Has Limmud’s broad tent grown broader?

This week, a 2011 statement by Limmud-Oz Sydney has resurfaced amid controversy over this weekend’s Limmud-Oz festival.

This appears to raise questions about whether the organisation’s “broad tent” has grown broader when it comes to antizionism.

In 2011, Limmud-Oz was considering giving a platform to Peter Slezak, a Jewish antizionist academic and supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Limmud-Oz ultimately drew a line, saying it would not provide space to presenters who advocated boycotts of Israel.

The current dispute erupted after Shalom Collective and Adamama withdrew from Limmud Oz Sydney 2026 over the inclusion of a speaker, Jacob Sacher, who is a member of the Jewish Council of Australia and has participated in anti-Israel activism. However, the topics he will be speaking on at Limmud are unrelated to Zionism.

In a statement issued on 16 May 2011, Limmud-Oz described itself as “a broad tent which includes and celebrates a wide range of opinions in the Jewish community”. But it also said that the tent had limits.

“In consultation with Limmud International, the Executive of Limmud-Oz in Sydney has determined that it will not allow Limmud-Oz to provide a space to presenters who advocate a boycott of Israeli goods and services and/or of cultural, academic and sporting exchanges with Israel,” the statement said.

Limmud-Oz made a distinction between criticism of Israel and support for BDS.

“Criticism of Israel or the policies of its government similar to that levelled against any other country is entirely acceptable, and is an everyday occurrence within Israel itself,” the statement said.

“However, the Executive of Limmud-Oz in Sydney believes that the BDS campaign is an attack on Israel’s basic legitimacy and harms the Jewish people as a whole, as does the singling out of Israel for unjust criticism.”

The organisation said it supported engagement with Israeli academic and artistic institutions and had Israeli representatives involved in the program.

“BDS therefore undermines this crucial aspect of Limmud-Oz,” the statement said.

It also said proponents of BDS had a right to express their views, but Limmud was not obliged to host them.

“Limmud-Oz does not deny that proponents of BDS have the right to express their views to whomever they like. But that right does not impose an obligation on us to provide them with a space to do so.”

The statement rejected suggestions that the decision amounted to censorship.

“This is not about censorship, nor are we seeking to stifle dissenting views. Limmud-Oz is proud of the principles of pluralism and inclusiveness which guide us and Limmuds around the world.”

At the same time, Limmud-Oz stressed that it did not avoid difficult debate. The 2011 program included sessions on BDS, criticism of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including “Who is a friend of Israel?”, “From BDS to Burqas! Grassroots Community Action”, “BDS Movement, Councils, and the art of conversation” and “Is Israel an apartheid state?”.

Fifteen years later, Limmud Oz Sydney is defending the inclusion of a speaker critics describe as antizionist, while saying the presenter will not be speaking about Zionism, Israel or antizionism.

Sarah Charak, from the Limmud organising committee, told J-Wire that a presenter appearing at Limmud did not mean the organisation endorsed their views.

“A presenter presenting at Limmud is not evidence, or doesn’t mean, that Limmud as an organisation supports or endorses their views,” she said.

Charak said personal politics should not be a barrier to participation where presenters were engaging in good faith.

“Jewish ideas and Jewish text and Jewish tradition is the province and inheritance of every single Jew,” she said.

She said some committee members strongly disagreed with the politics of some presenters, but that was not how programming decisions were made.

“We don’t make programming decisions on the basis of our personal views or personal comfort or discomfort,” she said.

“We’re trying to bring together diverse Jews of different backgrounds and politics and denominations and ages to show that the Jewish community is stronger when we come together.”

Charak said concerns about antizionism had been misplaced in relation to this year’s program.

“If you look at the program, the only content that we’ve got about politics or about antizionism is in fact someone who has spearheaded the movement against antizionism (MAAZ) in Australia, Josh Dabelstein, and he’s presenting two sessions,” she said.

“There is no one putting an antizionist position to the community in this program.”

She said Limmud had sought extra confirmation that presenters would stick to the sessions as described and would not use them to promote personal politics.

“They’re there to share their passion for Jewish ideas and Jewish culture, and they’re not there to put a polemic to anyone,” she said.

“That would be against the presenter guidelines and the Limmud values, and we can assure people that’s not what’s going to happen at Limmud.”

The contrast between the two positions has become central to the current debate.

In 2011, Limmud-Oz said pluralism had limits and that advocacy for boycotts of Israel fell outside them. It still hosted sessions debating Israel, BDS and criticism of Israel, but said it would not provide space to presenters who advocated boycotts of Israel.

In 2026, Limmud Oz Sydney says a presenter’s personal politics should not prevent them from taking part in Jewish learning, provided they remain within the advertised session topic and the organisation’s guidelines.

Critics say the two positions are difficult to reconcile, particularly if the current presenter is associated with antizionist activism. They argue that Limmud previously recognised that activism directed at Israel’s legitimacy could fall beyond the boundary of its “broad tent”.

The announcement prompted a divided response on the Jews of Sydney Facebook page.

Supporters of Limmud praised the volunteer team for standing by the organisation’s pluralistic values and argued that speakers with different political views should still be able to take part in Jewish learning. Some said they were disappointed by what they saw as an attempt at censorship and said community members should be trusted to choose which sessions to attend.

Critics said the issue was not diversity of opinion but transparency. Several commenters argued that if a speaker had publicly expressed antizionist views or had links to an antizionist organisation, that information should be clear in the speaker biography so attendees could make informed choices.

A number of commenters said the participation of an antizionist speaker crossed a red line, particularly given the impact of antisemitism and antizionist activism on Australian Jews since October 7. Some praised Shalom Collective and Adamama for withdrawing, saying they had taken a principled stand.

Limmud Oz Sydney has said the festival will proceed this weekend, 7-8 June, despite the withdrawal of Shalom Collective and Adamama.

“We invite you to join us to celebrate Jewish ideas and culture and to show how powerful it is when Jews come together to share our love for everything Jewish: from music to Torah to Israel to ethics.”

Limmud said it remained committed to its values of diversity, respect and participation.

“The Limmud tent is wide and inclusive,” it said.

“We do not exclude Jews from Jewish learning and teaching. We believe that bringing together Jews of different ages, backgrounds, politics and denominations makes us stronger.”

For more on Limmud Oz 2026, see: https://www.limmudoz.org.au/