We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East. (From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

Friday, 29 August 2014

David Singer: The Key to Peace Lies in the Past

Entitled "Palestine – Unearthing Past Remains Key To Resolving Future", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The cease fire agreement ending hostilities in the Fifty Day War between Israel and Hamas marks yet another milestone attesting to the failure of Jews and Arabs peacefully to resolve their claims to sovereignty and self-determination in the territory once called “Palestine”.

Amazingly, the continuing inability of the parties  – and the international community – to reach consensus on identifying when this long running conflict actually commenced, ensures it will continue to remain unresolved.

Emeritus Professor Richard Falk – formerly United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights in the West Bank – still claims in his latest article that the conflict started in 1947.
“Israel was born in 1948. Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly [dated 29 November 1947 – Ed] is widely regarded as the most convincing legal basis for founding the State of Israel.”

Falk gave the following reasons for his viewpoint on 1 August 2012:
“I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”
Falk’s opinion mirrors Article 20 of the Palestine Liberation Organization Charter:
“The Balfour Declaration [1917], the Mandate for Palestine [1922], and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”
Falk’s opinion is not shared by Matti Friedman – who in his latest article identifies the starting date as being much earlier than 1947:

“The Israel story is framed in the same terms that have been in use since the early 1990s—the quest for a “two-state solution.” It is accepted that the conflict is “Israeli-Palestinian,” meaning that it is a conflict taking place on land that Israel controls—0.2 percent of the Arab world—in which Jews are a majority and Arabs a minority. The conflict is more accurately described as “Israel-Arab,” or “Jewish-Arab”—that is, a conflict between the 6 million Jews of Israel and 300 million Arabs in surrounding countries. (Perhaps “Israel-Muslim” would be more accurate, to take into account the enmity of non-Arab states like Iran and Turkey, and, more broadly, 1 billion Muslims worldwide.) This is the conflict that has been playing out in different forms for a century, before Israel existed, before Israel captured the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and before the term “Palestinian” was in use.
The “Israeli-Palestinian” framing allows the Jews, a tiny minority in the Middle East, to be depicted as the stronger party. It also includes the implicit assumption that if the Palestinian problem is somehow solved the conflict will be over, though no informed person today believes this to be true. This definition also allows the Israeli settlement project, which I believe is a serious moral and strategic error on Israel’s part, to be described not as what it is—one more destructive symptom of the conflict—but rather as its cause.”
Adopting Friedman’s viewpoint over Falk’s, one can confidently nominate the 1920 San Remo Conference as the legal basis for founding the State of Israel – when England, France, Italy, and Japan agreed to divide the areas of the 400 years old Ottoman Empire conquered by them in World War 1 into three mandates: Mesopotamia (now Iraq), Syria/Lebanon and Palestine.

This carve-up was intended to see Arab self-determination eventually achieved in 99.99 per cent of the conquered Ottoman territory and Jewish self-determination in the remaining 0.01 per cent.

These proposals were unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.

But they proved to be temporary only in relation to Palestine – because three months later the provisions of Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine enabled Great Britain to restrict the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home to within 23 per cent of the tiny area of land originally set aside to achieve that objective at San Remo – with the remaining 77 per cent of Mandatory Palestine eventually becoming an independent Palestinian Arab state in 1946 – that is today called Jordan.

The period 1920-1947 without doubt covers a host of critically important legal and historical signposts that cannot be forgotten or buried.

Whilst the two-state solution ultimately created between 1946-1948 as a result of the San Remo Conference is ignored  – attempts to resolve sovereignty in today’s highly volatile West Bank and Gaza – are destined to certain failure and renewed conflict.

The two-state solution posited by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap creating a 22nd independent sovereign Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history has failed to materialize – despite twenty years of intensive political and diplomatic efforts by the international community.

The PLO (founded in 1964) and Hamas (founded in 1987) both seek to unravel the decisions made at San Remo in 1920.

They need to be replaced as Israel’s Arab negotiating partners by the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – Jordan and Israel – and possibly Egypt – to determine and allocate sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States.

Unearthing the past still remains the key to peacefully resolving the future.

