The decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the case of State of New South Wales v Farhat (2026) has caused a significant stir.
Justice Desmond Fagan dismissed the state's application for an extended supervision order against Mohammed Farhat upon completion of his sentence for vandalism and arson in Sydney's east (Woollahra area) in November 2024. Farhat caused over 100 thousand Australian dollars in damage, having sprayed, in particular, the slogans "Fuk Israel" and "PKK coming" on cars and buildings, and also set fire to one vehicle. He was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months in prison and is due to be released in October 2026.
Key provisions of the ruling:
- The phrase "Fuk Israel" (or "Fuck Israel") was qualified as a crude political expression of contempt and rejection of a foreign state, rather than as an antisemitic statement according to the common understanding of this concept in Australian society. The judge explicitly stated that the Jewish people are not identical or equivalent to the State of Israel.
- The judge called the IHRA definition wordy and imprecise, detached from the reality of the common usage of the term "antisemitism" in Australia. In his assessment, it attempts to repurpose the concept by conflating hatred of Jews as such with criticism of Israel. He noted that it would be absurd to consider the 79% of Australians who (according to a poll) disapprove of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians to be antisemites.
- Zionism as an ideology of Jewish nationalism is open to political discussion and criticism, including on the issue of Palestinian rights. The fact that many Australian Jews associate Zionism with their identity does not automatically turn critics of this ideology into enemies of Jews precisely as Jews. The judge emphasized the diversity of views within the Jewish community and the fact that many Jews themselves sharply criticize the policies of Israel.
- The prosecution and the lower court, in Fagan's opinion, mistakenly conflated political hostility toward Israel with antisemitism. The context (a neighborhood with a high proportion of Jewish residents, the criminal nature of the act) does not change the political nature of the slogan. The judge accepted the defense's version that Farhat was hired and acted under instruction, rather than out of his own ideological hatred.
The question of how to draw the line between legitimate criticism of policy and hatred of people indeed remains open and fundamental. The court ruling does not provide a universal formula, but it formulates a working criterion for Australian law: antisemitism in its established meaning is hostility toward Jews as Jews (because of their Jewishness). Criticism of a state, its policies, the ideology of Zionism, or government actions—even if crude, even if expressed in the form of vandalism—is not in itself antisemitism, unless it contains a direct or obvious transition to prejudice against Jews as an ethnic or religious group.
In practice, the line is often blurred:
- when criticism uses classic antisemitic tropes (global conspiracy, "blood libel," dehumanization of Jews as a collective subject);
- when it selectively denies the right of Jews to self-determination while simultaneously recognizing such a right for other peoples;
- when the context (location, time, accompanying symbols, calls for violence) makes a political statement an instrument of intimidation against a specific community.
Justice Fagan refused to expand the concept of antisemitism to include any criticism of Israel. This is a position that protects freedom of political expression, but at the same time requires society and institutions to have more precise, rather than convenient, definitions. In the context of polarization surrounding the Middle East conflict, such precise definitions are indeed critically important—both for protecting the Jewish community from real hatred and for preserving the space for open political discussion.
