”; she is one person who expresses her views and takes action based on those views. Personally, I find some of Dr Abdel-Fattah’s views about Israeli Government policy “edge-y” and expressed in ways that are “over the top” for me. JCA’s “defence” of Dr Abdel-Fattah was regarding Senator Sharma’s erroneous *conflation* of “Israel” with “Jewish.” [Reference: https://thejewishindependent.com.au/pro-palestinian-advocate-judged-multicultural-award ] What other “activists” has JCA “publicly defended”? I could not find them …
(4) Let us suppose, for the moment, that one member of JCA (e.g., Sarah Schwartz, as you have cited her) is the “devil incarnate.” Does one person pollute an entire organisation? I suspect one could find at least 10 “righteous people” in JCA … and that would seem to be enough to not-sweep-away the entire group … after all, 10 righteous people were all that Abraham was required to find to convince God to not-destroy Sodom and Gomorrah …
To close … Perhaps you and I have different understandings of what it means to “delegitimise Israel.” From my reading of JCA writing (which has increased since seeing this debate), I do not see JCA “campaign[ing] to delegitimise Israel.” As for “fragment[ing] the Jewish community” – I have never found the Australian Jewish community as anything but fragmented! And I struggle to find any inherent value in “unity of Australian Jews.”
What does “unity” gain us? What benefit would we get by being “unified”?
Heck – I find the ultra-Orthodox “fragmenting” and “dis-unifying” the Australian Jewish Community … and I am sure they would find me similarly (I am a progressive, Reform Jew). Is dis-unity really a bad thing?
I hope I have answered your questions …
Peace,
Judy
Simon Krite23 May at 03:41 am
Hi Polly,
Loved your response, and credit to you for diving into this with good humour. The core idea, a broad, respectful Jewish forum where people actually talk is a great one. Genuinely.
That said, I hope you can appreciate the irony that’s caught a few of us: inviting the JCA into this space, when the overwhelming majority of Jewish Australians have condemned their actions, does feel a bit like asking the fox to join the poultry welfare committee.
It’s not about shutting down hard conversations btw, it’s more about being clear-eyed about who’s entering the room, and whether they’re there to build community or burn it down.
Still, thanks for kicking off the conversation. At the very least, you’ve proven it’s still possible for Jews to strongly disagree and smile about it.
Simon.
Simon Krite23 May at 03:28 am
Hi Judy,
Thanks again for being engaged in this conversation. This all started with Polly’s idea to open a forum for all Jewish voices, “including” the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA). That kind of openness is valuable. But it also forces us to ask a serious question: “Does every group deserve a seat at the table?”
In this case, I believe the JCA’s involvement in communal spaces isn’t just unjustified, it’s dangerous and has “nefarious” intent. Their actions consistently align with people and groups that are hostile to Israel’s existence and I believe damaging to the safety and unity of Australian Jews.
Here are just a few clear examples as requested.
1. JCA and APAN both campaign against the IHRA definition of antisemitism
They claim it stifles criticism of Israel, but the IHRA definition is supported by over 40 democratic governments and used to protect Jews from antisemitism disguised as “activism.”
• JCA Statement
• APAN Statement
We ” the Jewish community” are watching first hand the devastating effects on campuses this rhetoric is having on Jewish students.
2. JCA works alongside Nasser Mashni and APAN
Mashni, APAN’s president, has praised a convicted hijacker and claimed Hamas is not antisemitic. JCA members appear with him regularly and have never once distanced themselves.
• Interfaith event with JCA, Mashni, Abdel-Fattah
• Mashni praising Leila Khaled
This isn’t one-off. It’s a pattern. google will help you here, unfortunately it’s that easy to find “evidence”.
3. JCA backs activists who call Israel genocidal
They’ve publicly defended Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah, who accuses Israel of genocide, supports BDS, and denies Zionism altogether.
• JCA Defence of Abdel-Fattah
• Green Left coverage
This bad actor is now offering K1-12 “history classes” to teachers and students. Seriously? this revisionism is dangerous and I am not alone in believing this. Will the self appointed JCA condemn this active revisionionism
4. Consistent collaboration with anti-Zionist activists
JCA’s Sarah Schwartz has joined encampments and rallies with Mashni, and appeared alongside Jordana Silverstein (an APAN board member) at Loud Jew Collective events. These aren’t just shared spaces they come to together in, they’re shared missions. Shared objectives. Shared incitement and division.
Why this matters
This isn’t just “a different opinion.” It’s a campaign to delegitimise Israel and fragment the Jewish community all under a Jewish name. When JCA is presented as a “Jewish group” in public forums, it misleads the public and undermines the safety and unity of Australian Jews.
The bottom line
JCA has every right to express their views publicly. But that doesn’t mean they belong in spaces intended to reflect the Jewish community or even part of the Jewish community – because what they represent is actively harmful to it.
