The NSW Supreme Court’s Farhat judgment has fundamentally challenged the way antisemitism, Israel and Zionism have been conflated in Australia. Justice Fagan’s reasoning raises uncomfortable questions about the IHRA definition, political speech, the right to protest Israel, and the role of Australia’s pro-Israel lobby in shaping public policy.
This article examines the judgment alongside the documented public record, spells out some uncomfortable home truths — and asks what should happen next.
Shortcut: Jump past contents to start reading main body of the article:👉 CLICK HERE
First published: 24th August 2026
Last Update: 28th August 2026 (see 🗄️Version History - Article Updates)
PART ONE - THE JUDGEMENT v THE PUBLIC RECORD
Deconstructing what Judge Fagan actually said across four themes with examples social media posts from the pro-Israel lobby.
PART TWO - HOME TRUTHS
Judge Fagan’s findings reinforce some home truths that should not be uncomfortable to discuss - antisemitism is not systemic in Australia, the pro-Israel lobbies have behaved unconscionably and the question of loyalty should not be taboo.
PART THREE - WHAT’S NEXT?
In light of Justice Fagan’s findings there are a number of actions that are self-evident - for the role of antisemitism envoy, the police and the pro-Israel lobby themselves.
PART ONE - THE JUDGEMENT v THE PUBLIC RECORD
3. Zionism as a political ideology
PART TWO - HOME TRUTHS
PART THREE - WHAT’S NEXT?
APPENDICES
END PAPERS
This is a story about what can happen when a contested definition becomes accepted as fact — and is then carried through institutions of government, policing and justice.
And what can happen.
In this case the non-fact was that a young Lebanese-Australian man was a terrorist for “antisemitic” activity.
This relied on a definition promoting hatred of Israel being antisemitic. Proposed by those supporting Israel and lobbied into the highest levels of the police, judiciary and Government.
And they all ran with it.
The impacts were that the young man was treated under criminal law hate crimes rather than common law vandalism with significant impact on his jail time and treatment in society. His parole was cancelled and when he was finally about to be released he was to be added to the terrorist watch list.
This went through various levels of the court system until in a hearing on 9th August 2026 a Supreme Court Justice stopped it dead.
He subjected the competing definitions of antisemitism to detailed judicial scrutiny and called out those who pushed the definition as fact.
He examined Israel’s behaviour in Lebanon with a view to understanding how resentment and animosity of Israel could be fostered among those with family in the region facing that brutality.
And he separated that hatred of Israel from any risk to the community - Jewish or otherwise - in Australia.
The full case ruling (State of New South Wales v Farhat [2026] NSWSC 985, 17 Aug 2026, 50 pages, 235 clauses)1 is unusually detailed on these questions and makes compelling reading.
And Justice Fagan does not mince his words.
The judgment has potentially significant implications for Australia’s continuing debate over antisemitism, Zionism and political expression.
PART ONE - THE JUDGEMENT v THE PUBLIC RECORD
What did Justice Fagan actually decide?
Does the public record support the concerns raised by the judgment?
The judgement corrected the miscarriage of justice in putting Farhat down the criminal route for a common law crime for what should have been a case of simple vandalism.
Instead he was manipulated by a sophisticated lobby using a flawed and self-serving definition of antisemitism, that was swallowed hook line and sinker by the police and courts up until this appeal.
But the judge commented on some specifics in his ruling worth pointing out referencing his wording.
I will look at each of these themes in turn - looking at statements on the public record made by the pro-Israel lobby on these themes to underscore the Justice’s observations.
Themes:
Protecting the right to protest
Zionism as a political ideology - separating Zionism from Judaism
Questioning the IHRA definition - the right to criticise Israel
Examining the role of the pro-Israel lobby
Judge Fagan looked at the right to protest in Australia and in doing so recognised the genuine humanitarian concerns of the majority of protestors despite attempts to portray them otherwise.
Justice Fagan called out the demonisation of pro-Palestinian protestors and the accusations of racism directed at them. His key quotes:
"it may reasonably be inferred that the results of polling Australian respondents reflect humanitarian reaction to Israel’s genocide of the Gazans since 7 October 2023”2
“it would be preposterous to suggest that 79% of Australians are antisemitic because they disapprove of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians”
“It would not occur to any ordinary reasonable member of the public to think of criticism or protest in these circumstances as hostility towards or prejudice against Jews on account of their Jewishness.”
Notably Justice Fagan used the term “Israel’s genocide of the Gazans” quoting in detail in the case findings from Israeli NGO B’Tselem and the United Nations to support usage of the term.
This is of course not the court making a legal determination genocide had occurred but the usage of the term as a descriptor in a legal finding is a big step forward.
Consider in particular with the March for Humanity on 3rd August 2025 when 300,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in protest at Israel’s genocide in the pouring rain.
To underscore Fagan’s points a look at the pro-Israel lobby responses to the march shows their deliberate characterisation of protestors.
The significance is not simply what the organisations said, but the effect of the framing: a mass demonstration primarily concerned with Palestinian suffering was repeatedly presented through the lens of Israel’s security and antisemitism.
Original Substack:
“The march that nearly wasn’t: Sydney Harbour Bridge transformed into a symbol of solidarity against genocide” (3 Aug 2025) - click below to read 👇
ZFA President Jeremy Leibler in a radio interview made comments casting doubt on the sincerity of many participants’ stated humanitarian concerns.
He said he “doubted many people attended the rally in good faith” and considered it to be an anti-Israel rally. He was rubbishing concerns directly that any of the 300,000 people “were concerned with the well-being or survival of Palestinians”3.
That framing is difficult to reconcile with the ordinary meaning of a demonstration explicitly organised around humanitarian concern for Palestinians — and is worth considering alongside Justice Fagan’s observations about political protest.
Contrast Leibler’s dismissive statement with the reasoning by Justice Belinda Rigg4 who on 1st Aug 2025 just two days before the march overturned the NSW State ban on the march by NSW Premier Chris Minns:
Riggs remarks are echoed by Judge Fagan’s summation.
Playing on a theme
On the ZFA posts, note how the still shows a protestor holding up an image of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (later assassinated by Israel on 28 February 2026).
