NSW weighs appeal of ruling that anti-Israel vandalism wasn't antisemitic

In late 2024, a Sydney man named Mohammed Farhat spray-painted "Fuk Israel" on several cars in Woollahra and set another vehicle alight. He pleaded guilty to fifteen counts of property damage. The state sought to have him declared a terror threat, requesting a one-year extended supervision order under the Terrorism Act when he was released from prison. This week, NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan rejected that request entirely—and in doing so, opened a fault line in how Australian courts understand the difference between political speech and antisemitism.

Fagan's decision turned on a crucial fact that had been hidden from the courts below. Counter-terrorism police, within three weeks of Farhat's arrest in November 2024, had concluded he was not ideologically motivated at all. Intelligence showed he had been recruited and paid to write the slogans. That information never reached the prosecution. It never reached the magistrate who sentenced him. It was not disclosed before the state attempted to cast the now 22-year-old as a terrorism risk. Fagan found this constituted a serious miscarriage of justice. He determined there was an "insignificant" risk Farhat, whom he described as having limited intellect, would commit a serious terrorism offence. Farhat remains in prison despite having been due for parole release in early December 2025.

But the ruling's most consequential finding concerned the nature of the speech itself. Fagan rejected the state's argument that the vandalism was antisemitic. He found it to be political comment. In doing so, he took direct aim at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism—a definition that has been formally endorsed by the Australian government and adopted by institutions across the country following the Bondi Beach terror attack in December that killed fifteen people during a Hanukkah festival. Fagan called the IHRA formulation "detached from the reality of the common usage and understanding of antisemitism in this country." He noted that Jewish people have themselves been among the most forceful critics of Israel's conduct toward Palestinians for decades. The political nature of the curse, he wrote, was not changed by the fact that it was spray-painted in a neighborhood with a concentration of Jewish residents.

The response has been swift and divided. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Australia's peak Jewish organization, labeled Fagan's decision dangerous judicial activism that should be reviewed. Co-chair Alex Ryvchin told Sky News the ruling was extraordinary given the current state of antisemitism globally, and that Fagan's focus on the IHRA definition "seems like the work of activism rather than a judicial member." Ryvchin argued the vandalism in a Jewish neighborhood was inherently an attack on the community, not merely political protest, and that Fagan's judgment "totally avoids the facts of the case but also the community impact." He called for an appeal. The NSW government said Thursday that Attorney General Michael Daley was "seeking urgent advice about the prospects of an appeal."

But not all Jewish voices aligned. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia welcomed Fagan's categorical rejection of the IHRA definition. Executive member Bart Shteinman agreed with the judge's finding that Jewish Australians are not a monolith, and argued that the IHRA definition "distorts the fight between real antisemitism while shielding Israel from legitimate scrutiny." He suggested the judgment should give governments and institutions pause before adopting the definition.

Meanwhile, the handling of the case itself has drawn scrutiny. Greens MP Sue Higginson wrote to the NSW police watchdog, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, requesting an urgent investigation into police conduct. She wrote of being "gravely concerned systemic or deliberate maladministration has resulted in a severe miscarriage of justice." The watchdog said it was considering the request. NSW police responded that the matter was under internal investigation and declined further comment.

The case has become a test of how Australian courts will navigate the contested terrain between protecting religious communities from genuine hatred and preserving space for legitimate political criticism. Fagan's judgment suggests at least one senior judge believes that distinction matters—and that the IHRA definition, for all its institutional backing, may not be the right tool to make it. Whether that view will survive an appeal, and what it means for how antisemitism is understood and prosecuted in Australia going forward, remains to be seen.