Thursday, 28 August 2014

"A Script Written By Hamas": Media Manipulation and Mendacity (includes video)

The BBC's Donnison showing his bias and ignorance yet again
By Professor  Phyllis Chesler, inter alia, here;
'Monday night, on the upper east side of New York City, a gang of anti-Semitic "thugs" attacked a peaceful but visibly Jewish man – he was wearing a skullcap (a yarmulke or kippa). They also attacked his wife.
Two cars "flying Palestinian flags and multiple motorcycles" pulled up to the couple at 8:00 p.m. while it was still daylight. They began yelling "anti-Jewish statements." Then, they threw a water bottle that hit his wife, and, when her husband came to her defense, they "punched him in the head."
The suspects fled. No arrests have been made. The 27-year-old man refused medical attention at the scene.
This is my neighborhood, my home town. This incident took place about a mile away from where I live and work. So far, I have found only one brief article about this in the New York Post.
Are there more such incidents that are not being covered?
There are so many synagogues on the upper east side of New York City and so many visibly Jewish men and women. New York City's largest mosque is also on the upper east side. What are Jews supposed to do? Hide our faith – even as more and more Muslims in this very neighborhood proudly proclaim theirs by wearing hijab, burqas, Islamic skullcaps, and Islamic dress? Something is very wrong with this picture.
Jews do not attack Muslims or Christians – or anyone for that matter – for wearing religiously identifiable clothing or jewelry. Only ​some ​Muslims ​appear ​do that – ​some ​Muslims or pro-Muslim sympathizers.
Jews and Christians are not allowed to openly and visibly practice their religion in most Muslim countries, and yet Muslims in America and Europe expect to be able to practice their faith, often in very aggressive ways, in both America and Europe....
Now, Jews everywhere are being held responsible for and hostage to Israeli acts of self-defense, which, alas, have been touted in the media as aggressive and genocidal acts. The media, the professoriate, international bodies, religious and political leaders have followed this lethal narrative for so long and so intensely that people really believe that Jews and Jewish Israel are evil and must be attacked on sight.
What we are seeing is this: The decades of Big Lies in the media, inflammatory sermons in mosques, churches, and synagogues, which falsely present Israel and Jews as genocidal Nazis, have finally empowered the latent hatred among Arab Muslims and their sympathizers in the diaspora to freely attack individual Jewish civilians as targets and symbols – nay, as collaborators – with the Israeli regime....'

By Australian Jewish News publisher Robert Magid in the latest issue, out today, a excellent op-ed entitled "The Media's True Lies" prompted by his recent visit to Britain, and the high levels of indignation at Israel's actions in Operation Protective Shield among the public there, prompting disturbances and discomfort for Jews. 
 '.... For a whole month the visual media has been bombarding us with what Hamas wants us to see ....
The conclusion we are to draw: "Israel bombs – innocent people die".
What we have witnessed this month is [sic] the most slavish, most egregious examples of media manipulation which can only be described as propaganda: a Hollywood show, produced and directed by Hamas and performed by the corps of media producers, directors, journalists, freelancers and stringers presented verbatim from a script written by Hamas.
Forgotten is the cause of the war: deadly barrages of rockets directed at Israel unprovoked and the construction of tunnels intended for a massive attack on civilians in the South.  Rather than Netanyahu rushing to war, in Israel the main criticism of him is that he held back so long despite ample evidence  that Hamas was building tunnels under Israel....'
 He goes on:
'.... Why aren't we told about the manipulation of information such as the rearrangement of bodies for the cameras. Why do they keep repeating ... that according to the UN the overwhelming majority of the casualties are civilians?
They know thatthe dubious information is provided by Hamas and the UN has no independent means of verifying it.  According to Israel's checks of the dead, a majority are combatants.
We are not told that journalists are regularly physically threatened if they deviate from the script.  Why haven't journalists reported even after they left Gaza that they operated under coercion?....'
I can only suggest that the answer to the last question might be that the journalists fear that the media outlets for which they work might on a future occasion send them back there ...

For more on this subject of intimidation of journalists be sure to read David Gerstman's article here  and Daniel Greenfield's article here 

Three cheers for this leading American Reform rabbi!