At the time it had just been revealed that Iran was supposedly behind the hoax antisemitic attacks across Australia by paid criminals. Later it would be revealed that Israeli intelligence provided the information to ASIO that it was Iran …. no conflict of interest?
Regardless - there was hysteria and sensitivity over Iran in the press and for a short period this portrait was held up behind the lead marchers by an individual who quickly moved away.
One photograph was taken - and this was the inference - framing the much larger demonstration through the lens of Iranian extremism.
Former NSW Premier and Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, a lead marcher, explained the brief incident and questioned if the man was an agent provocateur plant.
Convenient - and seized on by the lobby as part of the demonisation and presentation of the event.
Similar to the falsehoods on the protest at the Opera House that have been permeating and recycled for salacious shock value for almost three years after being corrected.
Nothing like a good slur by association.
ECAJ co-CEO Alex Rvychin took the approach of directly stating the march was “about villainising Jewish Australians”5
Again, this sits uneasily with Justice Fagan’s distinction between hostility towards Jews and criticism of Israel and his dismissal as preposterous that a large body of people protesting against Israel’s behaviour are in some way attacking Jewish people because of their Jewish character.
AIJAC’s intervention deserves particular scrutiny because it connected the Bondi attack with the earlier Harbour Bridge demonstrations.
They note “peaks and troughs of antisemitic attacks ever since October 7th, which have aligned with demonstrations, such as that happened across the harbour bridge …"
In addition to being false since a majority of “antisemitic attacks” were either incorrectly categorised as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist - this opportunism and an affront to people’s humanity for turning out to protest Israel’s actions.
And to do this in the wake of Bondi was just appalling.
This is not just local news story - the lobby have spread this to the world, bad mouthing all Australians in this case to the BBC.
See below post with ECAJ quoting Alex Ryvchin 5 March 2024 and my reply at the time.
A shameful statement about decent Australians protesting Israel’s actions.
Six days earlier on 29th February 2024 100 Palestinians were killed and 700 injured in the flour massacre where the IDF shot starving Gazans trying to get food for their families in the face of an Israeli blockade6.
This is what people are protesting, dismissed by ECAJ and consistent with Justice Fagan’s later observations on the role of ECAJ themselves - “at the forefront of endeavouring to characterise criticism of Israel or support for the Palestinian cause as antisemitic”.
Finally - writer and activist Caitlin Johnstone’s succinct summary of why she opposes Israel - the direct negative of the humanity of protestors7.
“I don’t oppose the butchery in Gaza because I love Hamas or hate Jews or love Islam or hate America. I don’t oppose the butchery in Gaza because I’m a lefty or a commie or an anarchist or an anti-imperialist. I oppose the butchery in Gaza because I’m not a fucking psychopath”.
Justice Fagan made a clear reconfirmation of what has already been established in other courts and venues - that zionism is a political ideology and that fact remains unchanged even when the view is widely held.
Justice Fagan took pains to put to bed the argument that Zionism = Judaism - no matter what % of the Jewish population in Australia is alleged to be Zionist.
Some of his quotes:
“As an ideology of Jewish nationalism, Zionism is open to political discussion and criticism, notably on grounds concerning the rights of the Palestinians”
“That does not mean that anti-Zionists are hostile to that majority of Jews on account of their Jewishness; only that they hold a negative view of a political ideology with which the majority of Jews have chosen to”
“A contestable political question does not lose its political character upon a large proportion of a particular confessional group taking one side of the issue and feeling that it is closely associated with their religious”
Prior to Justice Fagan’s findings, in the last year there have been important legal reasonings in three different countries (including Australia).
Whilst the rulings outside Australia are not of course binding in the country it shows similar legal reasoning and an important comparative context.
Quite frankly - in the international language of logic as opposed to Zionist word games.
Justice Fagan directly quoted the Australian Federal Court case in July 2025 Wertheim v Haddad, a case brought by ECAJ themselves but which exploded in their faces8.
The case did identify antisemitic remarks but in doing so the judge clearly spelled out what was NOT antisemtic - criticism of Israel and Zionism. Justice Stewart in this case specifically defined Zionism as a philosophy or political ideology. That distinction is highly relevant to the reasoning in Farhat.
A few weeks earlier than Justice Fagan’s case, in the UK a British academic Professor David Miller won his case against the University of Bristol who sacked him because of his anti-Zionist beliefs.
The case not only reaffirmed anti-Zionism as a “protected philosophical belief” but also spelt out the Professor’s determination on Zionism and the court was satisfied that this was a coherent definition.
Even in Germany - a country with a deep historical obligation to the Jewish people - there is a clear difference between a commitment to the Jewish people and political zionism or even Israel as a state.
In November 2025 a German Appeals Court upheld the right to protest at Israel’s creation in the first place - being the direct cause of conflict and its own brutality. It overturned the use of a protest slogan “there is only one state - Palestine ‘48” saying this9.
No matter if you are aspire to a one state, two state, two state-interim solution (as the Northern Irish peace settlement) - the right to protest was upheld.
In Germany.
Justice Fagan made other directed comments to the State Counsel during the case: “you are treating all Jews as monolithic”10 - using language familiar to other groups such as the Jewish Council of Australia.
This is the important question of representation: whether organisations that describe themselves as representing Australian Jews actually represent the diversity of views within Australia’s Jewish community.
This echoes long held sentiment of JCA and others feeling that the purely Zionist views being presented “allegedly in their name” in society - and at the Royal Commission - are not reflective of them. And as the Jewish Council quotes - others fear speaking out such is the control of these groups.
The NCJW presented recently at the Royal Commission. However despite claiming to “give a platform to the diverse voices of Jewish women in Australia” - it clearly does not from posts from President Lynda Ben-Menashe.
Zionist voices only.
But to protest the political ideology they follow is a political protest - just as Ben-Mashe has made public political statements on Israel’s aggression on the Palestinians as a political statement.
This was the main driver for the formation of the Jewish Council of Australia in February 202411.
Looking at some responses from the pro-Israel lobby.
Shortly after the Royal Commission was announced AIJAC produced the following post on questions that they suggested must be addressed, framing the narrative12.
The selected points are illuminating - and key assumptions are given away by AIJAC’s ten questions.
How has the antizionist movement legitimised hostility against the Jewish community?
and
To what extent are political leaders responsible for fueling anti-Israel sentiment?”
