UN Security Council Moves To End Anonymity On Internet

[Published 15 May 2016]


Ending the plague of anonymity on the Internet seems closer to fruition following moves this week by the UN Security Council.

Re-affirming its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security the President of the Security Council re-iterated:

“the urgent need to globally counter the activities of ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities to incite and recruit to commit terrorist acts”

by a variety of measures including:

“developing the most effective means to counter terrorist propaganda, incitement and recruitment, including through the Internet, in compliance with international law, including international human rights law;”

The President called on its Counter-Terrorism Committee in close consultation with other relevant United Nations bodies and international and regional organizations as well as interested Member States to present a comprehensive international framework to the Security Council by 30 April 2017.

Steven A Crown, vice president and deputy general counsel of Microsoft told the Security Council:

“there is no silver bullet that will stop terrorist use of the Internet.”

Crown was quick to acknowledge:

“For the internet industry, the scale of the terrorist challenge is daunting. We know that there are tens of thousands terrorist internet accounts that refuse to die. As one is taken down, another quickly springs up in its place.”

Crown’s appearance marked the first time a representative of a technology company has addressed the U.N.‘s most powerful body.

Crown was surely being naïve in expressing this opinion.

The use of the Internet as a communications tool has been fuelled by the anonymity afforded to those who use it – enabling all kinds of hate and incitement to be spewed out daily without recourse to those who claim to have been legally affected by those who make their vile and outrageous statements.

Surely the first step in any move by the Security Council to combat this “Internet Intifada” is to insist that all member States impose laws in their jurisdictions compelling all Internet providers to insist on the names , addresses and contact phone numbers being provided by all registered users of their websites - including those seeking to post comments.

These details would be held by the Internet provider and could be subpoenaed in any proceedings brought in a competent court of law by persons claiming to have suffered as a result of any offending publication.

Large penalties would be prescribed for those providers who failed to check the bona fides of those using the internet.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power correctly said it was important to protect free speech.

"As we consider the task of countering violent ideologies we all must recognize that the common goal of countering terrorist ideology should never be used as an excuse to suppress political dissent. Legal action is a critical tool in the campaign against ISIL but it must not be wielded like a cudgel against those who voice unpopular speech or criticize authorities. Such behavior doesn’t prevent violent extremism, it fuels it.”

Ending anonymity on the Internet is not a threat to free speech. It does not prevent anyone saying whatever they want to say within the bounds of what is legally acceptable.

Anonymity has been widely rejected by most newsprint around the world.

Popular talk back radio shows have a seven second delete button to filter calls deemed to be outside what is legally permitted.

Ending anonymity on the Internet – if prosecuted by all UN member States - will lead to those tens of thousands of terrorist internet accounts currently in existence and their would-be successors being quickly and effectively eliminated.

If people are not prepared to reveal their identities – don’t publish.

Palestine - Internet Intifada On Free Speech Intensifies

[Published 14 April 2016]


An increasing number of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel websites are banning comments made by me in response to articles or readers’ comments published on their sites.

These websites have:

1. Simply not posted my comments or

2. Deleted all published comments – including mine - when factual errors pointed out by me cannot be successfully challenged or denied - thereby exposing the unquestionable venom and hate being spewed out on these websites

The latest novel attempt to blatantly silence me recently reared its ugly head when I attempted to respond to this reader’s offensive and unsubstantiated comment:

"Wow — “smug” is the perfect word for this effing Zionist.

Great post — thank you!

Go BDS! Go every other effort to expose and dispose of the criminally psychotic ideology Zionism and its every adherent! Viva Palestine!"

My response was not published.

Mysteriously however another even more offensive comment was posted by the same reader responding to my unpublished comment:

"David Singer, I found your:

RIP Palestine. All this nonsense could have been avoided had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan or created a second Arab state in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – between 1948 and 1967 after all the Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza had been driven out by six invading Arab armies.