As for media bias in Britain, please don't neglect to look at the latest posts by blogger and activist Edgar Davidson here and here

See also Harry's Place here

Voices From Eurabia (videos)

A British Islamist: "Only ISIS will help Palestine"

A Spanish Islamist: "Allah, Destroy the Plundering Jews, Do Not Spare a Single One"

Percentages of people with a positive view of ISIS:

 (Read more on that public opinion poll and its implications here)

Wednesday, 27 August 2014

What Makes The Welsh Greens' Leader "Think"

Flamboyant, statuesque  and with a flair for courting the limelight, Pippa Bartolotti is leader of the Welsh Greens, and in May tried for a seat in the European Parliament.

One of that monstrous regiment of liberated western feminists who for reasons best-known to themselves appear to prefer the Hamas misogynists to the gender-tolerant Israelis, she is known for her oft-expressed condemnation of Israel, and for her participation in the flotilla/flytilla stunts.

She is also known for making a bit of a fool of herself by displaying a flag with a far-from- blemish-free symbolism:

And for this rant while in transit in Israel in 2011.

On Facebook she's shared this video, of Gazans celebrating the new ceasefire, interpreted by them as a "victory" over Israel (So, h/t to Ms Bartolotti).

Here's a nugget of naive and noisome nonsense that she's also posted on Facebook within the past twenty-four hours.

A sensible riposte from a fellow-countryman of hers that, predictably,  has not gone down well among the leftist Israel-haters who follow her:

Ms Bartolotti is by no means the first leftist Israel-basher to attempt to push an analogy between Anglo-Jews who have served in the IDF and Bristish Muslims who have flocked to the banners of extremist forces in the Middle East from the United Kingdom, "the Yemen of the West" as one journalist is calling it.  (I seem to recall that Stephen Sizer made a remark along those lines of Ms Bartolotti's on Facebook some time ago.) And I doubt she will be the last.

It is, of course, utterly ridiculous to draw a parallel between Jews who have served in Israel's defensive wars and Muslims who have joined the ranks of Jihad.  It is a false analogy that in today's antisemitic climate only serves further to demonise Anglo-Jews and of course Israel itself, and indeed to minimise the repellent preoccupations of the Britons fighting for ISIS.

It marks a fresh low in the Left's ongoing crusade against Israel and Zionism and in the Left's inexplicable love affair with Islam and Islamists.

That particular virus eems to be catching
 Read more about Yasmin Queshi's remarks here

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Rooting For The Enemy: Hamas's Jewish Useful Idiots

'We, the undersigned, are saddened by the devastating loss of life endured by Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza. We are pained by the suffering on both sides of the conflict and hope for a solution that brings peace to the region.
While we stand firm in our commitment to peace and justice, we must also stand firm against ideologies of hatred and genocide which are reflected in Hamas' charter, Article 7 of which reads, “There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” The son of a Hamas founder has also commented about the true nature of Hamas.

Hamas cannot be allowed to rain rockets on Israeli cities, nor can it be allowed to hold its own people hostage. Hospitals are for healing, not for hiding weapons. Schools are for learning, not for launching missiles. Children are our hope, not our human shields.

We join together in support of the democratic values we all cherish and in the hope that the healing and transformative power of the arts can be used to build bridges of peace.'

It's good to see people from the arts community, including Hollywood A-listers, speaking out against Hamas in this way.  If only more, many many more, would nail their colours to the mast.

What is particularly satisfying about the above list of signatories is that it includes Roseanne Barr, who has, if reports can be trusted, made some unpleasant references to Israel and Zionism in the past but who has been outspokenly supportive of Israel for some time .

An (occasional) Hollywood personality (Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Torch Song Trilogy), the estimable Ben Stein, observed last month:
"The media in this country for a very long time has been contemptuous of Jews and contemptuous of Jewish life.
This was true during the Holocaust, when the media was largely controlled by old, lying, wealthy, white Protestant males, and it's true now when it's controlled by mostly left-wingers....
The media likes to portray Jews as bullies and murderers and . . . it's kind of amazing to me, because so much of the media is Jewish....
[T]here's a deep-seated self-hatred, especially [among] the New York City elite media.
They want to show they're not Jewish by being anti-Israel, and it's not going to work. We know they're Jewish and we know that they're not being fair to their own people, but they'll keep doing it...
Every story about the war in Gaza should begin with 'Hamas started it, Hamas endlessly refuses to have a ceasefire.'
Hamas could have an incredibly prosperous and happy, peaceful partnership with Israel, and they don't, they prefer to fight, they prefer to kill....''
Now, they might seem naive and innocuous enough, but these protesters  (see the videos here and here and here and here) disrupting in relays a fundraising dinner for Israel at the Chicago Hilton on 21 August, at which the city's mayor Rahm Emanuel and Michael Oren (Israel's ex-ambassador to the United States) spoke, are representatives of an odious organisation which effectively gives aid and comfort to Hamas: the bizarrely-named "Jewish Voice For Peace" (JVP).

