A NSW Supreme Court ruling by Justice Fagan held that graffiti slogans such as “Fuk Israel,” in the case of a paid vandal, were crude political hostility to a state—not antisemitism as ordinarily understood in Australia—and rejected an extended terrorism-style supervision order.

The judgment criticized the IHRA definition as too vague for ordinary usage and warned against treating criticism of Israeli policy as hostility to Jews as a people, citing other judicial and community critiques of that conflation.

Authorities and some Jewish communal bodies strongly contested the ruling; the parole system still treated the offending as antisemitic extremism, so the practical outcome for the defendant remained contested beyond the court’s reasoning.

The term “antisemitism” is now so commonly used as an accusation as to be placed beyond questioning.  This is particularly so in countries claiming some protections for free speech or lawful assembly.  Use that term to your heart’s content and stifle discussion.  Carry a placard accusing Israeli policy of genocidal propensities – antisemitic.  Raising the issue of dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israeli authorities – antisemitic.  Mention specific slogans, some used with full throated approval by Israeli Zionists themselves – antisemitic.  But an interesting New South Wales Supreme Court decision, delivered by Justice Desmond Fagan, restores much needed and merciful balance.  Put it simply, not all acts directed at Israel or unflattering views held about that country, however crudely framed, carry the antisemitic streak.

The acts in question in the case before Fagan were certainly crude.  The 22-year-old Mohommed Farhat had been a vandal for hire, defacing parked motor vehicles (nine in total) and the walls of various buildings (four in total) in the eastern Sydney suburb of Woollahra using spray-paint.  His November 2004 acts featured slogans including “PKK”, “PKK coming” and “Fuk Israel”.  A vehicle was also set alight.  It transpired that A$4,000 had been given to Farhat to execute his acts of arson and graffiti, including a complement of drugs.  The wording used in the vandalism had also been suggested by the recruiter.  

On pleading guilty, Farhat was given a term of imprisonment of a year and eight months by the NSW Local Court Magistrate Scott Nash on November 18, 2025.  Important in this case was the use of powers available to the state government under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) to deem an offender an “unacceptable risk” in committing a serious offence in the event of being released on parole.  Farhat would have been eligible........

© Eurasia Review