A racial discrimination case against former SBS journalist Mary Kostakidis, over her social media posts on the Israel-Gaza war, has been withdrawn.
Alon Cassuto, chief executive of the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA), launched the action in the Federal Court in South Australia last year, claiming the posts were “reasonably likely … to offend, insult, humiliate and/or intimidate Australian Jews” and were allegedly anti-Semitic under the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, adopted by Australia.
In response, Mary Kostakidis and her legal team legitimately argued that the posts did not meet the “legal definition of anti-Semitism” and were “directed to the Israeli government” rather than Jews.
This attempt by the ZFA to thwart criticism of the Israeli state by equating such criticism to anti-Semitism has been a long term tactic of pro-Israeli lobby groups both within Australia and around the world.
The Federal Court announced that the proceedings brought by the ZFA against Kostakidis had been discontinued on Friday, September 11, 2026 with the consent of both parties, and that each side would bear its own legal costs. There was no judgment, no finding that Kostakidis had breached the Racial Discrimination Act, no apology, and no corrective notice — instead, a short consent order recorded that Cassuto had decided to discontinue.
The proceedings concluded without confidentiality provisions, admissions of liability, or agreed facts, leaving both sides to characterise the outcome in their own public statements.
The timing of ZFA’s withdrawal is noteworthy. It comes in the wake of a separate unrelated NSW Supreme Court ruling by Justice Fagan which was handed down on August 19, 2026.
In that ruling Justice Fagan described the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as verbose, imprecise, and “detached from the reality of the common usage and understanding of antisemitism” in Australia.
He also noted that hostility or strong criticism directed at the state of Israel or Zionism cannot automatically be equated to hostility toward Jewish people as an ethnic or religious group.1
This judgement ccompletely contradicts the lawsuit mounted by Alon Cassuto and the ZFA and may well have influenced their decision to discontinue.
Kostakidis has described the discontinuation as a win for press freedom. “This is a win for every Australian who values our democratic right to freedom of political expression,” she said on X, adding that “Zionist zealotry has had to beat a retreat from what was going to be a highly damaging trial.”
Below are extracts from an article by Mary Kostakidis written immediately after the lawsuit against her was discontinued.
Over two years ago, in July 2024, in the midst of Israel’s genocidal assault on a captive people, a self-described ‘proud Zionist’ launched legal proceedings against me in the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) – a requirement under Australian law before filing in the Federal Court under racial discrimination legislation when AHRC mediation fails.
The applicant was the newly appointed CEO of the Zionist Federation of Australia. The ZFA held a press conference to announce commencement of legal proceedings, and its chair, Jeremy Leibler – a prominent surname over generations in Israel lobby leadership and stewardship of legacy Jewish organisations in Australia – made clear the action was intended to send “a very strong message” to Australians that such “hate” speech will not be tolerated.
I had shared a clip of one of Nasrallah’s last speeches, on X, with a comment that he was giving the Israeli government some of its own medicine. The post was clear and constituted a criticism of the conduct of the Israeli government. My transgression? I had dared equate the threat of a listed terrorist with the genocidal conduct of the state of Israel. This had to be punished …
Failing to secure unequivocal capitulation to their demands (that) I delete, desist and apologise (an apology provided in January 2025 for their hurt was qualified: their views about Nasrallah’s comments and motivation could not be a barrier to reporting them), they filed in the Federal Court in May 2025 …
The action was launched to bully me into genuflection – to silence political expression and to chill speech by creating a legal precedent and fear of being targeted with bankrupting lawfare. If Palestinians must leave or die, the rest of us must submit or be crushed …
Our current leadership is doing great damage to this country, conferring to one community special rights and ones that remove a fundamental right of every citizen. This is not only incongruous with democracy, it is fuelling enormous resentment, by insisting we collude in the oppression of our own conscience – the demand of every totalitarian state. All this, in a time of genocide.2
Notes
1. Refer to the NSW Supreme Court ruling by Justice Fagan: State of New South Wales v Farhat (final) [2026] NSWSC 985.
2. Extracts taken from Mary Kostakidis, ‘The case against me is over. The fight for political speech is not’, Pearls and Irritations, September 16, 2026.