By: Nomi Kaltmann as seen in The Jewish Independent

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.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether his affiliation with the Jewish Council should have been disclosed. I think that there is a legitimate conversation to be had about transparency. But to me, that is not really what this debate is about.

The real question is whether someone should be excluded from speaking about Jewish comedy because of their political views on a completely different topic.

My answer is absolutely not.

Not because I agree with anti-Zionist views. I do not. And not because I think every opinion deserves a platform. I do not. There are certainly views, such as those held by neo-Nazis, that are always beyond the pale.

Rather, I do not believe in cancelling people because of their political views. Ideological litmus tests are a dangerous slippery slope. Our community has complained relentlessly about cancel culture when it is directed at Jews who hold Zionist political views, yet now seem perfectly comfortable using the same tactics against Jews whose views on Israel they dislike.

If a speaker were invited to present on Israel, Zionism, October 7 or Jewish communal politics, then their views on Israel would obviously be relevant. Participants would have every right to scrutinise them and audiences would be entitled to challenge them.

But instead, the logic being applied in this case seems to be that once a person adopts a controversial political position on Israel, they become unsuitable to speak about almost anything else. They become, in effect, treif.

To me, that is a dangerous road for our community to travel down.

For years, Aussie Zionists have argued that excluding people because of their views on Israel is discriminatory. Our community has vehemently criticised the use of political purity tests to determine which Jews gain a seat at important cultural discussions.

Which is precisely why I find the same cancel culture, directed at a speaker for their anti-Zionist political positions so odious, especially when they are speaking on an unrelated topic. A commitment to open conversation cannot only apply only when it benefits people we agree with. Principles are not principles if they only run in one direction.

This is also why Limmud Oz Sydney is right to stand by its decision to continue to platform this speaker. It would have been far easier for them to avoid controversy and remove the speaker. Instead, Limmud has chosen to uphold one of its core principles, that Jewish learning is enriched, not diminished, by encountering people with whom we disagree.

I want to stress that commitment to diversity does not mean every view is equally valid. It certainly does not mean criticism is off limits, and I think that if you find someone’s political opinions objectionable, you are under absolutely no obligation to attend their session.

However, as a community we should be careful not to recreate the same culture of ideological policing within our own institutions that so many of us have criticised elsewhere.

The Australian Jewish community has never been monolithic. It contains religious and secular Jews, conservatives and progressives, hawks and doves, Zionists of every variety and Jews who struggle with Zionism altogether and, whether people want to admit it or not, a growing anti-Zionist minority.

Since October 7, many of us have spent hours arguing that it is wrong to exclude Jewish people from public life because of their views on Israel. We have written articles, signed petitions, complained to organisers and publicly criticised institutions, which have judged people not on what they were actually speaking about, but on their politics.

That is why I find this whole saga so frustrating.

You cannot spend more than two years arguing that Zionist Jews should be allowed to speak about literature, comedy, medicine or business without being interrogated about Israel, and then turn around and demand that anti-Zionist Jews be barred from speaking about Jewish comedy.

Either we believe people should be judged on the topic they are there to discuss or we do not.

If we reach a point where Jews can only speak at Jewish events after passing an ideological purity test, I think our community we will have created exactly the kind of Jewish community we claim to oppose: one where people are judged first on their politics and only second on what they actually have to contribute.

And frankly, after everything that has happened over the past two years, as a community, I think we should know better.