You’re incorrect about the DMCA when you say “DMCA treats ‘linking’ to illegal contents as illegal as the contents themselves”. You must knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody’s copyright.  A link to the Israel.TV websites themselves is not to a specific work, so it’s not covered by DMCA. So first, as long as you don’t know that a work is infringing someone’s copyright, then you cannot be held liable for contributor infringement for directing users to that work. But, over and above that requirement, a link that doesn’t go directly to a specific work, but just a website in general (as the judgement declares “shall block access to the website”) is completely out of the bounds of DMCA. 

Nevertheless, this is still a court order, and presumably carries the full force of the court despite its ridiculous nature. It has the potential to force innocent parties to spend a ton of money defending themselves against red herrings and straw men.  

Mel Beckman wrote:

But the phrase "or linking to the domain" Includes hundreds, possibly

thousands, of unwitting certain parties:

DMCA treats "linking" to illegal contents as illegal as the
contents themselves, which is why I wrote:

: In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
: actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
: infringements are not be protected by DMCA.

> I think I am simply right.

So, you know nothing about DMCA. Read it.

> The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching.

As for transit ISPs enjoying a safe harbor of DMCA, yes, as I
already said so.

                       Masataka Ohta