Justice Fagan was clear on the distinction and the right to freely criticise or protest Israel or Zionism.
AIJAC are implying they are part of the definition of antisemitism to be addressed by the Royal Commission.
These questions are irrelevant - since they have nothing to do with antisemitism in the sense of hatred against Jewish people because of their Jewishness.
A better question would be - how have the actions of the state of Israel - and the collectivisation of Jewish opinion by the Australian pro-Israel lobby of supporting Israel - contributed to actual antisemitism in Australia?
When I read this post by AIJAC back in January 2026 I considered the actual outcome required from the Royal Commission by the pro-Israel lobby - and the direction of travel seemed clear to me at the time:
Quoting a selected Royal Commission person giving evidence, ECAJ focused on anti-zionist sentiment13. The argument is that anti-zionist graffiti - because it won’t be seen by Netanyahu - but will be seen by someone who follows the zionist political ideology - is somehow antisemitic.
Justice Fagan’s reasoning is difficult to reconcile with that proposition.
The Australian lobbying network does not operate in isolation.
The push to associate antizionism and anti-Israel sentiment is not just limited no Australia - it is transnational and co-ordinated, reflecting the organised nature of the support for Israel.
In March 2026 a delegation of representatives from a group formed by the ADL prior to October 7th called the J7 were in New York. The J7 are representatives from the 7 countries with the highest Jewish populations outside of Israel (and excluding Russia, presumably for political reasons). The Australian representative is ECAJ with Daniel Aghion attending and a representative from the Zionist AUJS14.
They held a meeting that shows the level of diplomatic access enjoyed by this group - calling a closed-door meeting with UN Ambassadors representing their countries at the ADL HQ15.
Whilst the advertised intent was to “urge their representatives in the UN to act in the face of rising antisemitism” the actual topics discussed told a different story.
Quotes from the discussion in the press release show the clear political agendas of the group:
“our Governments and the UN must do more to combat antisemitism and the anti-Israel bias that too often fuels and legitimises it”
ensure UN resources do not support …. campaigns that promote anti-Israel boycotts
calling for the resignation of Francesca Albanese
reforming UN processes to remove anti-Zionism and Israel hatred from its midst
Is is clear that this group is there to further Israel’s interests and that of political zionism with “their” representatives in a forum supposedly to represent all Jewish citizens of those countries.
Clearly not the case.
Whatever is thought of the individual policy positions, it demonstrates that the organisations involved are not merely discussing antisemitism as a domestic issue. They are also advocating positions concerning Israel, Zionism and international policy.
And how many people are aware of this?
Many people have expressed surprise that Justice Fagan called out the IHRA definition of antisemitism - but it is only logical in his train of thought in explaining why this has been pushed so extensively into Australian society by the pro-Israel lobby.
To do that he looked at the key differences between the IHRA definition and the commonly understood meaning of antisemitism - and by looking at who had been pushing the IHRA definition, understood the end it had been directed to.
His comments:
“the IHRA wording is not intended to give effect to the extant common understanding of antisemitism but is directed to a quite different end”
“its tendency, and the apparent purpose of promoting it, is to graft onto the community’s abhorrence of antisemitism, understood as hostility to Jews for their Jewishness, a parasitic rejection of protest against Israel”
“the IHRA proposal is detached from the reality of the common usage and understanding of antisemitism in this country”
The word “parasitic” may itself attract controversy. But in context Justice Fagan plainly uses it metaphorically: he describes the process as “grafting” a rejection of protest against Israel onto the community’s existing abhorrence of antisemitism.
He is essentially saying that it is not a useful definition in combatting antisemitism and it has been deliberately “directed to quite a different end” - protecting Israel.
Or quite simply - weaponisation of antisemitism.
Which brings us to his final point - the elephant in the room.
By whom?
Bringing it all together.
Justice Fagan made unusually direct observations about the activities and stated positions of ECAJ.
Justice Fagan’s remarks:
“expressions of hostility towards Israel do not amount to antisemitism - they are not the same thing”
“[ECAJ] lobbies the Commonwealth government in the interests of Israel and Zionism”
“ECAJ has been at the forefront of endeavouring to characterise criticism of Israel or support for the Palestinian cause as antisemitic”
By calling out ECAJ the self-declared “roof and body of the Australian Jewish community” Justice Fagan is effectively calling out the management of the entire pro-Israel lobby - who act non-representatively and in unified support for Israel as the monolith he referred to earlier.
I was pleased to see that the judge broke down ECAJ’s policy platform - and showed that it was clearly a pro-Israel platform.
In October 2023 I first came across the ECAJ policy platform - with its long standing rubbishing of any criticism of Israel and various other demands. I remember reading this - from a supposed community group in Australia - and literally couldn’t believe it. It reads less like a conventional community organisation’s policy statement and more like an advocacy platform focused heavily on Israel’s interests.
Then to have the temerity to state at the top of the policy that it would
“enhance general Australian value of democracy and human rights, individual freedom and rule of law, social justice and compassion, mutual understanding and respect and a fair go for all”
Seriously? Would lobbying the Australian Government to move it’s embassy, and to shut down UN investigations into Israel that might bring justice for Palestinians - is that a fair go for all?
The utter inability to see the irony of describing this as “a fair go” is incredulous. Never mind the appropriation of a well understood Australian term for something that should be alien to all Australians - the brutal treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis.
In 2024 the day after ICC warrants were issued for Netanyahu and Gallant it was updated to oppose this.
Surely there are questions on the legality of promoting a policy platform that encourages Australia to break international law on at least two counts -
The Rome Statute 1998 - Australia is obliged to provide all assistance in executing the arrest warrants of Netanyahu and Gallant by Article 89 of the Statute16.
The Vienna Conventions on location of Embassies 1961 - The location of embassies in Israel is Tel Aviv. This very point is currently being ruled on in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) challenging Trump’s 2018 US Embassy move to Jerusalem17.
Justice Fagan carefully deconstructed this policy in his ruling and called out ECAJ specifically
lobbying for Israel and zionism
at the forefront of endeavouring to characterise criticism of Israel or support for the Palestinian cause as antisemitic
He called out co-CEO of ECAJ Alex Ryvchin himself and the way that he had argued voting for a Palestinian state would be “antisemitic”.
