Australian Supreme Court Judge Rejects Broad Definition of Antisemitism in Terrorism Case

Desmond Fagan, a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, dismissed a government request to impose an extended supervision order on 22-year-old Mohamed Farhat. Farhat is due for release in October after serving one year and eight months for causing over 100,000 Australian dollars in damage in late 2024, including arson and antisemitic graffiti on ten cars in eastern Sydney. The prosecution argued that Farhat's actions were motivated by antisemitism, indicating a risk of terrorism. However, Judge Fagan rejected this claim, ruling the acts were political criticism and noting that Farhat was influenced and directed by others.

In his ruling, Fagan sharply criticized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which the Australian government has adopted, calling it "too detailed, inaccurate, and disconnected from reality." He stated that the slogan "Down with Israel" is a political expression of disdain and does not necessarily constitute antisemitism, as the State of Israel is not synonymous with the Jewish people. Fagan emphasized that Zionism is subject to political debate and criticism, and opposition to it does not equate to hostility toward Jews.

The judge also cited Pew Research survey data showing that 79% of Australians hold negative views of Israel, arguing it would be absurd to label such a large portion of the population as antisemitic. This ruling highlights tensions over the application of antisemitism definitions in legal contexts and the distinction between political criticism and hate crimes in Australia.