Published: 1 June 2026
Last updated: 2 June 2026
Over the past two years, Australian Jews have spent hundreds of hours talking about the exclusion of Aussie Jewish and Zionist voices from cultural festivals and arts panels, and have howled about the censorship of Jewish voices and stories in Australia’s publishing industry.
As a community, we have objected in the strongest possible terms when Zionist voices have been excluded from panels because of their views on Israel, when Jewish academics, artists and writers have been disinvited from events because of their Zionism, and when Zionist Jews have been judged as unacceptable based on which organisations they are affiliated with. The protest from our community has been especially loud when Jewish voices, who hold Zionist views are cancelled or disinvited when they were going to speak about topics that have nothing to do with Israel.
So, I have been appalled, but not shocked, to watch the hypocrisy of the same dynamic play out within our own community, this time directed at fellow Jews.
The latest controversy centres on Limmud Oz in Sydney. Originally partnering with Adamama, the Jewish urban farm, and Shalom Collective, Limmud invited a Melbourne-based Jewish comedian and educator who, has been associated with the Jewish Council of Australia. The session he is due to talk about is not about Israel, Zionism or the Jewish Council, rather it is about Yiddish and Jewish comedy.
So, when Limmud released its speaker biographies last week, and his association with the Jewish Council of Australia was not included, some members of our community felt this omission was misleading, while others objected to his inclusion in the program altogether, notwithstanding the fact that he was not speaking about anything related to his political views. After Limmud declined to remove him from the program, Adamama and Shalom Collective cancelled their participation as partners in the event. Limmud stood its ground and refused to disinvite him.
Comments6
judy6 June at 05:00 pm
bravo, nomi, for a well-reasoned argument. once again, we return to hillel of 2,000 years ago for one of the guiding principles of judaism …
“that which is hateful to you, do not do onto others.”
if you do not like being “cancelled,” then do not cancel others. simple.
and, just a thought – it is the speakers themselves who generally provide the personal biographies at events like limmud oz. to ensure full disclosure, will we start to insist that all speakers list all groups to which they belong, all social media on which they participate, all political leanings they have? that sorta sounds like a police state to me! and thank you, NO to that!
peace, judy
David Knoll6 June at 01:56 pm
Simon Krite puts it well. Just as importantly, it is necessary to emphasise that the Jewish community is a very broad tent from left to right politically and from secular to ultraorthodox ritually. We have a range of views about how best to coexist with Palestinians. That is not the issue. We owe no obligation to invite those who wish to tear down that tent.
Rachel Sussman6 June at 04:26 am
As Jews we are part of a beautiful tapestry and yes, we should include all versions of Judaism (extreme orthodox to secular), as political views (right- center- left)- even if we disagree.
But some core fundamentals – such Zionism and our history, if denied, are self betrayal, we begin to loose who we are.
Zion is mentioned 160 times in the Bible, Jerusalem 700 times. It is where we were born, became a people, grew, build a home and erected our Temple.
Empires attempted to destroy us and our Temple, exile us, cut our connection with the land by changing its name to Palestine; and physically exterminate us – they failed, and we returned home.
Now we are told that Zionism and Judaism are not the same and we are ‘colonizers’ (not the ones they, including the Arabs, attempted to colonize); they try to destroy us by redefining history, us, and split us, and anti-Zionist Jews fulfill their wish. They confuse their right to criticize Israel, or to choose not to live there, with disconnecting from it, its right to exist, and their rights/ history as Jews.
Is the answer to exclude them in anger or include them and talk?
JOE LENZO3 June at 09:27 pm
It is a problem that cuts both ways.
Larry Stillman2 June at 05:29 am
Dear me
The last LimmudOz in Melbourne featured at least one strongly anti-Zionist speaker who at the same time, was very much a believer in the historical roots of Jewry, and a strong Hebraist to boot. But, as with many others, he does not believe that the right to self-determination in an ancestral homeland should come at the expense of the Palestinian community. That’s where it has come to. Many people see that a democratic Zionist state is not a possibility any more. Now that is one form of anti-, non- or post-Zionism that deeply cares about the future. Of course, there are others who take a more radical view that is completely antipathetic to connection to the ancient homeland. But all that should be open for discussion. The controversy about political Zionism and theology has been around for over a century. And should not be a reason to boycott someone talking about something else (this has happened in the past). It is ridiculous.
Simon Krite1 June at 09:59 am
Nomi’s argument rests on a false equivalence.
Zionism is not simply another political opinion. It is the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Anti-Zionism, in practice, rejects that right and places itself outside the mainstream consensus of world Jewry.
The issue is not whether someone should be “cancelled” for unrelated views. The issue is whether Jewish communal institutions are obliged to provide a platform and legitimacy to individuals affiliated with organisations that actively work against the foundational principles upon which much of organised Jewish life is built.
A synagogue is not required to host missionaries. A women’s organisation is not required to platform activists opposed to women’s rights. Likewise, Jewish organisations are not obligated to elevate representatives of groups that oppose Jewish national self-determination.
This is not a purity test. It is a question of communal values and boundaries.
Limmud and others are free to make their own choices, but communities are equally entitled to decide which voices represent them and which do not. Every organisation has standards. Pretending otherwise is neither principled nor honest.