The Arabs need to step up to the plate and accept the consequences of those decisions which have caused so much grief to Jews and Arabs since."

at my incoming e-mail site. Now, why should the already dispossessed, scattered Palestinian polity — you know the stats: at least 750,000 cleansed from their land, up to 500 villages razed by Zioterrorists by 1949 — have accepted an illegal move engineered by Zionist schemers (who bragged of “having it all” even then) and foisted on the fledgling UN (the GA at that) in November 1947? The Palestinians wanted justice and their own independent state then and they’ve steadfastly sought justice and fulfillment of their legitimate aspirations ever since. “nonsense,” bullxxxt!

Enough, already, of your “singing,” Singer."

Well might you ask - how did my unpublished comment make its way into this crude reader’s email box without it being published on-line first?

The saga does not end there.

I then endeavoured to post the following response:

"You state:

“The Palestinians wanted justice and their own independent state then and they’ve steadfastly sought justice and fulfillment of their legitimate aspirations ever since”

The Palestinian Arabs could have had their own independent State in 1947 in a much larger share of former Palestine than is available to them now under any negotiated settlement in 2016 - if they had not rejected the UN Partition Plan.

Do you agree?

You are also silent on the fact that they could have also had their own independent State in all the West Bank and Gaza and even East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 when not one Jew lived there and Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers. That could have happened with the stroke of an Arab League pen.

Do you agree?

Those golden opportunities will not return.

The Palestinian Arabs and their Arab brethren in the Arab League have blown it well and truly.

They will have to settle for a lot less than 100% of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem if they want to make peace with Israel.

Do you agree?"

These comments have not been published.

Suppressing free speech on these insidious websites must be continually exposed and roundly condemned.

Deliberately manipulating these hate-filled websites perpetuates an unchallenged aura of lies and distortions that are misleadingly and deceptively influencing readers’ opinions on the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Palestine - Internet Manipulation Fuels Anti-Israel And Jew-hatred

[Published 6 April 2016]


Internet manipulation of readers’ comments in response to articles published on overtly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish web sites is allowing those web sites to spew out their venom unchecked and uncontrolled.

Freedom of speech on these web sites is non-existent - and its absence is playing a large part in influencing the opinions of those who visit these sites and see no readers’ comments that act as a counterbalance or rebuttal to the article published or readers’ comments supporting such articles.

Such manipulation has until now taken either of the following forms:

1. Simply not publishing a reader’s comment

2. The editor can claim to exercise editorial control of what appears on his web-site – and there is nothing you can really do about it.

I received this treatment when seeking to comment on the decision by McGraw Hill to trash the remaining copies of a text book “Global Politics: engaging a complex world “ – after four maps of “Palestine” in 1946, 1947, 1948-1967 and 2000 were subsequently determined by McGraw Hill to be inaccurate and misleading.

My comment detailing why McGraw Hill’s decision was justified was not published.

This rejection motivated me to write an article “Palestine – Internet Intifada Denies Free Speech” - which was published on many web sites - and subsequently went viral.

Publishing readers’ comments – overwhelmingly anonymous - that do not address the subject matter of the article but comprise general comments repeated over and over again - such as “ethnic cleansing”, apartheid” and “stealing Palestinian land” - denigrating and delegitimising both Israel and Jews.

A web site using both of these manipulative practices in tandem represents a web site where only the Arab narrative of the Jewish-Arab conflict is presented and the Jewish narrative is deliberately suppressed and excluded.

Now a far more serious form of manipulation to those outlined above has been exposed - involving the initial publication - but subsequent deletion - of readers’ comments some considerable time after they have first been published.

Again – I have been the recipient of this highly offensive and objectionable practice in relation to the identical comment posted by me supporting McGraw Hill’s decision on another anti-Israel and anti-Jewish web site.

Two comments were initially posted by two other people on this website criticising the McGraw Hill decision to trash – and were published on 20 March and 26 March. So far – no problem.

My comment was published on 29 March – no problem.