“By clause 32.5 of its policies the ECAJ endeavours to portray the Australian Jewish community as unified in support of Zionism and Israel. That is at odds with the contrary perspective expressed by the JCA on behalf its membership.
On the basis of the contention that all Australian Jews support Zionism and Israel, the ECAJ has been at the forefront of endeavouring to characterise criticism of Israel or support for the Palestinian cause as antisemitic.
An example was the claim of Co-CEO Alex Ryvchin in June 2024 that by introducing a motion in Federal Parliament to debate, as a matter of urgency, “the need for the Senate to recognise the state of Palestine”, the Greens Party had “brought antisemitism into the mainstream”.
I could have selected multiple examples but these two posts indicate Ryvchin’s approach congruent with Justice Fagan’s remarks.
Dismissing Greens Senator Faruqi calling for sanctions on Israel as “pointless stunts that make her radical base feel good but change nothing”. This was Ryvchin during the new Governor-General’s speech in the Senate on 22nd July 202518.
The previous day on 21st July 2025 at the UN 20 nations at the UN including Australia had sent a letter to Israel calling for immediate cessation of hostilities in Gaza and calling for the end of the GHF food distribution system saying - “The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity.”19
Highlighting Israel’s unconscionable behaviour and calling for sanctions is what Ryvchin described as a “pointless stunt”.
Looking the broader pro-Israel lobby pursuit of Greens MP Adam Bandt, hounding him out of parliament and abusing him for such “horrific acts of antisemitism” as organising a vote on a ceasefire and on recognising a Palestinian state.
On Bandt losing his Melbourne seat May 7th 202520. Ryvchin presents the policies the Greens pursued in Parliament calling Israel out as specifically targeting the Australian Jewish community, which is clearly incorrect.
These posts are congruent with the pattern of behaviour that Justice Fagan had called out, in this case deliberately targeting the only Australian parliamentary party most consistently critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
Again - I defer to Caitlin Johnstone to sum up the role of the Zionist Federation of Australia, in a spat with ZFA’s Jeremy Leibler foreshadowing Justice Fagan’s comments.
“ “Silencing dissent” is literally your whole entire job, mate. Your institution’s entire function is to stomp out dissident political speech about Israel and its crimes in Australia. It is without exaggeration all the Zionist Federation of Australia exists to do.”
Hear hear.
All I would add to that is - “at the taxpayer’s expense” through not-for-profit status including trips to New York I see with the same messaging.
PART TWO - HOME TRUTHS
On 8 January 2026, the day the Royal Commission was announced, I published an article asking where Australia’s debate over antisemitism was heading. It was clear that the commission was being hijacked by Zionist interests and the truths on the political forces behind the commission were being ignored.
I have reproduced parts of that article in this section.
The Farhat judgment now provides a remarkable legal document against which some of those home truths can be reviewed.
Original Substack:
“The Elephant in the Harbour: How lobbying, media power and manufactured outrage are distorting Australia’s debate on antisemitism” (8 Jan 2026) - click below to read 👇
The evidence does not establish that antisemitism is systemic in Australia.
And here’s why.
Bondi IS an isolated incident - from lone actors, who were able to obtain legal gun licenses, and were left by ASIO to their own devices to continue gathering intelligence.
Bondi is NOT related to the pro-Palestine protests which have been against Israel’s actions and nothing to do with ISIS ideology the gunmen followed.
Israel’s actions in Gaza ARE responsible for an uptick in “regular” - for want of a better word - antisemitism in Australia. That means racist thugs abusing Jewish people for being Jewish.
Protesting Israel’s actions or the conditions that brought the state into being - is NOT antisemitism, it is an attack on a brutal state committing genocide on the Palestinians (or mass atrocities, disproportionate deaths if that floats your boat) and political zionism.
Antisemitism statistics are misleading and used deceptively to prove a case that is not there: given the above are not antisemitic - what % of the cases reported and presented to the Government and the world unchallenged are actually against Jewish people for being Jewish? (unrelated to Israel or its actions). Just the week before Bondi a group known as the G7 were in Australia presenting a bleak set of statistics that were not even reviewed - as justification to shame the Government into pushing the antisemitism envoy’s report (which they accepted a week later post-Bondi).
The impact on these antisemitism statistics should be an affront to all Australians. They have quite literally dragged Australia’s name through the mud on the world stage.
Australian pro-Israel lobbies have manipulated language and changed tact to state outright that criticism of Israel or Zionism is antisemitic, which it is NOT.
Therefore by consequence of 1-6 above antisemtisism is not systemic in Australia.
Original Substack
“Dragging Australia’s name through the mud: Australian Pro-Israel groups are shaming Australia on the world stage - citing unreliable, bespoke antisemitism data” (Dec 5 2025) - click below to read 👇
Furthermore - in the pursuit of protecting Israel’s interests - being suppression of protest in Australia and continued support by the Australian Government for Israel - the pro-Israel lobby have activated several different mechanisms.
Multiple means have been employed: a few examples:
the push from multiple angles for the IHRA definition of antisemitism into Universities, Schools, Public Sector
the attempted indoctrination of local councillors and mayors with a Sep 2025 Gold Coast antisemitism summit - which was essentially pro-Israel propaganda. Many of the attendees were offered complimentary tickets.
lawfare attacks on the criticism of Israel or Zionism of prominent voices in the community. There’s a disparity between individuals and the pro-Israel lobby - who are well funded and whose day jobs for a large majority are in the legal profession.
the overreach of the antisemitism plan from the antisemitism envoy (a biased an unsuitable appointment given no scrutiny)
the change in language by the lobby markedly over the last 3-4 months to outright push criticism of Israel and/or Zionism as antisemitism despite a legal ruling in the Federal Court in July 2025 establishing it was not21.
Most ashamedly in the immediate aftermath of the Bondi this rhetoric was massively uplifted. It’s like the horror of the tragedy unleashed a plan for this direct messaging whilst emotions were raw - fixing an untruth in the mind of the unaware listener.
On 27 January 2026 — the UN International Day of Holocaust Remembrance — AIJAC published a professionally produced video across social media platforms22.
The video employed split-screen imagery juxtaposing:
scenes from contemporary Australia (including protests and antisemitic incidents), and
archival imagery from Nazi Germany in the period leading up to the Holocaust.
