(Queensland, Australia) — As we are all familiar with, most Western societies divide power into three distinct branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Focusing on the judicial branch, the role of our courts is to decide on cases brought before the court by interpreting and applying the law, ensuring that, particularly in the area of criminal law, the appropriate penalties are handed down. However, for the court system to function as designed, judges should at all times remain impartial.
So far as Australia is concerned, the Australian Law Reform Commission states: “Any person before a court has the fundamental right to a hearing by a judge who is independent and impartial. In Australia, judicial independence and impartiality are seen as fundamental to the common law system of adversarial trial, to the exercise of judicial power under the Australian Constitution, and to upholding public confidence in the administration of justice.”
Furthermore, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “There can be no rule of law without an independent judiciary. The equal treatment of all under the law is not possible without independent and unbiased judges to interpret and apply the law.”
It is fair to say that to ensure impartiality in the judiciary, those appointed to the court must avoid external biases or personal opinions that could affect their judgments. To achieve this, they must apply the law independently and transparently.
A recent court case in Australia has raised some concern amongst Jewish groups about judicial perceptions of Israel, Zionism and Judaism. The case in question was recently heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (State of New South Wales v Mohommed Farhat). Farhat pleaded guilty to 15 offenses relating to vandalism in November 2024, when vehicles were sprayed with slogans including “**** Israel” and “PKK coming” (a reference to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, listed as a terrorist organization in Australia on 17 December 2005).
The court found that Farhat had been incited and directed by another person to carry out the vandalism in exchange for $4,000 and a quantity of drugs, and that he did not intend to express hatred towards Jewish people. Therefore, in the eyes of the court, Farhat was not so much a radical, but somewhat of a vandal for hire.
The matter was being heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court because the state government applied for an extended supervision order to monitor him as a potential terrorism risk after his prison sentence ends. The ruling of Supreme Court Justice Fagan occupies 47 pages, and within those 47 pages Jewish groups have expressed alarm at some of the statements which formed the basis of Justice Fagan’s ruling.
What has really raised the ire of Jewish groups in Australia is the fact that Justice Fagan has challenged the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). In fact, he said it “does not reflect the established usage and understanding of the term ‘antisemitic’ in Australia.” Furthermore, he said, “The IHRA core text is so verbose and imprecise that it could not realistically be attributed to the ordinary, reasonably informed member of the Australian public.” In other words, he is implying that because the IHRA definition is not specific to Australian culture, he is unable to apply a robust test of antisemitism in this case.
Justice Fagan also rejected any attempt to conflate hatred of Israel with hatred of Jews. When referring to the slogans “**** Israel” and “PKK coming,” he said they were “objectively, crude expressions of political hostility to the state of Israel” and constituted a “curse against a foreign state,” but “They are not antisemitic according to the ordinary understanding of that concept in the Australian community.” It is for this reason that he actually claimed that a lower court judge had made a legal error in determining that “**** Israel” was an antisemitic phrase, going on to state that “The fact that in this case the slogans were graffitied in a locality where a high proportion of residents may be Jewish does not imbue the curse with an antisemitic character.”
Justice Fagan pointed to Pew Research polling data, which in June 2024 showed 74 percent of Australians were unfavorable towards Israel – a figure that had risen to 79 percent by June 2026. Therefore, he concluded that, “It may reasonably be inferred that the results of polling Australian respondents reflect humanitarian reaction to Israel’s genocide of the Gazans since October 7, 2023.” Aside from the fact that the genocide myth has been widely debunked, he is essentially arguing that since the court of public opinion says it is fine to demonize Israel (based on a lie, mind you), then why should the judiciary be compelled to label anti-Zionist behavior as antisemitic?
Within the context of his ruling, Justice Fagan brought into question matters of history, politics, international law and theology. Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, described Justice Fagan’s approach as “judicial activism.” Henry Ergas, also of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, wrote, “In a country where hatred of Jews has already turned murderous, the marriage of prejudice and ignorance is not merely disgraceful. It is deadly.”
Justice Fagan’s ruling not only has the potential to undermine findings from the Royal Commission on antisemitism, but it is now likely that antisemitic and anti-Zionist groups will use this ruling as judicial cover to continue displaying their anti-Jewish hatred throughout Australia. Sadly, we are already hearing reports that many are claiming this judgment as a vindication of their negative attitude towards Israel and as support for their belief that October 7th was legitimate resistance.
Regardless of what the judiciary says, one thing is for sure—God views the Jewish nation, the Jewish people and the land of Israel as inextricably linked. Do we agree with everything the State of Israel does? Of course not. But people who purposefully or unwittingly fan the flame of antisemitism are caught in Satan’s antisemitic trap. In Romans 11:1 the apostle Paul asks a simple question: “I say then, has God cast away His people?” The answer that he gives is a verbal fence which guards the unthinkable: “Certainly not!” In Hebrew, the answer is rendered “chalilah.” Chalilah is more than a phrase. It is a theological alarm bell, warning the reader to bring their thoughts back into alignment with God’s plan and purposes.
Recent statements within Australia’s three branches of government demonstrate that many are content to ignore the alarm bells to their own spiritual peril. But their actions do not only affect them personally. As leaders within this nation, they are bringing ruin to Australia by inviting God’s judgement on their wickedness.
