FOR YEARS, New Zealand’s major media outlets have treated the New Zealand Jewish Council as the default, authoritative voice of Jewish life in this country. Whenever a story touches on antisemitism, Middle East politics, or community sentiment, the same pattern repeats: a journalist calls the Council, and the Council—usually through its most visible spokesperson, Juliet Moses—pronounces what 'the Jewish community' supposedly thinks. The problem is that this claim to representation is a fiction. The Council is not a democratic body, it does not speak for the majority of Jewish people in New Zealand, and its political positions reflect a narrow ideological project - Zionism - rather than the diversity of Jewish experience here.
The New Zealand Jewish Council is, in practice, a Zionist advocacy organisation. That is not an accusation; it is a description of its own public record. Over the past two years, as Israel’s assault on Gaza has escalated into one of the most devastating humanitarian catastrophes of the century, the Council has consistently defended the Israeli government’s actions. It has echoed the talking points of the Israeli state, dismissed or minimised the scale of Palestinian suffering, and framed criticism of Israel as a threat to Jewish safety. It has supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and it has aligned itself with the unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran. And it has repeatedly targeted New Zealanders—Jewish and non-Jewish—who have opposed these actions, branding them antisemitic or dangerous. Green co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has been a favourite target.
This is not the behaviour of a representative communal body. It is the behaviour of a political lobby.
What makes this more troubling is that the Council’s leadership is not elected. It is legally required to hold elections, yet none occur. Its office-holders remain in place indefinitely, insulated from accountability, renewal, or dissent. A democratic organisation would welcome debate, especially on issues as morally fraught and globally contested as Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Instead, the Council has become a closed circle, reproducing the same ideological line year after year while claiming to speak for an entire community that has never been asked for its consent.
Marilyn Garson, co-founder of Alternative Jewish Voices commented in February:
'There is nothing essentially Jewish about Zionism. Zionism is a project of colonisation, erasure, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and finally, of genocide. In this country, the Jewish Council has been a leading voice in the campaign to confuse the Zionist project with Judaism. The Jewish Council is both enabling the Israeli brutality that we witness every day and making New Zealand Jews less safe.'
Many Jewish New Zealanders are horrified by what Israel is doing. Many reject Zionism outright. Many have marched for Gaza, signed petitions, written statements, and joined interfaith coalitions calling for a ceasefire and an end to occupation. These voices exist, they are growing, and they are Jewish. Yet they are erased every time the media defaults to the Council as the singular, authoritative voice of Jewish life.
The irony is stark. Juliet Moses has publicly expressed grief for protesters killed in Iran, yet she has defended the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza. She has framed concern for Palestinian lives as a threat to Jewish safety, even as Jewish people around the world—including in New Zealand—have been among the most outspoken critics of Israel’s actions. The Council’s rhetoric collapses Jewish identity into Zionist ideology, as though the two were inseparable. This is not only historically false; it is dangerous. It reinforces the very conflation that fuels antisemitism: the idea that all Jewish people are responsible for the actions of the Israeli state.
But something has shifted. Israel’s brutality in Gaza has been so extreme, so well-documented, and so unrelenting that the old narratives no longer hold. The world has seen the destruction of entire neighbourhoods, the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, the targeting of journalists, medics, and aid workers. People who once hesitated to criticise Israel now speak openly. Jewish dissent has become impossible to ignore. And the Zionist organisations that once operated with impunity now find themselves confronted by a public that is better informed, less intimidated, and unwilling to accept moral evasions.
In this context, the New Zealand Jewish Council’s claim to represent Jewish opinion has become untenable. Its refusal to hold elections is not a bureaucratic oversight; it is a political strategy. Its insistence on equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism is not a defence of Jewish safety; it is a defence of Israeli policy. And its dominance in media coverage is not a reflection of communal legitimacy; it is a reflection of journalistic habit and laziness.
The New Zealand Jewish Council is not entitled to speak for all Jewish New Zealanders. The Jewish community is diverse, and its political views are not reducible to the statements of a single unelected body that is Zionist controlled.
Excellent uncovering and exposing of the corrupt Zionist ideology rampant within the so called ‘Jewish Council’ which should be called the Zionist Council
ReplyDeleteMuch of the Jewish Council's activity in recent years has been raising awareness of and combatting antisemitisim in New Zealand.
DeleteThis silly article has focused on a specific area of its activity and makes claims so ridiculous that any connection between them and actual reality are purely coincidental.
The Jewish Council speaks for Jewish New Zealanders just the same as the New Zealand government represents New Zealanders in international forums. Do all Kiwis support or agree with everything their government says? Of course not...
One can be "horrified by what Israel is doing" and still support the notion that the State of Israel has the right to exist as the historical Jewish homeland (i.e., be a Zionist).
"There is nothing essentially Jewish about Zionism" - Zionism is literally what Jews do 3 times every day when they turn in the direction of Jerusalem to pray, when they break a glass and utter 'If I forget thee o Jerusalem' at weddings, when they say 'Next Year in Jerusalem' at every Pesach Seder and many others such customs and practices. Zionism is literally the political manifestation of a 3500 year old in-built feature of Judaism...
"Zionism is a project of colonisation, erasure, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and finally, of genocide" - No, it is te very opposite of colonisation. When the Pakeha arrived in Aotearoa, they found nothing European there. When the Jews returned to the Land of Israel, they uncovered a wealth of material, historical, archaeological evidence of Jewish presence and sovereignty in that land - all in the same language Jews there speak today, testifying to the same texts, customs, ceremonies, beliefs etc. that Jews everywhere still observe today. That is the opposite of colonisation - it's decolonisation.
As for "genocide", only someone who has never bothered to look up the actual definiton of genocide could make such a silly claim.
This response, from someone who isn't prepared to identify themselves, leans heavily on slogans rather than substance. The NZ Jewish Council’s record isn’t defined by 'raising awareness of antisemitism — it has repeatedly blurred the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel, and used that conflation to shield a foreign government from accountability. That’s precisely why so many Jewish New Zealanders reject its claim to speak for them.
DeleteInvoking the government analogy doesn’t work either. New Zealand governments are at least elected and. removable. The NZJC is neither of those things. It has no democratic mandate, no transparent membership, and no mechanism for community consent. Claiming to represent all Jews while refusing to hold elections is the opposite of legitimacy. I would also point out again that the NZJC is failing to meet its legal obligations by not holding elections.
The attempt to equate Zionism with Judaism is simply inaccurate. Jewish identity is thousands of years old; political Zionism is a 19th-century nationalist movement. Millions of Jews historically opposed it, and many still do.
The historical record is clear: Zionism involved settlement, removal, and the creation of a state through force. You can defend that if you wish, but you can’t pretend it wasn’t colonisation.
And on genocide: the legal definition includes acts intended to destroy a group “in whole or in part.” UN experts, genocide scholars, and international jurists have raised precisely those concerns regarding Gaza. Dismissing that as “silly” doesn’t make the evidence disappear. To dismiss the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children as an irrelevancy is disgraceful
The core issue remains: the NZJC’s unwavering defence of Israel’s actions — while claiming to speak for all Jews — makes Jewish communities here less safe by tying Jewish identity to Israel's barbaric conduct. That’s the argument you haven’t addressed.
Thank you for this, Steven. Well said!
Delete