The visual narrative explicitly invited comparison between:
present-day political dissent and unrest in Australia, and
the systematic, state-driven persecution of Jewish people under National Socialism.
The comparisons made in the video collapses fundamentally different situations:
Nazi antisemitism was a racial ideology targeting Jewish people because they were Jewish, enforced by a totalitarian state through law, violence, and ultimately industrialised extermination.
Contemporary protest in Australia, including protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza, is directed at the conduct of a sovereign state and its policies — not at Jewish people as an ethnic or religious group.
Key distinctions ignored by the campaign include:
The State of Israel did not exist in 1930s Germany; the Star of David then functioned as a marker imposed on Jewish civilians, not as a national flag representing a state actor - and therefore BDS protest against that state actor as today as one would have boycotted apartheid South Africa.
Acts of antisemitic violence in Australia, including arson attacks on synagogues, have in several cases been attributed by Australian authorities to criminal or foreign-influenced activity rather than grassroots ideological movements — and are not representative of mass political mobilisation.
Isolated criminal acts or lone-actor violence in Australia bear no resemblance to the Einsatzgruppen, the Nazi state apparatus, or the genocidal machinery of the Third Reich. The Bondi attackers appear to have been lone wolfs and followers of an ideology that does not hold Palestinian rights in its radical ideology. And certainly nothing to do with the pro-Palestine groups protesting peacefully against Israel’s actions.
These are not matters of interpretation; they are matters of historical record.
The approach taken in this campaign stands in direct conflict with the publicly stated guidance of leading Holocaust institutions.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has explicitly warned that:
comparing contemporary political situations to Nazism is historically inaccurate,
such comparisons are offensive to victims of the Holocaust, and
instrumentalising Holocaust memory for opportunistic political purposes undermines education and remembrance.
While such warnings are often cited in response to inappropriate Nazi comparisons directed at Israel, the principle articulated is universal. The misuse does not become acceptable when the analogy is reversed or when it is deployed to shield a state from accountability.
Holocaust remembrance institutions do not grant exemptions based on political alignment.
The last image in the video makes the connection explicit.
The language used by these groups is never “Israel” - always “the Jewish state” implying some religion-based discrimination. And the falsehood that Jewish people are explicitly being singled out extended to the state itself.
Unconscionably linking legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions to the Holocaust itself.
Today of all days.
By dragging the Australian Jewish community the pro-Israel lobbies claim to represent along with the “Israel can do no wrong” view whether they like it or not they are collectivising Jewish opinion. This in turn can lead to accusations of loyalty to Israel over Australia and is antisemitic by the IHRA definition itself.
See the thought experiment below with the collectivisation being the last point.
This has to be the conclusion - in supporting Israel’s actions unquestioningly - repeating word for word or just reproducing IDF propaganda - later found to be false - these leaders are basically lobbying for Israel as unregistered lobbyists, gaining high-level access to Parliamentarians and civil society under cover of “fighting antisemitism”. Israeli state policy is even literally published in their policy platform.
Which begs the question on dual loyalty.
The issue of dual loyalty is the uncomfortable truth that no-one wants to deal with - because it’s conveniently deemed “antisemitic” for what is an observable truth.
Quote from Donna Nelson 28 Aug 2026:
What have these institutions done to Australia and Australians? (The Polite Version)
They’ve treated Australia like a testing ground — a place to tweak laws, bend policy, and slip foreign agendas into our civic bloodstream without asking the people who actually live here.
They’ve muscled into our education system, pushing curriculum changes that reshape how kids understand history, human rights, and civic responsibility — all without public debate, without transparency, without consent.
They’ve tried to rewrite what teachers teach, what students learn, and what “Australian values” supposedly mean — swapping compassion and critical thinking for imported frameworks and political messaging.
They’ve leaned on governments to adjust legislation, tighten definitions, expand powers, and carve out exceptions — all to suit their own institutional priorities, not Australia’s.
They’ve dragged foreign military PR into our cultural and sporting spaces, betting Australians won’t notice the sleight of hand.
They’ve gambled on our politeness. They’ve bet on our silence. They’ve assumed we’ll just swallow whatever narrative they shove into our schools, our laws, our media, our marathons.
They’ve acted like Australia is a passive territory — a place to be managed, not a nation to be respected.
Donna Nelson 28 Aug 2026 FB23.
The issue of dual loyalty shouldn’t be difficult to discuss. A simple quandary relating to my native Scotland.
Let’s say if Scotland went to war with I don’t know - Iceland. Would I be supporting Scotland at all costs within Australia? (let’s dumb it down and ignore UK v Scotland etc. etc.)
Well yes if I thought if it was just.
But what if Scotland was committing terrible atrocities which were unquestionable and broadly condemned globally. And the Government of Australia were supporting them.
Though I had a Scottish saltire flag flying in my garden what would I do?
I would like to say that I would ditch Scotland and support humanity.
I would like to say that I would continue to fund my local surf club, despite the fact they had a “Nippers for Iceland” charity appeal event once a month.
I would like to say I wouldn’t threaten to remove my funding unless the club quietly cancelled the event.
Look we’re getting facetious here but you get the point.
And so it is with the whole Australia or Israel thing.
Whilst being a member of Australian society - everything is being done to support a foreign nation from fundraising utilising tax vehicles that allow funds that should be taxed to be invested in Israel, to community support, to legal action to media manipulation - for a state that is not Australia.
This is arguably straight up manipulation for a foreign state’s benefit as called out in Michael West Media24.
Politicians cannot be MPs in Australia if they have dual citizenship and so must give up to become a Parliamentarian.
But the simple question is - are you more loyal to Australia or Israel?
And the answer is obvious from people’s actions.
The question shouldn’t be branded as antisemitic or a “trope” when it is based on empirical behaviour and is directed at individuals, not a group.
And loyalty is a reasonable question for anyone who is in a position to take politically motivated decisions that potentially put a foreign state first.
Indeed an Australian Army officer was asked this exact question and rightly had his security classification revoked in 2023 after admitting he would be more loyal to Israel and hand over secrets if asked (how Israel got the nuclear bomb in the first place)25.
So the question is - of all citizens - are you more loyal to another country than that of the one you hold passport for?