And Judy — since you’ve asked others for transparency, may I respectfully ask whether you have any connection to JCA or similar groups? And why your surname was left off earlier? I look forward to your reply with the same spirit you called for: mutual accountability.
Warm regards,
Simon
Polly Cameron23 May at 12:27 am
Thanks to all who have commented.
As the author of this article, I’m happy to clarify that I have no association with the JCA, although I have read these assertions in the comments with a slight smile on my face. As someone highly critical of some of their views, I was concerned that this bias would show in the article. I may have overcorrected, or indeed, others’ bias and instinctive cynicism are strong!
All I am proposing, which at its heart is wildly simple, is a process to bring together a roughly representative group of Jews to learn and challenge each other respectfully, and to find consensus on core issues, possibly. This is in comparison to the standard ‘peak body’ approach of oppoerating with, broadly speaking, minimal community engagement, and in silos whilst even in part, attempting to represent a non-homogenous group of people.
I welcome any further comments, as genuine dialogue is all I’m interested in.
Polly23 May at 12:15 am
Thank you to all those who commented. As the author of this article, I’m happy to clarify that I’m not in any way associated with the JCA and indeed found myself wearing a wry smile that some cynically viewed this as somehow a trojan horse on their behalf – as I was initially concerned that I would come across as too critical of the group (my existing bias). Perhaps I overcorrected! How delightful.
No matter the comment, I’m thrilled at any discourse, as that was the motivation for the article. We all have different opinions, based on our mixed experiences and particular information sources. What I propose in essence, is wildly simple; providing a means for a roughly representative mix of Jews to come together to learn and challenge each other respectfully to potentially find rough consensus on issues, rather than continue to operate in silos with various mouthpieces speaking for us with minimal engagement.
Judy22 May at 11:53 am
I ask this group’s assistance.
Statements were made about JCA and links to APAN … “[JCA is] a self-appointed group with deep ties to APAN and others openly hostile to Israel and Zionism” and “I think it’s a total scam. [JCA] has strong ties to convicted kidnapper Mashni and his Jew hating, Israel bashing APAN network.” [Simon and Bob respectively]
Instead of accepting such assertions, I tried to verify them independently … and I could not, thus I request your assistance.
I would appreciate assistance in finding objective evidence of this linkage, versus unsubstantiated assertions.
It seems to me that those of us Jews in this conversation should be especially mindful of spreading “blood libel.” I am *NOT* saying the assertions above == “blood libel”; I remind us that it can be a slippery slope from un-cited assertions, rumours, inuendoes, and mis-understandings to what we Jews know too well as “blood libel.”
I request to see documented evidence of this … um … nefarious linkage, or I ask the authors of such comments to tone-down or remove assertions that cannot be demonstrated categorially and objectively. I believe we Jews have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure our own presentations in this debate can withstand criticism from those on all sides of this discussion.
Respectfully, Peace, Judy
Deborah Stone22 May at 09:59 am
Youhave misread this article. It is not the Jewish Council suggesting a citizens’ assembly.
Simon Krite22 May at 08:38 am
Joshua,
I hear you — but that’s exactly the problem.
This piece might pretend to be a neutral reflection on representation and free association, but in practice, it soft-launches a framework that invites groups like the Jewish Council of Australia into the centre of communal legitimacy. You can say it’s not a defence “per se,” but the subtext is clear: if they have a “right to exist,” then we’re expected to give them a seat at the table.
And that’s not harmless.
You say it’s about the right to exist. Fine. Let them exist — but don’t ask the rest of us to pretend they’re legitimate participants in the communal consensus because that won’t be pluralism at all. It is straight out capitulation.
They do not deserve a seat at any table of Jews while their entire existence is to discredit and legitimise Jewish life and Jewish values.
Miriam Frommer22 May at 08:18 am
Despite several comments questioning the agenda of the author of this article, there are nonetheless people in the Australian Jewish community who do not feel that their point of view wrt Israel’s actions in Gaza is being accurately reflected. It is not a question of anti-Zionism but of grave doubts as to the wisdom of prosecuting a war where the goals are conflicting, something which is also reflected in anti-government demonstrations in Israel itself.
Julie Landvogt22 May at 07:45 am
Surely this article argues that the Jewish Council is one voice but that there are many other voices. That it is possible to agree with them on some issues and not others, just as it is possible to agree in part but not in whole with the standpoint of other organisations.
A citizens’ assembly might allow differences and commonalities to at least be heard. It might lessen the use of phrases such as ‘the Jewish lobby’ or ‘the Jewish vote’ which flatten nuance and reduce understanding of how diverse, yet oddly connected, our ‘community’ is. It is not simply a choice between the Jewish Council and the preexisting organisations.