Bizarrely-named, because as the heading to an article dated 20 August by Yitzhak Santis, Chief Programs Officer at Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor (where he directs the “BDS in the Pews” project) declares
 "Jews abetting Hamas are no voice for peace".

Rooting for the enemy
Sinisterly, JVP keeps its source or sources of funding firmly under wraps; needless to say, if we knew who finances it we would know who pulls its strings.

Writes Santis inter alia:
 '... JVP’s executive director, Rebecca Vilkomerson, describes her group as “the Jewish wing of the [Palestinian solidarity] movement,” with the mission “to facilitate conversations inside the Jewish community… [to] put that wedge in, saying the Jewish community’s not agreeing on these issues.”
 That’s it. JVP seeks to divide American Jews—Israel’s main foundation of international support—so as to reduce or eliminate U.S. backing for Israel for the benefit of Israel’s enemies.  
Undermining Israel ...
JVP is part of the international NGO “soft power” war, whose unrelenting attacks on Israel’s right to self-defense ultimately aid Hamas.
 This global political warfare strategy includes sustained delegitimization campaigns, BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions), and promoting a “right of return” for Palestinians, which means dismantling Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
... every step ...
 It partners with a wide coterie of radical leftist, Islamist, and Arab ultra-nationalist groups to promote its program. When asked, JVP states that they are “agnostic” about a two-state solution. But that is a smokescreen. The group’s actions demonstrate a clear anti-Israel agenda. [Emphasis added here and below]
A JVP contingent marched at a July 12 “peace” demonstration in San Francisco, where “anti-war” protesters waved Hamas banners and burned an Israeli flag while chanting in Arabic “Ya Hamas, ya habib, udrub, udrub Tel Abib!” (Oh, dear Hamas, strike a blow at Tel Aviv!)  Signs read, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” “From Gaza to Ramallah Forever Intifada,” and “F*** Zionism!” The rally’s advertising demanded an “end to US aid to Israel and to Zionist rule over Palestine.”
... of the way ...
In Los Angeles, JVP teamed up with American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) to “put on a massive die-in street theater.” AMP’s website refers to Hamas as a “Palestinian resistance group.”  In Detroit, JVP protested for the release of convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh....
JVP calls the current conflict with Hamas “Israel’s war on civilians”—which follows Hamas PR guidelines to describe “anyone killed or martyred” as “a civilian from Gaza or Palestine.”  JVP demands an “end [to] the siege on Gaza,” a central Hamas demand. JVP insists the U.S. “suspend military aid to Israel,” which would also benefit Hamas and other jihadist terrorists. Finally, when JVP supports the call to “Stand Against Zionism Everywhere,” it is clear whose water they are carrying. JVP stands unmasked as anything but a voice for peace.'
Read the entire article (with its links) here 

Monday, 25 August 2014

"O, Scoundrels, Let Me Deliver A Personal Message To You..." (video)

"We are preparing for you an army you cannot match ... to die for the sake of Allah"

With bloodcurdling ferocity a Hamas cleric promises Jihad against the Zionist Entity:

Meanwhile, regarding Australia ...

