A New South Wales Supreme Court judge has determined that graffiti sprayed on vehicles in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, including the slogan “F*** Israel,” was not an act of antisemitism but rather a crude expression of political hostility towards the state of Israel. The ruling came as the court dismissed an application by the state to impose a year-long extended supervision order on Mohommed Farhat, a 22-year-old man convicted of vandalism offenses.
Vandalism Charges and Initial Sentencing
Mohommed Farhat pleaded guilty to 15 charges related to vandalism that occurred in Woollahra in November 2024. The defaced vehicles and damaged property featured slogans such as “F*** Israel” and “PKK coming.” He was initially sentenced to one year and eight months imprisonment, with his sentence expiry set for October 2026. The State Parole Authority had previously revoked his statutory parole, citing a finding that he posed a serious and identifiable risk to community safety.
Court Application and Farhat’s Defense
The State sought to place Farhat under a highly restrictive extended supervision order upon his release from jail. This order would have imposed 55 strict conditions on his liberty. However, Farhat has consistently maintained that he was manipulated into committing the crimes, acting under the influence of promises of financial reward and drugs. He claimed he was a “vandal for hire” rather than an “antisemitic bigot.”
Judicial Review of Motivation and Graffiti
Justice Desmond Fagan of the NSW Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Farhat had been “incited and directed” by another individual to carry out the vandalism in exchange for $4,000 and an unspecified quantity of drugs. Crucially, Justice Fagan stated that Farhat “did not intend to express hatred of Jews.” The judge characterized the “F*** Israel” slogans as “objectively, crude expressions of political hostility to the state of Israel” and a “curse against a foreign state.”
The judge further elaborated that the location of the graffiti, in an area with a high proportion of Jewish residents, did not inherently imbue the slogans with an antisemitic character. He noted that the definition of antisemitism is a subject of debate, even referencing expert opinions presented in court.
Critique of the IHRA Definition
During the proceedings, an analyst of Middle Eastern affairs, whose report was submitted by the Crown, referred to the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). However, Justice Fagan found the IHRA’s formulation unhelpful in this specific case. He stated that the IHRA’s definition “does not reflect the established usage and understanding of the term ‘antisemitic’ in Australia.”
Justice Fagan described the IHRA’s core text as “verbose and imprecise,” suggesting it could not realistically be attributed to the average, reasonably informed Australian. He pointed out that he was not the first to criticize the “inept drafting” of the IHRA formulation. He cited a submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion by the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), which also criticized the wording and noted extensive critiques from other sources. The judge concluded that the IHRA formulation proposed a concept distinct from the long-understood meaning of “antisemitism” and had effectively appropriated the word for this new concept.
Freedom of Expression and Criminality
The court affirmed the principle that Australians have the freedom to express their views, including strong disapproval of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Conversely, those who support Israel have the right to disengage from such expressions. In Farhat’s case, Justice Fagan determined that the act of conveying the message “F*** Israel” through defacing vehicles and property increased the seriousness of the crime due to its “wantonness, vulgarity and intimidatory effect,” but not because of any antisemitic implication.
Justice Fagan noted that police statements and intelligence reports had consistently labeled Farhat’s graffiti as antisemitic. He observed that this characterization was adopted by the prosecution in their submissions to the Local Court “without reflection or analysis.” The judge respectfully suggested that the Local Court judge had made a legal error in concluding that “F*** Israel” was an antisemitic phrase reflecting hatred or prejudice towards Jewish people. He emphasized that this mischaracterization had led to Farhat being treated differently under criminal law.
Farhat’s Remorse and Personal Circumstances
In a letter previously submitted to the Local Court, Farhat expressed remorse for his actions. He described himself as being “lost in my ways” at the time of the vandalism, struggling with drug addiction, and failing to grasp the gravity of his actions or their impact, particularly on the Jewish and Turkish communities. He stated that visits from a member of the Jewish community had been eye-opening, enabling him to consider perspectives beyond his own. Farhat wrote, “At the time of my offending I did not understand the deep meaning of my actions and their impact. My whole life was taken over by drugs and negative influences.”
Conclusion of the Supreme Court Ruling
Ultimately, the NSW Supreme Court dismissed the state’s application for an extended supervision order. Justice Fagan’s findings indicate that Farhat’s actions, while criminal and involving vandalism, were not motivated by antisemitism. The ruling underscores the distinction between political criticism, however crudely expressed, and genuine hatred or prejudice against a religious or ethnic group, and highlights the importance of careful legal analysis in characterizing such offenses.
