A New South Wales Supreme Court judge has delivered a damning critique of special envoy Jillian Segal’s preferred definition of antisemitism, branding the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) text verbose, imprecise, and “detached from the reality of common usage.”

According to a report from The Australian Financial Review, Justice Desmond Fagan made the sharp rebuke in a decision published on Tuesday, as reported by Janek Drevikovsky. Justice Fagan made the comments while dismissing a state bid to impose an extended terrorism order on 22-year-old Mohammed Farhat, who was jailed last year for spray-painting slogans like “F-- Israel” in Sydney.

Rejecting the government’s claim that the graffiti constituted antisemitism under the IHRA test, Fagan declared that the “apparent purpose of promoting” the framework was “to graft onto the community’s abhorrence of antisemitism … a parasitic rejection of protest against Israel.”

​The judge firmly rejected efforts to conflate political opposition to the state of Israel with hatred toward Jewish people, pointing out that “disparagement of Israel is not antisemitic because the Jewish people, who as a whole are the object of antisemitism, are not coextensive with or in any sense equivalent to the state of Israel.”

Noting that Jewish people themselves have long been among the most vocal critics of Israeli state actions, Fagan asked, “How can it be antisemitic – in the established sense of the word – to disparage Israel when doing so accords with the words and beliefs of many Jews?”

He also defended open critique of Zionism as an ideology “open to political discussion and criticism, notably on grounds concerning the rights of the Palestinians,” emphasizing that those condemning state violence “have freedom to express their views” while supporters “have the right not to listen.”