Sunday, 24 August 2014

Hamas/ISIS: The Blind & The Unblinkered

From the lefty Frontline Club's website: http://www.frontlineclub.com/first-wednesday-16/
We are informed by BBC Watch:
'On September 3rd the Frontline Club – with which the BBC frequently collaborates – will be hosting an event titled “Reporting the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict – Emotion, Bias and Objectivity” which we are informed is already fully booked.
The topic of discussion is promoted as follows:
“The latest chapter in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has again highlighted the difficulties of covering this complex and deep-rooted conflict that provokes such a strong emotional response from the general public.
The BBC has faced accusation that it is not critical enough of Israel’s actions and that its reporting is one-sided, whereas Channel 4 News has been accused of crossing the line between journalism and campaigning. Is there a middle ground?
In the face of such devastation should we expect correspondents to offer an objective view devoid of emotion? If we encourage correspondents to show more emotion do we risk compromising the credibility and standard of journalism in this country?
Join us as we take a view of the coverage we have seen, talk to the journalists that have produced it and ask what we can learn.”
On the panel selected to provide answers to those questions are Jeremy ‘I see no human shields’ Bowen and Channel 4’s Jon Snow.
 The discussion would doubtless be enhanced were Bowen  (along with his colleague Orla Guerin) to take the trouble to brush up beforehand on the topic of Hamas’ use of human shields and that policy’s role in causing so many of the civilian casualties which he graphically reported during his recent stint in the Gaza strip....' 
But it is not only regarding the existence of human shields in Gaza that the BBC has turned a blind eye.  Beeboids (as the BiasedBBC website has long termed the Corporation's employees) have also chosen to ignore Hamas's similarities to Isis.

The incorrigibly biased Jon Donnison (pictured) might well practise an Orla Guerin-like scowl. For Al Beeb's erstwhile correspondent in Gaza, who's now their man in Australia but who was flown back to his old stomping ground during the present crisis, where he proved just as one-sided as before, has received many a thoroughly deserved, humiliating thrashing from BBCWatch's Hadar Sela.

That highly intelligent Israeli,with her thorough grounding in Israeli history and affairs, her sound knowledge of regional geopolitics, her gift for the written world, and her astuteness, has shown up Donnison's mediocrity, ignorance, and prejudice many times.

See, for example, here and here and here and here

And, not unnaturally, Donnison doesn't like the besting one bit: witness the recent spiteful trying-to-put-a-brave-face-on-things sour grapes tweet below:

Not that being shown up prevents Donnison from persisting in his offences against the BBC Charter and producers' guidelines or motivates his employer to rein him in.  Nor did his egregious bias prevent him from winning a Radio Academy Silver Sony Award for radio journalism of the year for his coverage of the 2012 Gaza/Israel War.

His bias is so overt and so pervasive that it is hardly surprising that some Israel supporters wonder whether this former reporter for BBC Radio Sheffield, who studied French and politics at the University of Edinburgh, was once a member of or influenced in some way by a Palestine Solidarity Campaign branch. 

And like the BBC's biased Jerusalem Bureau chief Paul Danaher, Donnison, who does nothing to conceal his disdain for the Israeli prime minister, on Twitter has pooh-pooed Netanyahu's analogy between Hamas and Isis, and mocked aspects of Netanyahu's postings.  Here's a taste:

Here's a man who could teach Danahar and Donnison much, the exiled Jordanian Palestinian leader Mudar Zahran, who's been visiting Bethlehem at some risk to himself.

This brave pro-Israel figure (if you're on Facebook and/or Twitter please consider following him, for he deserves a wide audience) is a practising Muslim who pulls no punches in condemning the evil that Islamic extremists do.

Moreover, CiF Watch, who reponded to this insolent peevish tweet by Donnison

by pointing out that the true disrespect is Donnison's anti-Israel bias, has many graphic examples that validate the Hamas/ISIS analogy:

Novelist Noah Beck shows that  
'Hamas and ISIS are birds of a feather, but the Western political class and media have very different approaches to them. Here, Hamas offers some friendly advice to ISIS on how to wrap the West around their little finger'
which is a follow-up to his previous piece here

As  distinguished American political scientist Michael Curtis has written:
'The clue to the intentions of Hamas is given in the Hamas Charter of 1988, a mixture of anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. Using the Avalon Project translation of the Charter or Covenant, one can discern the stated objectives of Hamas. Only a few selections, sometimes in oblique language, are necessary to understand this.
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it. Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, "There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."
The Hamas Charter gives an answer to all the well-meaning groups and individuals who call for a peace conference. It declares that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. Rejecting calls for an international conference to solve the “Palestinian” question, it declares that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.
Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and are vain endeavors.
The mass media will perhaps be surprised to learn from the Charter that Jews have taken control of the world media, news agencies, publishing houses, and broadcasting stations. Objective historians may be surprised that Jews have stirred revolutions in various parts of the world and were behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, and most others. All this for “sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests.”
The Charter informs us of future developments. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Islamic Resistance Movement must prevent this, and to leave the “circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason.”
The question arises: can members of Hamas, who believe that the “Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the earth,” be genuinely interested in any possible reconciliation with Israel when destruction of the Jewish state is at the core of their concern?'
 Nevertheless, despite the equally bloodthirsty approach of both Hamas and Isis, their priorities, according to this article by Iranian Ali Mamouri, differ with regard to the Zionist Entity:

