Taming the Internet for Israel

Imagine an Orwellian world where Zionist ideologues have succeeded in redefining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and pressuring compliant governments into controlling what we read and view on the internet based on that definitional sleight of hand. Well, don't worry, they're working on it:

"Internet Service Providers (ISP) lack the knowledge and insight into racism to enable them to make an informed decision about whether a particular publication has crossed the line into racial vilification or harassment... The final decision about whether or not to allow an allegedly racist publication to remain on the net should not rest with them... The technical means exist to curtail cyber racism if not eliminate it altogether and to force website owners and ISPs to act with social responsibility if they will not do so voluntarily. Only if governments cooperate will it be possible to harness these technical means to deal effectively with cyber racism. As a starting point, countries could agree in a formal treaty to recognise and give effect to judgments delivered by one another's courts concerning specific racist publications. For example, the government of country A could undertake to order an ISP operating from its territory to ensure that certain content is not accessible to users of the internet located in country B if a court or tribunal in country B has found that the publication of the content in country B is in breach of its laws." (We can tame the cyber racism beast, Peter Wertheim, The Age, 19/11/10)

Of course, Wertheim's sinister 'opinion' piece is less than forthcoming. Ostensibly, his concern is cyber racism of whatever form: "The promotion of racism in the public domain undermines, and can ultimately destroy, the sense of safety and security of targeted people or groups and also adversely affect social harmony." The subjects of anti-Semitism and Israel are nowhere raised. It is only when we scan his appended bio that we learn that Wertheim is the executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and a recent attendee at an "Experts Forum on Combating Anti-Semitism in Ottowa." Even then, the casual reader might not be aware that the ECAJ is a component part of the Israel lobby in Australia.

To see where this supposed crusader against generic racism is really coming from, we need to take a look at The Ottowa Protocol on Combating Anti-Semitism, described as a "document which represents global co-operation in the fight against anti-Semitism." (cjnews.com) In that document, we read the following: "We are alarmed by the explosion of anti-Semitism and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression, freedom of information and the participation of civil society." For all I know, what has been termed 'classical' anti-Semitism may well be surging on the internet, most likely as a spillover from the criminal behaviour of the 'Jewish' state. However, the worry with Wertheim emerges further on in The Ottowa Protocol when references to Israel begin to appear.

Incredibly, the following are cited as "contemporary examples of anti-Semitism": "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour." "Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." Alas, the feeble disclaimer that "criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic... but singling out Israel for selective condemnation and opprobrium - let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction - is discriminatory and hateful," will only reassure the gullible.

It is obvious that, if Wertheim had his way, the internet would become as much of a no-go zone for the truth about Israeli apartheid and genocide as the mainstream media.

Consider again his seemingly innocuous example: "[T]he government of country A could undertake to order an ISP operating from its territory to ensure that certain content is not accessible to users of the internet located in country B if a court or tribunal in country B has found that the publication of the content in country B is in breach of its laws."

Let's cut to the chase here. Just imagine: Australia, at the instigation of the Israel lobby and its useful fools in parliament, legislates that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Citing that legislation, an Australian court rules that a certain internet site is in breach of the legislation. The Australian government then prevails upon the country in which the site's ISP operates to block access to it by Australian viewers.

Brave new internet indeed.

Postscript (23/11/10): "Most students made no distinction between traditional anti-semitism and anti-Zionism." (Australian Jewish students report anti-Semitism, ynetnews.com, 17/11/10) I rest my case.