Australian Judge Criticizes IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as Detached from Reality
Desmond Fagan, a judge at the Supreme Court of New South Wales, sharply criticized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has been adopted by the Australian government and used by official bodies. In a ruling issued on Tuesday, Fagan described the IHRA definition as "overly detailed and inaccurate," arguing that it is disconnected from the common understanding and use of the term antisemitism in Australia.
The comments were part of a judgment rejecting the New South Wales government's request to impose an extended supervision order on 22-year-old Mohammed Farahat after his release from prison. Farahat is due to be released in October after serving one year and eight months for a 41-minute spree in late 2024 involving graffiti and arson in eastern Sydney. The damage exceeded AUD 100,000, with slogans such as "Fuck Israel" and "PKK coming" sprayed on ten cars. The PKK is designated a terrorist organization in Australia.
The prosecution argued that Farahat's actions were motivated by antisemitism and posed a future terrorism risk. However, Judge Fagan rejected this, stating the slogans were political criticism rather than religious hatred. He accepted the defense claim that Farahat was recruited and directed by others to spray the slogans. Fagan also criticized both the prosecution and a lower court judge for conflating political criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Fagan emphasized that the IHRA text is so detailed and imprecise that it cannot reasonably be applied to an average Australian with ordinary knowledge. He rejected the notion that the slogan "Fuck Israel" is inherently antisemitic, calling it a "blunt political expression of contempt." He noted that Israel is not synonymous with the Jewish people, so criticism of Israel does not automatically equate to antisemitism. The judge further stated that Zionism, as a Jewish nationalist ideology, is open to political debate, especially regarding Palestinian rights, and opposition to Zionism does not necessarily mean hostility toward Jews.
The ruling cited a Pew Research survey showing 79% of Australians hold negative views of Israel, arguing it would be absurd to label such a majority antisemitic simply for opposing Israeli policies toward Palestinians. Ultimately, Fagan ruled that Farahat is unlikely to commit terrorism after release and denied the state's request for supervision. This decision is expected to intensify debate in Australia about the IHRA definition, the boundaries of criticism of Israel, and the legal use of the antisemitism definition in public institutions.