A moral question - have you taken actions to support that country that go against the grain? Either for you personally because you know it’s wrong, or dishonestly such as using your position to withhold funds, employment , provide media coverage and so forth to support Israel and/or to remove support or platform for those protesting against Israel’s actions in Gaza or its brutality against the Palestinians over decades.
Because you believe in Israel at all costs.
Justified in your mind by believing it is antisemitic to criticise Israel.
Or against your God to allow any criticism of Israel - in the case of a large number of Christian Zionists.
To Justice Fagan’s point on ECAJ - but at a societal level going along with ECAJ’s lead:
We have seen this in Australia demonstrably over the last few years - literally with funding being withdrawn, people being cancelled, witch hunts being conducted, law fare - based on a subjective perception of antisemitism.
When what it comes down to our stark outrage at Israel’s actions (after a pattern of behaviour over decades) and disbelief that our Government were continuing to support and supply Israel in breach of international law.
Social cohesion is not going into a Christian Zionist Church for example and attacking the congregants because that church supports Israel no matter what - which is the issue rather than being Jewish.
But it’s respecting that opinion - however unpalatable - provided no underhand activities are take in order to influence that position within Australian society other than democratic protest. Or peppering our media with propaganda every day supporting the position of that foreign state.
To put in another way, putting Israeli interests before Australian interests is not compatible with Australian social cohesion.
Quote from Australian activist A J O’Grady:
“The Royal Commission into antisemitism has exposed that a small segment of Australian society is out of touch with Australian core values and is not comfortable with our collective freedoms or our cultural mindset of “a fair go”, therefore it is evident that they are struggling to assimilate.
It is obvious that their intent is bending our will to theirs and accept and normalise their institutionalised inhumanity.
Their instinctive values and freedoms are intrinsically connected to a foreign regime and are not those freedoms that Australian’s value and cherish.
When a foreign regime has more power than Australians own democratic rights then something has gone radically wrong.
Poor fella my country when standing in solidarity with humanity is vilified, when medical professionals, academics, journalists, arts and entertainment fraternity are silenced for speaking the truth and a young Australian of the year is grotesquely condemned for giving a voice to justice.
All this while cowardly corrupt politicians enact tyrannical laws to curtail and restrict our freedoms, freedoms that brave young Australians fought and died for so we Australians can collectively enjoy those freedoms.
Pandering to a small minority does nothing for the greater good or social cohesion.”
Ironically - these exact problems of dual loyalty were called out by Australia’s own Jewish-Australian Governor General and Chief Justice - in 1946 two years before the state of Israel was created.
He was acutely aware of the zionist plans in Palestine and the problems it would cause for Jewish diaspora worldwide.
He outlined this in his paper 1946 “Palestine: peace and prosperity or war and destruction? Political Zionism: undemocratic, unjust, dangerous” (see Appendix A for more detail).
“The root fallacy of the Movement is that the Jewish people of the world are in solidarity and in the modern sense of the word a Nationality. As a citizen of the British Commonwealth, as an Australian of Jewish faith firmly believing that at the same moment I can no more consistently have, in any relevant sense two nationalities than I can have two religions"
“Any political interest in a Jewish State established elsewhere would have a taint of hyphenation or of divided allegiance. I do not speak here from the point of view of policy, nor have I in mind the fear of arousing a suspicion of hyphenation, but from the feeling which every 100 per cent. American, Englishman, or Frenchman would naturally and spontaneously harbour that beyond a sentimental and historical interest in any other country but his own, whether because he formerly belonged to that country, or had associations with it that attached him to it. He must not yield to the temptation to look upon such country as a kind of second home. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELONG TO TWO COUNTRIES, and if one makes the effortcomplete attachment to one must necessarily be impaired”.
Not surprisingly, this seminal work has been essentially suppressed in Jewish Australian memory by those with zionist self-interest.
When Israel’s President Herzog visited in February 2026, NSW Premier Chris Minns gave a speech at the ICC. Amazingly he actually mentioned briefly the Governor General in his list of distinguished Jewish Australians, but unlike Sir John Monash, the founder of the Zionist Federation of Australia, he refused to mention Isaacs by name26.
PART THREE - WHAT’S NEXT?
In light of Justice Fagan’s findings I’d propose there are a number of actions that are self-evident.
There is an argument that the behaviour of those Australians driving the constant defence of Israel over the freedom of speech of Australians is into the realm of driving a foreign influence agenda at best, treason at worst.
Of course the IHRA definition has this covered, noting that accusing people (who happen to be Jewish) of loyalty to Israel over Australia is antisemitic. Even when the facts stand for themselves.
But the exact purpose of the design of the IHRA definition has been called out by Justice Fagan making the deliberate construction of this self-protecting clause another clear strategy.
The Australian antisemitism envoy - who supposedly represents all Jewish people and drives an agenda against antisemitism as she defines it with a large department and public money - said the following in 202127:
“… we are Zionists…we must drive anti-Zionism and antisemitism back into the darkest and most disreputable corners of our society from where they emerged..”
At the time she was herself President of ECAJ. But the circumstances of this statement are history on repeat.
Segal was speaking at a NSW Pro-Israel rally supporting Israel during the Operation Guardian of the Walls airstrikes in May 2021. This was later found to be a horrifically brutal disproportionate attack in a UN report in 2023 - defended by Segal and the lobby28.
Mirroring the same mass protests supporting Israel “against antisemitism” organised in 2024 after Gaza with the same modus operandi.
This literally is empirical evidence of a repeat pattern of behaviour not just by Israel but by the enabling Zionist followers such as Segal and her ilk in western countries.
But more importantly - with Justice Fagan’s clear reconfirmation of political zionism as a belief and a recognition of how it has been deployed - makes Jillian Segal’s position untenable.
How can an official charged with advising government on antisemitism simultaneously advocate a particular political position on Zionism?
There is - and never was - any reason to treat antisemitism as different from any other racism. The Jewish Council of Australia’s announcement on the appointment of Jillian Segal July 2024 seems prophetic:
Therefore - Islamophobia and Antisemitism envoy positions should be terminated with immediate effect.
The Government’s adoption of the Antisemitism Envoy’s plan should be rolled back.
The Anti-Racism Commissioner should take on these repsonsibilities without according any particular attention to particular communities.
