Victoria Police abandon claims ‘all Zionists are terrorists’ chant by activist Hash Tayeh are antisemitic (full text in post)
Another day in clown world as the police have dropped the “anti-Semitism” charges, but intend to proceed with charges that the chant of *All Zionists are terrorists* is offensive and intended to be offensive, whilst also obstructing submissions of evidence of terrorist activities carried out in the name of Zionism.
~~~
A major hate speech prosecution has taken an unexpected turn as police retreat from antisemitism claims in the closely watched case.
Victoria Police has abandoned claims that pro-Palestinian activist Hash Tayeh was motivated by antisemitism in a landmark hate speech prosecution over chants declaring “all Zionists are terrorists”.
In a submission filed to the Melbourne Magistrates Court last week and obtained by The Australian, prosecutors conceded they will not allege Mr Tayeh’s comments were antisemitic, despite previously arguing the chant effectively branded the majority of Jewish Australians as terrorists.
The case is being closely watched as a major test of Victoria’s offensive language laws amid escalating tensions surrounding pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
But in a significant narrowing of the prosecution case, police prosecutors will tell the court they are no longer seeking to link the chant to antisemitism or hostility toward Jews.
“The prosecution is not seeking to prove that the words were insulting because they were antisemitic,” the submissions state.
“Nor is the prosecution seeking to prove that the accused had a general intent to use words as insulting words because he is antisemitic.”
Mr Tayeh, former owner of the Burgertory fast-food chain, faces five charges under section 17(1)(c) of the Summary Offences Act over chants allegedly made during pro-Palestinian protests in Melbourne in 2024 and 2025.
His co-accused, Melbourne kunafa chef Jad Awwad Abu Alsendyan, faces two similar charges.
If proven, the offences carry a maximum penalty ranging from two months’ jail for a first offence to six months’ jail for three or more offences.
Prosecutors will say the magistrate does not need to decide what Zionism is, or whether Mr Tayeh was antisemitic, but whether the chant was insulting in public.
Material about the history of Zionism and distinctions between Zionism and Judaism are not needed to determine whether the chant, “all Zionists are terrorists”, was insulting under the law.
On that basis, police will seek to have large parts of the expert report excluded, saying it risks distracting from the only issues the court must decide on: whether the words were insulting, and whether Mr Tayeh intended them to be used that way.
The concession emerged in a dispute over expert evidence prepared for the defence by academic Andrew Thomas.
Dr Thomas was asked to address the historical origins of Zionism, distinctions between Judaism and Zionism, criticism of Zionism, and whether Zionist groups had historically engaged in acts that could be characterised as terrorism.
But prosecutors argued much of that material should be excluded because it was irrelevant to the actual legal issues in dispute.
“The question posed under (b), and subsequent discussion in relation to Judaism and Zionism, is not relevant to either of the two elements in dispute,” prosecutors submitted.
Instead, police say, the case turns solely on whether the phrase “all Zionists are terrorists” constitutes “insulting words” under the Summary Offences Act, and whether Mr Tayeh intended the words to be insulting.
Prosecutors also rejected attempts by the defence to rely on historical examples of Zionist militancy to contextualise the chant.
“The impugned expression in this case is ‘all Zionists are terrorists’. Those words are all-encompassing,” the submission states.
Police argued that references to “isolated and historical instances” of violence by Zionist groups decades ago were not relevant to whether the phrase was insulting in a modern context.
The submissions also reveal prosecutors are seeking to play protest footage showing the conduct and chants of surrounding demonstrators, arguing the broader atmosphere at the rallies is relevant context for determining whether the words were insulting. The charges relate to two separate protests: the “Our Babies Matter” rally on May 27, 2024, and the “Protest Until Ceasefire” demonstration on March 30, 2025. The matter is continuing before the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
Separately, in February this year, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled Mr Tayeh breached the state’s racial and religious vilification laws by leading the chant during a CBD rally.
The tribunal found encouraging thousands of protesters to chant an “absolute statement” attaching “a heinous label (terrorist) to an undifferentiated group of people (all Zionists)” amounted to conduct likely to incite hatred against Jewish people.