Internet - Fertile Field Promoting Jew-hatred And Jew-bashing.

[Published 3 November 2013]


The Internet has become one of the major contributors to the growing spread of Jew-hatred and assaults on Jews world wide.

The senseless attack by eight hooligans in Bondi, Sydney last week bashing five Jewish people - one a 62 years old woman - as they were walking home after enjoying a Sabbath meal with friends - has resulted in an outpouring of world-wide condemnation by politicians, the media, the public and other religious groups.

Yet it is only one of an increasing number of such similar assaults on Jews world-wide.

Jewish communities have for decades been required to place their synagogues, communal schools and organizations under 24 hour security surveillance.

The propensity of the Internet to become an uncontrolled vehicle for racial incitement has been allowed to escape under the radar. It is time that its capacity to so influence the minds of its readers was diminished.

What has become particularly disturbing is the ability of people to make whatever comments they like on the Internet without disclosing their full names and addresses to web editors when submitting their comments.

Newspapers require such details to be supplied – and only in exceptional circumstances will anonymous letters be published.

Why do Internet sites not demand the same standard of compliance?

Failure to do so has seen the publication of anonymous comments such as the following:

“The Jews will still occupy the West Bank and blockade Gaza and continue with their brutal, genocidal occupation. If the world were to be rid of the U.S. and Israel, there would be a chance of peace in our chaotic, conflicted world. Surely, anyone with half a brain can see that!"

Freedom of speech should not mean that people should enjoy freedom from prosecution or legal action for comments they make that defame people or groups of people or incite or are capable of inciting violence.

Should the following comment have been allowed to be anonymously posted?

“Racist Israel is more than an abomination in the Middle East, it is a threat to the 7bn people it considers not to be racially “special”. Us. All the more reason to stop keeping it alive, and to target it with overwhelming nuclear might if it retaliates against civilisation for refusing to back its play. The Zionists may be blinded by their belief that God will protect them. Nobody and nothing will.”

No doubt apologists will argue that objections can be lodged to delete offending comments – but its implementation inevitably leads to strident cries claiming censorship.

Securing the deletion of an objectionable comment also ignores the damage caused during the time that such comment has remained online before its removal.

These vile viewpoints – if authoritatively sourced – should be exposed to public gaze so that readers can understand the level and intensity of the hatred that exists – as exemplified in the following comment:

“Why should we [love Jews] given what they do to the Palestinians and have done since 1948? I don’t think that Jews are capable of love. Their religion gets in the road. Their god is loveless and punitive and so are they!”

Jews are not on their own in being singled out for such incessant abuse and vilification on the Internet.

Protecting free speech – no matter how denigrating or defamatory – can be safeguarded on the Internet - if web sites make it clear that no comments will be considered for publication unless they are accompanied by the writer’s full name and address - and a phone number supplied for verification purposes that would allow the site administrator to confirm the identity and address of the person seeking to have his comments published on that web site.

The writer’s name and general area location should accompany the comment when published.

Compliance with these requirements should become the minimum norm demanded by the administrators of every web site.

It surely is time for such a voluntary code of conduct to be introduced to end comments being made under the cover of anonymity on the Internet by using false names or pseudonyms to conceal the writer’s true identity.

If such standards were applied – the following comments would not have appeared on “Citizen Pilgrimage” – the blog page of Emeritus Professor Richard Falk – “UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967”:

1. “If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy, because, while you are laughing now, things can change very rapidly, as we have seen in the last century (and the one before that, and the one before that….). Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization?”

2. “We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.”

3. “The truth is that Jews have a terrible track record, and they seem to be obsessed with the (false) notion that people hate them for no reason. There are very good reasons for hating jews today, and that makes me sad. How can jews be acting this way so soon after the last catastrophe?"

Ending anonymous and unverified comments on the Internet is long overdue.

Paraphrasing Neil Armstrong’s immortal words – doing so would represent one small step for a man - but one giant leap for mankind.

Palestine - Negate The Debate On The Jewish State

[Published July 2009]

Any prospect of creating a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan took another nosedive this past week with an extraordinary outburst by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak saying he could not accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot on 10 July President Mubarak said Israel’s request for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state is unacceptable.

“Don’t you have Arab citizens in Israel?” Mubarak asks. “You want to turn Israel into a Jewish state only? That is very bad. I’m telling you. It’s a serious mistake which will harm you. A Jewish state will become the target of all terrorists. An open state, on the other hand, is a different matter. Look at us in Egypt: We have Muslims, Christians, Copts and Jews,”

President Mubarak was being blatantly misleading in suggesting that the term “Jewish State” meant a state where only Jews and no one else can reside. 20% of Israel’s 7 million population is Muslim Arab and there are over 100000 Christian Arabs living in Israel. Any suggestion that either group will lose its citizenship is nonsensical.

What the President conveniently forgot to mention was that 90% of Egypt’s 80 million population is Muslim Arab, that only 9% is Coptic Christian which group is massively discriminated against and that there are no more than 500 Jews living in Egypt.

Like so many issues in the Middle East words - and the meaning to be ascribed to them - are very important. None is more important at the present time than Israel itself defining what the words “Jewish State” means.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made it clear on 14 June that any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority would fail unless the Authority was prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish State when he stated unequivocally:

“As we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.” I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

US President Barack Obama had welcomed Mr Netanyahu’s speech, calling it an important step forward. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs affirmed the following day that :

“The president is committed to two states, a Jewish State of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples,”

On 12 July Prime Minister Netanyahu again reiterated his position at a ceremony in Jerusalem commemorating 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl:

“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians.”

The term “Jewish State” should be defined by Israel so that there is no doubt as to its meaning by anyone choosing to use those words.

No better definition exists than that given by David Ben Gurion to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine at Lake Success New York on the 7 July 1947:

“What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State-where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name “Palestine,” - I said if - then all would be Palestinian citizens If the State would be given, another name - I think it would be given another name - because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Hitti, that there was no such a thing as “Palestine” at all: Palestine is not an Arab name. Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew.”

Whilst Ben Gurion’s utopian ideal has not yet been fully realised in relation to the “slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew” his vision is steadily being advanced in the face of the constant draining of Israel’s financial resources spent on armaments to fight innumerable wars and to ensure it remains in a state of preparedness to defend all its citizens - both Jews and Arabs- in the face of refusal by all 21 members of the Arab League to recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

Many members of the Arab League have abbreviated their official State names. Egypt is officially designated as “The Arab Republic of Egypt”, Syria as “The Syrian Arab Republic”, Jordan as “The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” and Libya as “The Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”

Israel’s Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948 merely proclaimed :

“the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL”

Perhaps it is time for Israel to formally adopt Ben Gurion’s definition, to officially designate itself as “The Jewish State of Israel” and to get the two Arab countries with whom it has signed peace treaties - Egypt and Jordan - to acknowledge that fact.

As we commemorate Neil Armstrong’s setting foot on the moon on 20 July 1969 we might well use his first words on that momentous occasion to describe what the official adoption of such a name change by Israel might possibly herald:

“That’s one small step for man: one giant leap for mankind”