This was always the case.
A commission of inquiry - to work out the points of failure. Why was a zionist lobby group self-serving antisemitism definition allowed to be pushed through the police, prisons and courts at every stage to trial this man as a criminal rather than a common vandal.
Who supplied the definition?
Was ECAJ consulted?
Was the Antisemitism Envoy involved?
What expert evidence was relied upon?
Was the IHRA definition treated as authoritative?
Were alternative definitions considered?
At what stage did the original characterisation become institutionalised?
This is what Justice Fagan has rightly unwound.
By calling out ECAJ the self-declared “roof and body of the Australian Jewish community” Justice Fagan is effectively calling out the management of the entire pro-Israel lobby - who act non-representatively and in unified support for Israel as the monolith he referred to earlier.
And not only in Australia, transnationally as shown by the J7 meeting in New York earlier.
Original Substack:
“How the Pro-Israel Lobby Is Organised: From Global Hubs to Australia” (17 Jan 2026) - click below to read 👇
Where an organisation openly identifies itself with Zionism and simultaneously advocates Australian government policies concerning Israel, the Government should examine whether its activities fall within Australia’s existing foreign-influence framework.
In that instance they MUST be treated as foreign influence lobbies - for that is exactly what they are. This must make pro-Israel lobby positions as charitable organisations in their current form untenable.
There is a custom-made register for such groups in the Attorney-General’s office - the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (FITS).
But there is currently a loophole that exempts charities and not-for-profits from registration.
Clearly this must be changed.
This will restrict the “facetime” given to these groups with our politicians and at least have it on record.
The issue is that the management of these groups are ALL openly zionist.
Therefore - they have all been enjoying access to politicians in the guise of “fighting antisemitism” whilst lobbying strongly for a foreign state and it’s political ideology.
Which means - quite rightly - that they should all be registered with FITS and their access to politicians restricted.
The pro-Israel lobby situation in Australia is not unique - if unusually embedded over generations.
The former UK Foreign Affairs Secretary Sir Alan Duncan in 2024 called out the ECAJ equivalent in the UK for exactly the same accusation.
“The word I used was decouple. The CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) which is trying to impose the extreme policy of another country on UK foreign policy, should be decoupled from what should be and needs to be and should be the proper support of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.
But the conflation of the two and the claim to represent Jewish opinion by the likes of the Board of Deputies and people who I think hold a rather extreme version of Jewish opinion, should not be allowed to continue.
What you need is the decoupling of domestic Jewish opinion from the foreign policy influence based on Israeli wishes”
A natural extension of this would be to radically change the Jewish community groups from their current form to break off the foreign lobbying activities from the main Australian Jewish community domestic support wing.
🎥 Instagram Video below Sir Alan Duncan interviewed in July 2024.
Original Substack:
“Breaking ranks on conscience: Former UK foreign secretary speaks out on the pro-Israeli lobby” (19 Jul 2024) - click below to read 👇
The importance of State of New South Wales v Farhat is not simply what happened to one young man.
It is that a Supreme Court judge was required to examine, in considerable detail, a set of assumptions that have increasingly shaped Australia’s public debate:
that hostility towards Israel is necessarily hostility towards Jews; ❌
that opposition to Zionism is necessarily antisemitic; ❌
that the IHRA working definition provides the appropriate framework for making that distinction; ❌
that organisations presenting themselves as representatives of Australian Jews can speak for the community as a whole. ❌
Justice Fagan did not accept those propositions in the form in which they were put to him.
That does not mean that antisemitism is unimportant. It means the opposite: if antisemitism is to be confronted seriously, it must be distinguished from political disagreement about Israel and Zionism rather than expanded to encompass it.
That distinction matters because definitions have consequences.
They affect police investigations. They affect criminal prosecutions. They affect sentencing. They affect government policy. They affect university speech, public protest and political participation. And, as this case demonstrates, they can ultimately affect a person’s liberty.
That is why the judgment needs to be considered alongside the public record.
For the past three years I have documented the statements, lobbying activities, political interventions and public campaigns of Australia’s pro-Israel organisations. I have repeatedly argued that criticism of Israel and opposition to Zionism were being progressively folded into the language of antisemitism, and that organisations presenting themselves as community representatives were simultaneously advocating strongly for Israel’s interests.
At the time, these arguments were easy to dismiss as political opinion.
They are now part of a much larger question.
If Justice Fagan is right that the distinction between hostility towards Jews and hostility towards Israel has been blurred — and if his criticisms of the IHRA framework and the role of ECAJ withstand further judicial and public scrutiny — then Australia needs to examine how that blurring happened.
Who supplied the definitions?
Who relied upon them?
Who advised police, government and other institutions?
Who was given access to decision-makers?
Who was treated as speaking for Australian Jews?
And who benefits when political opposition to the actions of a foreign state is recast as racism?
Those are not questions about Jewish Australians.
They are questions about institutions, political advocacy, government policy and foreign influence.
They now need answers.
The Farhat judgment does not finish this argument.
It gives Australia a reason to start having it properly.
And perhaps, after all these years, the elephant is finally in the room.
Who else has been “taken in” by accepting this definition?
Our politicians.
Ergo - this needs corrected. Laws need to be rolled back. Definitions need to be locked in.
And those holding the country and our politicians to ransom with such Israeli interest to be held to account in a court of law.
I suspect a few last minute flights to Tel Aviv may be in booked in the near future.
The elephant is finally in the room.
APPENDICES
In 1946 Australia’s Jewish former Governor General wrote a paper on political zionism warning of what would come to pass if a separate Jewish state were formed. This was two years before Israel’s formation. Virtually everything in his paper has sadly come to pass.
Sir Isaac Isaac’s prophetic 1946 paper “Palestine: peace and prosperity or war and destruction? Political Zionism: undemocratic, unjust dangerous”
Written by one of Australia’s most distinguished historical figures, Sir Issac Issacs
9th Governer General of Australia, former Atorney-General, former Chief Justice of Australia, 20 years a High Court Judge, former MP
A staunch Jewish anti-Zionist
Isaacs writes on 19th January 1946 just as the UN was debating “the Palestine Question”
He writes an analytical, clearly thought case for why Palestine should not be partioned and the strong warnings of the dangers of implementing political zionism.