Anton22 May at 07:12 am
There are representative Jewish organisations with affiliates who have members. These are the ECAJ and the Zionist Federation, with the ECAJ representing Jewish organisations in the community. Some Jewish organisations choose not to become an affiliate, instead, sniping their views from the sidelines. The excuse usually is they don’t agree with the roof body so they can’t become an affiliate. The thing is, being part of a community, which is what ‘the Jewish Community’ is, can only reflect the views of those that choose to affiliate. You would have to question why organisations want to speak out using the title of ‘Jewish organisation’ if they don’t want to affiliate with the Jewish Community. No problem with them having views as private individuals, but not as someone who is representing the Jewish Community view.
Joshua Dabelstein22 May at 04:29 am
This is not a defence of a perspective or a particular organisation. This is a defence of perspective and the right to freely associate. I don’t feel at all represented by the Jewish Council of Australia, in fact I have on many occasions felt disturbed by them . I also understand that the Jewish Council makes very clear that they do not attempt to represent all Australian Jews, or anything close to the majority of Australian Jews. They are a council of Australian Jews prosecuting a conglomerate of political perspectives — perspectives that they are quite rightly open about not being at all representative of the Jewish majority. I would caution anyone against reading this piece as a defence of The Jewish Council per se. It is merely an observation on their right to exist.
Simon Krite22 May at 03:27 am
Deb, with all respect.
This article is absolutely about legitimising and including the Jewish Council of Australia.
It uses them as the case study to build its entire argument. Im sorry but that’s not misreading it.
This article is a Trojan Horse for a group whose consistent agenda has been to undermine Israel and Jewish communal life.
Every action and statement from the so called “Jewish Council” has pushed anti-Zionist rhetoric and aligned with groups that openly oppose the Jewish state.
Worse still, they do this in the name of Judaism. They are repackaging hostility toward Israel as “moral concern” and trying to speak for a community they actively seek to fracture.
This is not inclusion at all. This is clear manipulation dressed up as democratic reform with a clear agenda of seeking legitimacy.
While I agree there should be a space for many views in our community, I for one don’t believe a group that only serves to fracture our community be included in it – this gaslighting 101
Larry Stillman21 May at 01:26 pm
Some good ideas there. Of course who has the ultimate authority over the existence of such a body. I’d expect massive resistance.
Bob21 May at 09:37 am
I read this article about the Jewish Council’s push for a “citizens’ assembly,” and honestly, I think it’s a total scam. On the surface, it sounds all about inclusivity and giving everyone a voice, but if you look at who’s behind it, it’s pretty sketchy.
The Jewish Council has strong ties to convicted kidnapper Mashni and his Jew hating, Israel bashing APAN network. (Can’t believe a Jew is on the board of APAN, while that sounds like a separate issue, its not) Plus a bunch of other groups that have their own agendas, all against Israel and full of anti-zionist jew hate. They’re basically trying to sidestep established, accountable community bodies and set up their own little echo chamber, dressed up as “democracy.” This idea of using a format of “democracy” is a sneaky tactic. The whole “random selection” thing can easily be manipulated, and you can bet they’ll stack the deck with people who already agree with them.
Bottom line here is this isn’t about real representation. It’s about a small, self-appointed group trying to grab legitimacy and push their views as if they speak for all of us. It’s a deceptive tactic to steal credibility. We shouldn’t fall for it. If we want genuine mixed views representation, it has to be transparent and accountable, not another platform for activists with their own agenda. Im calling BS on this one.
Simon Krite21 May at 07:04 am
While disappointed, It doesn’t surprise me that TJI published this nefarious trojan house Op-Ed.
This article isn’t about “democratic innovation” it’s a just another smokescreen tactic.
What it’s really doing is trying to legitimise the Jewish Council of Australia, a self-appointed group with deep ties to APAN and others openly hostile to Israel and Zionism. It dresses itself up in thoughtful language about diversity and participation, but we need to be clear-eyed about what’s actually going on here.
This “self appointed” group is already indoctrinating young Jews with it’s fringe ideology, framing anti-Zionism as moral courage, undermining Jewish identity tied to Israel, and creating deep confusion about what antisemitism really is. Just recently, members linked to this group sat on a public panel and claimed with a straight face that “Hamas is not antisemitic.”. This is dangerous.
We’ve seen this tactic before, its not new! They use terms like “inclusive,” “democratic,” and “representative” to sneak extremist voices into the centre of the conversation, then accuse the mainstream community of being closed-minded for pushing back.
This has nothing to do with genuine diversity of Jewish thought. It’s about normalising hostility to Israel, destabilising the community’s sense of shared identity, and positioning a minority view, one that partners with those who call for the dismantling of the Jewish state – as equal to the majority. This is a bait-and-switch tactic and part of their m.o.
We should all be concerned. Because if we let groups like this define the conversation, our kids will grow up unsure whether supporting Israel is something to be proud of – or something to hide.
Please do not be fooled. This is not about hearing more Jewish voices. It’s about giving a platform to those who reject the very foundations of Jewish safety and peoplehood and those associated with the new global Jew Hate, disguised as anti-Zionism.