My comment drew a very virulent and hate-filled response from an anonymous third reader on 29 March – resulting in the exchange of a further seven published comments from each of us to the other - ending on 2 April with the following post by me:

“You seem intent on not wanting to answer this one simple question:

“Do you consider the maps withdrawn by McGraw Hill to be inaccurate and misleading because they did not show the Negev to be “desert bedouin land” as you yourself have claimed?

All you need do is answer “Yes” or “No”.

That is not too hard for you is it?”

Imagine my complete surprise - when I visited the site the following day to see if a response had been posted – to find that all eleven comments published between 20 March – 2 April had been deleted by the web editor and the comments section totally removed.

Luckily I had taken a photo shot of all eleven comments posted.

Otherwise you might not have believed it possible that hostility and antagonism towards Israel and Jews could stoop to such low levels.

Beware hate-filled Arab propagandists who want to conceal the truth at any cost.

Palestine - Internet Intifada Denies Free Speech

[Published 27 March 2016]


Many Palestinian websites are stifling free speech by refusing to publish comments answering anti-Israel articles published on their sites.

The latest example is an article written by Rania Khalek on Electronic Intifada

Responding to the decision by McGraw Hill Education to destroy all copies of its text book Global Politics: engaging a complex world - containing the accompanying maps - Khalek claimed:

“The maps, which appear in chronological succession on page 123, show Palestinian land loss from 1946, one year before Zionist militias initiated the displacement of more than 750,000 indigenous Palestinians from historic Palestine, to the year 2000, by which point Palestinian land had been reduced to a handful of tiny non-contiguous enclaves in the occupied West Bank and a sliver of Gaza.”

I endeavoured to post the following comment in response on 21 March pointing out the misleading nature of these maps:

“Map 1:
The heading - “Palestinian and Jewish Land 1946” - is misleading for the following reasons:
(i) The map excludes Transjordan which in 1946 still comprised 78% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine until granted independence by Great Britain in May 1946.

(ii) The land described as “Palestinian land” misleadingly implies legal ownership by the Palestinian Arabs of that land when in fact about 90% of it was State land under British Mandatory control and legal power of disposition.

Map 2:
(i) The legend “Palestinian land” is misleading.

(ii) The legend should have said “proposed Jewish State” and “proposed Arab State” - the terms used in the UN Partition Plan.

Map 3:
The heading “1949-1967” is misleading.

The map should have shown the unification of the West Bank with Transjordan between 1949 and 1967 and the change of name of Transjordan to Jordan in 1950.

It should also have designated the Gaza Strip as being under Egyptian military administration between 1948-1967.

Map 4:
One can only wonder why the year 2000 was chosen. Why not 2015 after Israel had already withdrawn from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank in 2005 and dismantled many illegal outposts?

In any event the legend “Palestinian land” and “Israeli land” is again wrong and misleading in so far as it relates to the West Bank. The land there should have been shown as Areas “A”, “B” and “C”

As maps designed to be taught to students they are totally lacking in accuracy and ignore basic facts in their compilation.

Designating land as “Palestinian land” in any event implies that such land belongs to the “Palestinians”. Since there were no persons designated as “Palestinians” until the 1964 PLO Charter defined that term—the use of the term in maps before then smacks of an attempt to re-write history.

Mc Graw Hill had no option but to discard these maps”

My comments have not yet been published - and comes at a particularly sensitive time as Electronic Intifada Editor Ali Abunimah - a US citizen - has recently received a visa from the Australian Government - after waiting two months - to speak at a four day Marxism Conference and at other venues in Australia.

Abunimah posted the following tweet thanking the thousands who had petitioned the Australian Government supporting the grant of his visa:

“I’m so grateful to every person who stood up for free speech. Delighted that I just received my visa for Australia. See you Down Under!”

4:44 AM - 16 Mar 2016

Perhaps my comment inadvertently slipped through the cracks as Mr Abunimah was busy packing his bags for his visit to Australia.

Free speech means free speech for all Mr Abunimah.

Stand up, be counted, publish my comment.