It is disturbing to see how his predictions have virtually all come to light.
Presumably Isaacs had passed his paper onto the groups negotiating at the UN.
Clearly it was ignored.
Original Substack:
“[UNANNOTATED] Palestine: peace and prosperity or war and destruction? Political Zionism: undemocratic, unjust, dangerous?” (17 Jul 2025) - click below to read 👇
END PAPERS
Recommended Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 substack articles related to this one
This article maps the global coordinating bodies behind pro-Israel lobbying and their direct Australian equivalents.
It explains:
The different organisations involved with a profile of each group
Why the IHRA definition is politically contested
How anti-Zionism is being reframed as racism
Why this matters for the Royal Commission and free speech
This is a definitional explainer, fully sourced, written to help Australians understand the different groups in the pro-Israel lobby and follow the process of the Royal Commission with context to commentary.
This article looks at some of the arguments raised in the press this week by the Australian pro-Israel lobby in response to upcoming legislation and the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
Their demands are completely tone deaf - and the case to include the pro-Israel lobby itself in the Royal Commission literally writes itself.
In Australia the Government had instigated two in-depth inquiries into the circumstances of the Bondi killings, and two sets of law changes. On top of that, a year-long NSW State Parliament inquiry into antisemitism was just completing.
But it wasn’t enough. Pursued by an aggressive pro-Israel lobby fueled by the Murdoch Press the Prime Minister has been shamed into launching another Royal Commission - specifically focused on “antisemitism”.
This is politically motivated, manipulative and totally wrong. This article explores why and the elephant in the room that MUST be included in any inquiry.
3 Aug 2025 is a huge milestone in the pro-Palestine movement in Australia with a massive march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge (first published 3 Aug 2025) after the NSW Supreme Court overruled an earlier ban. The article looks at:
The marchers and speakers
The police confusion
The media coverage - finally
Reflection on the day
Haters - deflecting trolls
Appendices - falsifications (and corrections), media reports, pro-Israel lobby response, and more
The world press from Germany, UK, France, Argentina, US, Canada and Israel descended on Australia this week to cover a meeting of pro-Israel lobby leaders called “the J7”.
The occasion was used to trot out bespoke antisemitism statistics, make broad-brush accusations tarnishing Australia’s reputation on a world stage, and to try to embarrass the Government into accepting the draconian measures put forward by Australia’s biased antisemitism envoy.
These leaders must be held to account for their statements, and to explain their statistics in detail to a commission, in particular where statements on Australian society are made and public money is sought.
This article breaks down the real story here in detail and outlines what is NOT antisemitic with references and examples.
🇬🇧📢🇮🇱 Speaking out on manipulative pro-Israel influence in the UK Parliament - from a Conservative former UK foreign secretary
Sir Alan speaks out on Israel’s actions in Palestine (April 2024)- is accused of antisemitism and suspended from the UK Conservative Party
How he fought the charges and was completely cleared
Speaks out on Conservative Friends of Israel - and how they and their benefactors manipulate UK Politics for the State of Israel
Parallels on this with exactly the same manipulation in the Parliament of Australia
[Unannotated] version of Sir Isaac Isaac’s prophetic 1946 paper “Palestine: peace and prosperity or war and destruction? Political Zionism: undemocratic, unjust dangerous”
Written by one of Australia’s most distinguished historical figures, Sir Issac Issacs
9th Governer General of Australia, former Atorney-General, former Chief Justice of Australia, 20 years a High Court Judge, former MP
A staunch Jewish anti-Zionist
Isaacs writes on 19th January 1946 just as the UN was debating “the Palestine Question”
He writes an analytical, clearly thought case for why Palestine should notbe partioned and the strong warnings of the dangers of implementing political zionism.
It is disturbing to see how his predictions have virtually all come to light.
Presumably Isaacs had passed his paper onto the groups negotiating at the UN.
Clearly it was ignored.
A complete index of ALL Sleekit Scotsman articles, categorised, hyperlinked and with descriptions for easy browsing.
Sleekit Library
·
November 8, 2025
This is a categorised view of Sleekit Scotsman articles, with summary overviews and links to articles themselves. You’ll find subsets of these listed as relevant at the back of Sleekit Scotsman articles for further related reading.
First published: 24th August 2026
Last Update: 28th August 2026
Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 articles are updated periodically to add latest information on the subject of the article for relevance
Updates
28th August 2026: added quote from Donna Nelson to 7.4 Australian pro-Israel Lobbies are de facto fronts for Israel
27th August 2026: added quote from AJ O’Grady to 8.2. Australia v Israel
24th August 2026: updated internal URLs
Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 also publishes on a number of social media channels - please also consider subscribing to these:
✍️ Substack SleekitScotsman: this publication
📸 Instagram: @sleekit.scotsman https://www.instagram.com/sleekit.scotsman/
🧶 Threads @Sleekit.Scotsman: https://www.threads.net/@sleekit.scotsman
🦋 Bluesky: @sleekitscotsman.bsky.social
⬆️ Upscrolled @sleekitscotsman: https://share.upscrolled.com/en/user/e6b453ed-1273-458d-84c7-12703f1bd871/
👤 Facebook @sleekit.scotsman2 : https://www.facebook.com/sleekit.scotsman2
🎶 TikTok: @sleekit.scotsman: https://www.tiktok.com/@sleekit.scotsman
📺 YouTube @SleekitScotsman : https://www.youtube.com/@SleekitScotsman
🆇 X (formerly Twitter) @SleekitScotsman : https://twitter.com/SleekitScotsman
👾 Discord @sleekitscotsman: https://discord.gg/q5RFEpaCQp
🔗🌳 Linktr.ee: https://linktr.ee/sleekitscotsman
I am an autistic Scottish writer passionate about human rights issues and exposing Government corruption. I have a high attention to detail and can often spot connections and insights others may not see.
✍️ I’m an independent writer on social justice issues. As an autistic person, I have high attention to detail and try to put this in my work and though it does take me a long time to produce I do hope it is useful. 😊
☕️ My research, articles and memes are free but if you like my work please consider buying me a coffee on my Ko-Fi page - really appreciated!
ECAJ Instagram 22 Mar 2026, meeting with J7 UN Ambassadors at ADL HQ -
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.