The Zionist McCarthyite Court Pursuit of Kostakidis Is Looking Increasingly Vexatious

Vexatious litigation is the practice of launching a court case under false pretences with the primary objective of causing the defendant disrepute. Renowned Australian journalist Mary Kostikidias considers that’s why Zionist Federation of Australia CEO Alon Cassuto has launched a civil action against her, and at a recent pretrial hearing, it seemed certain the evidence will reveal this.

Cassuto and Kostakidis appeared before Federal Court Justice Stephen McDonald on 3 July 2026 for a discovery hearing, which is a proceeding that deals with materials to be produced for trial, and the ZFA CEO’s request that documents relating to his 14 July 2024 press conference announcing the case be removed from trial was refused, as his Honour considered it tends to support Mary’s contention.

As the case begins on 30 November, Kostakidis will put to the court that while Cassuto has instituted civil action against her claiming that he was personally offended by some of her social media posts, which he asserts discriminate against Jewish and/or Israeli Australians, his ultimate aim is to silence her criticism of Israel’s commission of genocide in Gaza, as well as the critiques of others.

Kostakidis, the former SBS World News presenter, is hardly alone in considering that Cassuto’s aim is to bring about a broad chilling effect upon critics of Israel, and in fact, there have been multiple cases of prominent local figures being litigated against by the Israel lobby, as it seeks to silence criticism, and this has included journalist Antoinette Lattouf and academics Nick Riemer and John Keane.

Justice McDonald refused both party’s main requests following the 29 June pretrial hearing, which means that evidence suggesting that Cassuto is attempting to sue Kostakidis for broader reasons than simply having his feelings hurt remain before the court, and whilst the content of a suggested “lawyers group” won’t be required, if the CEO has partaken in it, he’ll need to submit those details.

Aiming for a chilling effect

The Zionist Federation of Australia held a press conference on 14 July 2024, which involved Cassuto announcing to the press that he was about to file a complaint relating to Kostakidis with the Australian Human Rights Commission, as he is claiming that a number of her social media posts on X are antisemitic in nature, and breach section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

Yet, the two posts that Cassuto had singled out involve Kostakidis having reposted the posts of other users of X who’d shared the same footage of the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah making a speech in the early days of the Gaza genocide, in which he criticised Israel and suggested that US and UK citizens in the region return to their respective countries.

In her 4 January 2024 repost of the Nasrallah speech, Mary added remarks about Israel “getting some of its own medicine”, while in the second reposting, she added no comment.

During the hearing a fortnight ago, Cassuto sought to have any communications relating to the 14 July 2024 ZFA press conference announcing his AHRC complaint that he was about to lodge that same day be excluded from proceedings, along with any documentation relating to the preparation of the related press release titled ZFA CEO Alon Cassuto files 18C complaint against Mary Kostakidis .

But Justice McDonald denied this request and rather found that these documents are quite relevant to proceedings, as they “are open to an interpretation that is capable of supporting the inference for which Ms Kostakidis contends”, which is that “the AHRC complaint and the proceeding were instituted in the hope of creating a chilling effect” upon her and other critics of the Gaza genocide.

His Honour noted the importance of this evidence, as the presser was held prior to the lodging of the complaint, which served to garner public attention to the fate that could await Mary and other critics of Israel. And it would have also removed details of ZFA president Jeremy Leibler telling the press that the complaint was purposed to send a message to all that such critiques were “unacceptable”.

Cassuto further sought to reduce the scope of documentation to be submitted that involves him referring to Kostakidis or her social media posts between 7 October 2023 and 14 July 2024. And he rather requested that this commence on the 4 January 2024, which is the date of the first X post Mary made that is being singled out for court scrutiny.

But his Honour denied this too, as Cassuto’s Statement of Claim refers to Mary having been posting about Israel since 7 October 2023, which makes that whole timeframe relevant to proceedings.

The elusive lawyers for Israel group

The laws governing discovery are contained under division 20.2 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Discovery is an interlocutory procedure, or one that occurs pretrial. Standard discovery is when particular documents are sought, while seeking specific categories of documents is also permissible, but such requests cannot be too speculative or turn into a “fishing expedition”.

Kostakidis had further sought any documentation relating to a suggested “lawyers group” that had been mentioned in the publicly released transcript of a WhatsApp group comprised of local creatives and academics supporting Israel, as when a 6 December 2023 post on X made by Mary had been mentioned in that chat, it was suggested that it might be a matter for the “lawyers group”.

This was significant as the ABC stated that it had sacked journalist Lattouf over an X post she’d made about Israel starving the Palestinians of Gaza, but it was instead found at trial to have been due to pressure coming from a coordinated campaign run by members of two local WhatsApp chat groups that went by the names of “Lawyers for Israel” and “J.E.W.I.S.H Australian Creatives and Academics”.

During the recent proceedings, Kostakidis argued that the reference to the “lawyers group” was likely referring to the same “Lawyers for Israel” WhatsApp group involved in the Lattouf case, and therefore, she sought discovery of the documents relating to that group.

Justice McDonald denied this request, however, as he considered that it involved “too great a degree of speculation”. Although, as the orders stand, if Cassuto had been corresponding about Kostakidis within a WhatsApp group with other lawyers, he is still required to produce such documents under the current orders as they stand.

Lawfare waged against legitimate comment

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group”.

Kostakidis is not only arguing that Cassuto “instituted the proceeding vexatiously, without reasonable cause and in bad faith”, but also that her posts should be exempt under section 18D of the Act, which allow for the publishing of controversial material when it is “a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest”, as well as allowing for “fair comment” on such matters in the process.

At the end of Cassuto’s 31 May 2025 lodged statement of claim is Annexure A, which is a collection of posts that Kostakidis had been posting on X since 10 October 2023, up until the date of document submission. This was due to the applicant initially having further relied on these posts, which now no longer apply as the case is solely focused on the two posts featuring the Hezbollah leader.

The reason why the Zionist Federation chief executive commenced listing the posts from that point on is that was when Israel commenced mass murdering the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip, which is a wholesale slaughter that continues to this day. And Kostakidis had been determinedly posting about the commission of a genocide and related matters, as were many other journalists.

Cassuto claims to be taking Kostakidis to court over reposting a speech that offended him as an Israeli national and as a Jew.

But Leibler spelt out the underlying reasons for the case clearly at the presser, when he inferred that due to her stature and reach as a journalist, Kostakidis’ criticism of Israel’s commission of a genocide was problematic. So, Mary, therefore, had to be silenced, which would send a “very strong message” to other critics.

And Justice McDonald considers that these details “are open to an interpretation that is capable of supporting” Kostakidis’ contention that “the AHRC complaint and the proceeding were instituted in the hope of creating a chilling effect”.

Main image: Photo of journalist Mary Kostakidis by Paul Gregoire