 ....'Salafists believe that jihad must be performed under legitimate leadership.... Given that there is neither a legitimate leader nor a Salafist-approved declaration of jihad in Palestine, fighting there is forbidden.
In addition, for Salafists, if non-Muslims control Islamic countries and apostates exist in the Islamic world, the Islamic world must be cleansed of them before all else. In short, the purification of Islamic society takes priority over combat against non-Islamic societies. On this basis, Salafists see conflict with an allegedly illegitimate Hamas government as a first step toward confrontation with Israel. Should the opportunity for military action present itself in the Palestinian territories, Salafists would fight Hamas and other factions deemed in need of “cleansing” from the land and engage Israel afterward....
Salafists today see that their priority as fighting Shiites, “munafiqin” (dissemblers, or false Muslims) and apostates, whom they call the “close enemy.” During the current war in Gaza, a number of IS fighters have burned the Palestinian flag because they consider it a symbol of the decline of the Islamic world, which succumbed to national divisions through the creation of independent political states. In Salafist doctrine, the entire Islamic world must be united under a single state, an Islamic caliphate, which IS declared in late June.
Salafist groups active in Gaza have engaged in various rivalries with Hamas there, but they have not succeeded in establishing a foothold of any significance. Some groups have posted video clips acknowledging their support for IS following the group’s recent victories in Iraq and Syria. The main dispute between Hamas and Salafist groups rests on their disparate principles. Hamas is more realistic and pragmatic than the jihadist Salafists. The former has political priorities in liberating Palestinian land, whereas the latter has religious priorities in the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic caliphate and considers the Israeli issue secondary to this central goal.'

 But to quote from another fine piece by Michael Curtis:
'....Along with the Muslim Brotherhood, [ISIS and Hamas] are Islamic extremist groups, violent in their ruthless pursuit of objectives – ISIS to create a caliphate empire, and Hamas to eliminate the State of Israel.
The brutality of ISIS, now transformed into an Islamic state with a caliph, is apparent after its conquest of about a third of Syria, including the oil-rich eastern part, and much of north and central Iraq. Its ruthlessness and brutality are well-documented. That ruthlessness includes making decapitation an art form, executing dozens of Iraqi security forces, and cutting heads of Syrians.
It has imposed sharia law, banned music, separated boys and girls in school, and forced women to wear the niqab, or full veil....
Though the Obama administration has not proposed this, the present conflict provides the opportunity for the existing semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan, set up in 2005, to be transformed into a Kurdish state, long overdue since promised by Britain and France in 1920.
 If the Western democracies appeared for too long to be unaware of the scale of the danger of Islamist ISIS, many, especially those in the mainstream media and the churches, seem equally oblivious to the real nature and danger of Hamas.  
They have not accepted that the real contemporary struggle is between an extreme and regressive Islamist group, linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and interested in the killing of Jews and the creation of a caliphate state, and the existence and survival of democratic Israel....
There is now little doubt that much of the hostility against Israel has been transformed into prejudicial anti-Semitism. The level of violence and the number of attacks on individual Jews and Jewish institutions, synagogues, school, stores, Holocaust memorials, and cultural events has made those institutions resemble armed fortresses. A crowd mentality of hatred has made decent individuals afraid to speak out....
Western public opinion, the media, and the academic world should recognize the existing struggle between an Islamist threat that would end the tolerance and civil liberties in the societies its forces might control, and democratic countries, with all their faults and problems, trying to resist that threat.
The choice should not be difficult, even for the New York Times.  It certainly should not be suicide. '
 Read the entire article here

 As for Aussie Muslims who support ISIS, and the attitude to such goings-on by certain leftists, read Andrew Bolt here