NSW Supreme Court judge Desmond Fagan has published a judgment that exposes some of the biggest lies being tendered as evidence and submissions by Zionist Jews at the Antisemitism Royal Commission and confirms Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Two of the biggest lies are that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is a legitimate definition and that there is no genocide being committed by Israel in Gaza.

A key gaol for Israel supporting Zionist Jews at the Royal Commission is to have Commissioner Virginia Bell make findings that will help silence criticism of Israel, and one way to help silence criticism is if the Royal Commission recommends wide spread adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

The big problem for the Zionists Jews is that there was already a judgment last year, Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720 (1 July 2025), where Justice Stewart found criticism if Israel is not antisemitic and Justice Fagan has reinforced that finding in his own judgment.

Justice Fagan’s judgment concerns a defendant who defaced parked motor vehicles and the walls of buildings in Woollahra by spray-painting slogans that included “PKK”, “PKK coming” and “Fuk Israel”. He also set alight one vehicle, which was destroyed. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the Local Court.

That is where it would have ended, but the NSW government decided to apply for an extended supervision order pursuant to the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), which would have meant the defendant would have been closely monitored for 12 months and been placed under certain restrictions.

Justice Fagan dismissed the application for the extended supervision order, but as part of the proceedings, the prosecution argued that the defendant’s conduct was antisemitic because he wrote ““Fuk Israel” which the prosecution claimed breached the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

That was an own goal by the prosecution because it forced Justice Fagan to look at 2 key issues. One: What is antisemitism? And two: Is the IHRA definition of antisemitism valid?

The NSW Attorney-General is considering an appeal. But I doubt that will happen given there is no basis for an appeal and also because there was evidence of police misconduct exposed during the trial.

Justice Fagan’s judgment in State of New South Wales v Farhat (final) [2026] NSWSC 985 is a must-read for anyone following this issue. It has set a precedent and is guaranteed to be referenced by the lawyers representing the 22 people facing charges under Queensland’s new hate speech laws.

Below I quote key paragraphs of Justice Fagan’s judgment.

Justice Fagan’s finding on what is antisemitism

Justice Fagan deals with what “antisemitism” is and its ordinary usage in Australia at paragraphs 84 to 88. At paragraph 85 and 86 he says:

85 The Oxford English Dictionary shows that the word “antisemitic” has been part of the language since the mid-19^th century and that its usual sense is as follows:

Characterized by prejudice, hostility, or discrimination against Jewish people; anti-Jewish.

86 The Macquarie Dictionary definition is simpler: Prejudiced against Jewish people.

At paragraph 87 he says:

87 Those definitions accord with how the term has ordinarily been used and understood in Australia in living memory. An antisemitic statement, according to the established and accepted meaning, is one that would reasonably be taken, by an ordinary member of the public, to express hostility to or prejudice against all Jewish people and/or against one or more individual Jews by reason of their Jewishness.

At paragraphs 93, 94 and 95 Justice Fagan says under the heading:

Many Jewish people criticise Israel

93 For decades Jewish people have been amongst the most forceful critics of Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians and have been the source of insistent pleas for the rights of the Palestinians. Those positions align with the moral convictions of many Jews, based upon universal humanitarian values and understanding of the essential humanism of Jewish faith. How can it be antisemitic – in the established sense of the word – to disparage Israel when doing so accords with the words and beliefs many Jews? How can censure of Israel in those circumstances amount to hostility towards, or prejudice against, Jews on the basis of their Jewishness?

94 The premise that Jews in significant numbers are critical of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians can be substantiated by a cursory survey of the authorship of scholarly literature on the question of Palestine in the fields of history or politics, or by reading the opinion pieces of Jewish contributors to the mainstream press and to online political discourse. Even in Israel itself a small minority of Jews make trenchant criticism of their own country’s violence and cruelty to the Palestinians, for example through B’Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) and Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI).

95 Both organisations were established by Jewish Israeli citizens in the late 1980s. B’Tselem, on its website, publishes data, position papers and “reports on human rights violations committed by Israel in the Occupied Territories”. In July 2025 B’Tselem announced its conclusion that since October 2023 Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza, according to definitions that correspond with the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). PHRI describes its activism as based “on principles of human rights, medical ethics, and social justice”. It publishes on its website frequent and blunt criticisms of Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians, particularly from a medical point of view. PHRI has alleged systematic targeting by Israel of medical infrastructure across the Gaza Strip, involving attacks on 33 of Gaza’s 36 hospitals and the killing or detention of 1800 medical staff. On 28 July 2025 PHRI, also, concluded that Israel was by that date committing genocide in Gaza.

At paragraph 97 Justice Fagan says:

Diversity of views on Israel within the Australian Jewish community

97 Criticism of Israel from within the Australian Jewish community has been given prominence by the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) established on 5 February 2024. The JCA’s membership includes Jewish scholars, historians, human rights lawyers, writers and teachers. It represents Australian Jews who endorse the following “Core Principles”, proclaimed on the organisation’s website:

We provide an independent expert Jewish voice supporting human rights and opposing antisemitism and racism.

We support Palestinian freedom and justice and are united in our opposition to Israel’s continued policies aimed at the destruction of Palestinian life.

[…]

We reject the assertion that Jews and the State of Israel are one and the same, or that all Jewish people support, without criticism, the actions of the Israeli government and military.

Pro-Israel Jewish organisations, that do not recognise the diversity of views among Australian Jews, do not speak for us.

