In a country suffering from an unprecedented wave of antisemitism, during which Jews were murdered in the Hanukkah massacre in Sydney, a judge has issued a puzzling ruling: Desmond Fagan, a justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, sharply criticized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which was adopted by the Australian government and is used by official bodies in the country. Fagan called the definition “verbose and imprecise” and argued that it is “detached from reality” of the common use and understanding of the term antisemitism in Australia, local media reported Tuesday.
The remarks were included in a ruling in which Fagan rejected the New South Wales government’s request to impose an extended supervision order on Mohommed Farhat after his release from prison. Farhat, 22, is expected to be released in October after being sentenced to one year and eight months in prison over a 41-minute rampage that included graffiti and arson attacks in eastern Sydney in late 2024.
Gallery
Desmond Fagan, a justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
(Photo: Supreme Court of New South Wales)
During the incident, Farhat caused more than $100,000 Australian dollars in property damage. Among other things, slogans such as “Fuck Israel” and “PKK coming” were spray-painted on 10 cars, the latter referring to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which is designated in Australia as a terrorist organization.
Prosecutors sought to impose a supervision order on Farhat after his release, arguing that the alleged antisemitic motive for his actions indicated a risk that he would commit a serious terrorism offense in the future. Fagan rejected the request, ruling that the slogans were political criticism and not an expression of religious hatred. He said it had not been proven that Farhat intended to convey an antisemitic message, and among other things, accepted the defense’s version that the young man had been recruited by others and instructed to spray-paint the slogans.
In the ruling, the judge also criticized both the prosecution and the lower court judge, saying they had improperly conflated political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. “The IHRA core text is so verbose and imprecise that it could not realistically be attributed to the ordinary, reasonably informed member of the Australian public,” Fagan wrote.
Anti-Israeli inscription and a car set on fire in Sydney in late 202
(Photo: AFP / Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC))
The judge also rejected the argument that the slogan “F**k Israel” is necessarily antisemitic, calling it “crude political expression of contempt.” He said “Jewish people, who as a whole are the object of antisemitism, are not coextensive with or in any sense equivalent to the state of Israel” and is not identical to it, and therefore criticism of Israel does not in itself become antisemitic. “How can it be antisemitic – in the established sense of the word – to disparage Israel when doing so accords with the words and beliefs of many Jews?" the judge wrote.
Fagan extended his remarks to criticism of Zionism as well. “As an ideology of Jewish nationalism, Zionism is open to political discussion and criticism, notably on grounds concerning the rights of the Palestinians,” he wrote, adding that even if most Australian Jews see Zionism as “a core part of their Jewish identity,” that does not make its opponents hostile to Jews because they are Jewish.
The judge also relied on a Pew Research survey, which found that 79% of Australians hold an unfavorable view of Israel. “It would be absurd to argue that 79% of Australians are antisemitic because they disapprove of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians,” he wrote.
Ultimately, Fagan ruled that Farhat is not likely to commit a terrorism offense after his release, and rejected the state’s request to impose the supervision order. The ruling could deepen the debate in Australia over the IHRA definition, the boundaries of criticism of Israel and the line separating antisemitism from political criticism. It could also place a significant legal question mark over the use of the definition in Australia’s public system.