The problem with “as a Jew” politics

I’ve long thought it’s usually best not to give provocateurs any oxygen.

Not because their claims deserve respect, but because there’s a familiar modus operandi at work: they provoke, they polarise, they drag everyone into their framing, and then they point to the backlash as proof that they are the brave truth-tellers being “silenced.” The argument becomes secondary. The performance becomes the point.

But this week’s fundraising email from the Jewish Council of Australia, signed by Sarah Schwartz, is exactly why sometimes you do have to respond. Not because it’s shocking in a new way, but because it lays bare a pattern that is corrosive in Australia right now: take an internal Jewish disagreement and recast it as a moral showdown, claim the title of the “real” or “progressive” Jewish voice, and then paint those who disagree as extremists and enemies.

The email starts by celebrating that a previous message “caused quite a stir” at NewsCorp and that The Australian published multiple pieces soon after. Instead of engaging with what was written about them, it moves straight to labelling and blame: “Murdoch press,” “far-right allies,” “attacks we can expect,” and a claim there is a “concerted effort” to “undermine” them. That is not persuasion. That is inoculation. It’s designed to train supporters to treat scrutiny as persecution and to dismiss critics without ever dealing with the substance of the criticism. It is also a quiet demand to the broader public: don’t evaluate our claims, just accept that anyone challenging us must be acting in bad faith.

Then comes the part that crosses the line. The email claims Jewish identity must not be used to legitimise Israel’s “genocide in Gaza” or to “silence dissent.” Whatever one’s view of the war, “genocide” is one of the most inflammatory words available. It’s not a casual adjective. It is a grave allegation and using it this way inside an Australian communal argument is not a contribution to social cohesion. It pours petrol on an already tense environment and then wraps the matchbox in the language of “anti-racism.”

The email also leans hard into dividing the Jewish community into good Jews and bad Jews. It claims, “progressive Jews” are being shut out, and implies that those it calls “pro-Israel actors” are aligned with the “far-right.” That’s not just insulting. It’s dangerous. It tells the public that mainstream Jewish voices are not merely wrong, but morally tainted and politically extreme. It invites outsiders to treat Jewish safety concerns as propaganda rather than reality. And it hands bad actors a “kosher stamp” they can weaponise: if a group with “Jewish” in its name declares other Jews “far-right,” then anyone looking for an excuse to dismiss Jewish concerns has been given one.

At this point, it’s tempting to assume the motivation is money. The email is, after all, asking for recurring donations, pushing a target, listing numbers, and creating urgency. But I don’t think it’s as simple as that. If anything, the more important question is why people do this at all. Why do some Jews insist on stepping forward, loudly, to condemn other Jews in ways that outsiders can easily use against the community? Why has every era had a small cohort convinced that public denunciation of their own is virtue, courage, or “justice”?

The uncomfortable answer is that the motivation is often moral psychology, not money. There is a type of person who finds meaning in standing apart from their own group and being praised for it by people who already dislike that group. There is status in being the “exception.” There is a sense of purity in defining yourself against your own community. There is also a powerful emotional reward in believing you are braver, more enlightened, more ethical than the people you grew up with. And once you adopt that identity, your incentives change. You stop asking, “Is this true?” and start asking, “Does this reinforce who I am?” The cause becomes a stage where identity and righteousness are performed.

That doesn’t mean every critic of Israel fits that mould. Many Jews disagree passionately with Israeli policy and do it responsibly. But this email isn’t responsible for disagreement. It’s branding. It’s group sorting. It’s the deliberate choice to label other Jews as “far-right” and to describe their own faction as the proud Jewish voice of anti-racism and “Palestinian justice,” while implying mainstream Jewish advocacy is morally contaminated. That is not bridge-building. It is a wedge.

There’s also a media dimension that cannot be ignored. Most Australians will see a name like “Jewish Council of Australia” and assume it represents the Jewish community broadly. That is precisely why these tactics matter. When an organisation trades on implied authority while attacking other Jewish voices, it doesn’t just start an argument; it distorts public understanding of who Jews are and what Jews believe. It turns Jewish identity into a political tool. It invites journalists to frame a deeply complex community as a simple split between “good Jews” and “bad Jews.” And it encourages activists outside the community to shop around for the Jew who will say what they want said.

The email also flags gearing up for the next 12 months around a royal commission process, including legal preparation and organising. If you want to influence national policy on racism and social cohesion, you have every right to make submissions. But you also accept an obligation: to be precise, to welcome scrutiny, to avoid incendiary rhetoric that spills into communal safety at home. You don’t get to claim the moral high ground and then cry “silencing” whenever you’re challenged.

I didn’t want to write about this. But the pattern is too damaging to ignore. It doesn’t protect Jewish Australians. It doesn’t calm the temperature. It doesn’t improve public debate. It deepens division inside the Jewish community, confuses the wider public about what Jews actually think, and gives cover to people who are only too happy to use “Jewish voices” to undermine Jewish concerns.

Disagree all you like. Argue your case. Criticise policies, leaders, governments. But stop pretending that scrutiny is persecution and stop smearing other Jewish voices as “far-right” simply because they won’t sign up to your politics. If the goal is genuine anti-racism and social cohesion, this modus operandi achieves the opposite. And that’s exactly why it needs to be called out.

Michael Gencher is the Executive Director of StandWithUs Australia