While we have diverse views on many issues, we are united in our opposition to Israel’s continued policies aimed at the destruction of Palestinian life. We are opposed to the Israeli occupation and the prioritisation of the rights of Jewish people over the rights of Palestinians.

[…]

We are all proud Jewish people. We include graduates of Jewish high schools, lifelong members of synagogues, and members of Jewish cultural institutions. Many of us are the descendants of Holocaust survivors, refugees and the survivors of pogroms.

Justice Fagan’s finding regarding the IHRA definition of antisemitism

The section titled “The IHRA definition referred to in the Crown’s evidence” says at paragraphs 105 to 110 and 113:

105 In an expert opinion report tendered by the Crown, Dr Shanahan states that “the definition of exactly what constitutes antisemitism is debated”. There is no debate, to my knowledge, about the established meaning that I have identified above as ordinarily accepted in Australia. Dr Shanahan’s reference to debate is followed by quotation of the formulation adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). That formulation appears to be an attempt to repurpose the term “antisemitism” as the name of an amalgamated concept of “hatred toward Jews” and/or criticism of Israel.

106 The IHRA formulation comprises a core text followed by “examples” that “may serve as illustrations”. The core text is as follows:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

107 The 11 examples appended to that text include the following:

6   Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

7   Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

8   Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

9   Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

10   Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

108 The IHRA formulation does not reflect the established usage and understanding of the term “antisemitic” in Australia. It does not assist the Court in its present task of determining whether the slogans spray-painted by the defendant were antisemitic according to that common understanding.

109 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.

110 I am not the first to have criticised the inept drafting of the IHRA formulation. In the words of Sir Stephen Sedley, it “fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite”. The JCA submission to the Royal Commission criticises the IHRA wording and cites a number of detailed critiques by others. Discussion of the IHRA wording and adoption of it by some institutions does not change the established meaning of a word that has been in use in the English language for 150 years. The IHRA formulation propounds a concept different from that which “antisemitism” has long been understood to describe and appropriates that word to the novel concept.

113 The IHRA “examples” are, on the face of them, directed to embracing within the IHRA’s formula criticisms of Israel that could not be regarded as hostile to Jews as Jews, applying the distinction that Stewart J identified in Wertheim v Haddad and that is recognised in these reasons. The examples indicate that 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. Seen in that light, the IHRA proposal is detached from the reality of the common usage and understanding of antisemitism in this country.

At paragraphs 115, 116, 117 and 118 Justice Fagan says:

115 The disconnect between the IHRA formulation and the established meaning of antisemitism is brought home by the results of opinion polls. On 3 June 2024 the Washington-based Pew Research Center published the results of a poll it conducted in 24 countries, showing that 74% of Australian respondents registered an unfavourable view of Israel. On 4 June 2026 Pew reported that in a more recent poll of 36 countries there was an increase to 79% of Australian respondents who view Israel unfavourably. [14] The surveys show similar rates of disapproval in many other countries.

116 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, the live streaming of which to mobile handsets would be difficult to ignore. Assuming the reliability of the June 2026 poll, it would be preposterous to suggest that 79% of Australians are antisemitic because they disapprove of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. If the 79% or any proportion of them should express outrage, or march in protest, it could not be said that their words or conduct would be antisemitic according to the long understood meaning of that term. 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.

117 The State’s case on the present application has not been advanced by tendering the IHRA formulation through the report of Dr Shanahan.

118 Criticism of Zionism, the movement that established Israel and continues to support it, stands in the same position as criticism of Israel itself.

End of judgment quotes

The IHRA definition of antisemitism is being used by the Antisemitism Royal Commission, which was a decision by Commissioner Virginia Bell.

And most, if not all, of the lawyers and barristers representing the Zionist-supporting Jewish groups have pushed the IHRA definition of antisemitism at the Royal Commission.

The Antisemitism Royal Commission is operating on the foundation that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is valid which we now know is a big lie.

Given Justice Fagan’s judgment, the credibility and honesty of the Antisemitism Royal Commission, Commissioner Virginia Bell, the lawyers, barristers and the Zionist Jewish groups have to be questioned.

Are they all fools who don’t have a clue about the law?

When Commissioner Virginia Bell publishes her Royal Commission findings, will she agree with Justice Fagan’s findings? Disagree with them? Or ignore them?

Justice Desmond Fagan’s judgment is important as it goes further than any Australian judgment on what antisemitism is and determines whether the IHRA definition of antisemitism is valid or has any legal standing.

Justice Fagan’s judgment also tells lawyers and barristers not to go into court lying about antisemitism and the fake IHRA definition.

The High Court of Australia will likely at some stage hand down a judgment on the validity of the 22 people charged under Queensland’s new hate speech laws, and that will likely override Justice Fagan’s judgment to some degree.

But hopefully the High Court will use his judgment as a foundation for their own judgment.

Declaration: Justice Desmond Fagan was the judge in one of Kerry Stokes’ and Seven’s four SLAPP lawsuits against me known as Doe v Dowling.

Admin: This website and the Kangaroo Court of Australia YouTube channel are 100% crowdfunded and stay fully independent without paywalls because of the supporters who chip in each month.

If you find my reporting of value and you’re not yet a monthly supporter and would like to be, you can see all the donation options on the donations page by clicking here.

Amounts from $3 to $100 (or whatever works for your budget) make a real difference. There’s no lock-in, you can cancel or adjust anytime.

Your support, whether it’s a monthly donation, a one-time donation, or just sharing the work, is what keeps independent voices like this one alive.

Thank you for your support.

Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.

Thank you for your support.

For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.

For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here

Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.