Last week, the Australian Financial Review gave a platform to Sarah Schwartz, a Melbourne lawyer who has made her name as an antizionist Jew. In her piece, she did what she’s done repeatedly since rising to infamy after October 7: argued that there is “a widening chasm within Australian Jewry” on Israel. This time, she claimed Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s recent visit exposed this supposed divide.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'-qHAb7oxTJ18rurreG2Mcg',sig:'ZmIJFxnNNQ64sw35ltfmQE5lrRXucLiGu5qFV8WRwYI=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2261173011',caption: false ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Schwartz is a fringe figure within the community — not because she’s an antizionist, as she claims, but because she purports to represent a considerable segment of Australian Jewry while hallucinating chasms and arguments where none exist.

When I questioned the AFR’s decision to publish this demonstrably false “chasm” claim, the editor defended it on liberal grounds: newspapers should be “open to different views” and “readers can make up their own minds.”

This sounds admirably principled. It’s also a misunderstanding of what liberalism and free speech actually require.

The marketplace of ideas depends on good faith disagreement, not the publication of fabrications. Schwartz’s central thesis — that there is “a widening chasm within Australian Jewry” on Israel—isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s contradicted by data.

According to a 2023 study by Emeritus Professor Andrew Markus from Monash University, 86% of Australian Jews agree that Israel’s existence is essential for the Jewish people’s future, 90% believe the community should maintain close ties with Israel, and 88% report high personal connectedness to Israel.

Does 90% consensus sound like a chasm?

The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), which positions itself as a voice for a considerable dissenting minority, has further undermined its credibility through tactics that inflate its support. In a petition opposing Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s 2026 state visit to Australia—published as full-page ads in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, claiming over 1,000 Jewish signatories — multiple fake names were included. These ranged from ‘Milkek Tachat’ (Hebrew slang roughly translating to ‘ass licker’) to deceased historical figures like Eliezer Gruenbaum, a Jewish kapo who died in 1948, and Nazi collaborators such as Carmen Mory and Josef Heiden. 

Liberal publications absolutely should publish dissenting views — Quillette does this regularly. But we distinguish between unpopular arguments and factually incorrect ones, and we publish the former and discard the latter. As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, open debate rests on fallibilism—the acceptance that all beliefs are provisional and must be open to evidence and challenge—whereas inventing or hallucinating disputes where evidence shows consensus undermines rational discourse.

Quillette has lost readers when our evidence-based positions challenged audience expectations—most notably during COVID, when our strong pro-vaccine stance and criticism of ivermectin misinformation alienated some who expected blanket contrarianism. We’ve platformed trans Democrats like Brianna Wu alongside gender-critical feminists, gay libertarians like Brad Polumbo debating identity politics, Keynesian capitalists and Swedish Marxists like Malcom Kyeyune, and both Israeli and Palestinian voices on the Middle East conflict. Free thought requires occasionally discomforting your own audience with opinions they might prefer to ignore, but they have to be rational opinions based on fact, not fabrication.

There are legitimate debates within the Jewish community about Israeli government policies, settlement expansion, and political leadership. These deserve airing. But inventing a fundamental division where none exists doesn’t contribute to public discourse—it distorts it, and it endangers Australia’s already imperiled Jewish community.

When the AFR told me that they’re doing their job if they’re stirring dissatisfaction among some readers from time to time, they completely missed the point. This isn’t about displeasure. It’s about accuracy. Publishing propaganda dressed as analysis doesn’t make a publication brave or open-minded, it is simply careless—and has repercussions for the masthead, our society, and a Jewish community that is already imperiled enough.

Sarah is correct that Jews are not a monolith – they never have been. As the saying goes, two Jews, three opinions. Judaism is famous for being a religion and therefore a culture that welcomes debate. There are plenty of left-wing Jews who could debate the current Israeli government until the red heifer comes home. But hallucinating a fake debate, a fake rift, and using fake or dead Jewish people to justify it, brings into question standards of fairness and accuracy demanded by the Australian Press Council Statement of General Principles.

Australian Jews are split on many things: religious observance, settlements, which political party they prefer. What they are not split on is their connection to Israel—it is actually one of the unifying features of world Jewry. And unlike Sarah, this can be proven with studies done on real, living people with real names.

Free speech is precious precisely because it enables us to hash out genuine disagreements through rigorous debate. That system breaks down when we can’t agree on basic facts. The AFR should expect better from itself, and readers should expect better from the AFR.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)