John Kerry's Departing Speech

After having heard John Kerry’s speech as objectively as possible, I concluded  that it was NOT anti Israel but anti settlement in the occupied territories. He viewed the settlements as an impediment to the Two-State solution.

Kerry laid out his vision for a Two State Solution and its advantages for peace on both sides. Many Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the Arab League, have stated that they would accept a two-state solution based on 1949 Armistice Agreements, more commonly referred to as the "1967 borders" [1 ]

Only a biased person can interpret the speech as hostile to Israel. He made a number of salient points, which were obvious and could be accepted by reasonable minded people. Kerry is one of the few diplomats in the Obama Administration that has knowledge of the conflict. He has been involved in trying to facilitate talks between Israel and the Palestinians under Obama’s tenure for many years. Unfortunately his efforts had failed for a number reasons, some of which are mentioned later in this article.

He is aware of the pitfalls and the severe problems involved. There was no hostility to Israel in Kerry’s delivery although one can sense a tinge of disillusionment and failure in achieving the goal of a Two State Solution. He saw the settlements as holes as in Swiss cheese that render the Two State Solution not viable.

He criticized the Israeli Government for this situation making the Two State solution impossible to achieve. A One State Solution would be bad for both parties and would only increase violence between both sides as well as threatening Israel’s democracy. He admitted that Israel has the most right wing Government in its history. The speech was a speech of disillusionment that spelt out doom if the Two State solution is abandoned.U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled broad guidelines Wednesday for an eventual peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, warning that a two-state solution to the conflict is in "serious jeopardy." [2]

The speech spelt out dangers for both peoples because of the settlements and their expansion by the Israeli Government.

Kerry failed to enlarge on the reasons why negotiations failed.There are no partners for peace negotiations. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas has its hands tied by Hamas, who is against any form of negotiation with Israel. They view Israel as occupied territory since its establishment.  If Abbas signs a peace treaty with Israel it will be “off with his head” as in Lewis Carroll’s Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, (published 1865), The Queen of Hearts shrieks the phrase several times in the story - in fact she doesn't say a great deal else:

The players all played at once without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting' Off with his head!' or 'Off with her head!' about once in a minute.

Apart from that, all that Abbas can do is to utter hostile rhetoric against Israel on its intransigence. By doing this, he can drum up support against Israel and thus save his own skin by not signing any peace treaty with Israel.

Meanwhile both Hamas and the PA are raking in the cash from foreign donations for the Palestinians into their leaderships’ foreign bank accounts. They plead poverty blaming Israel for its intransigence and lack of progress while they themselves are becoming wealthy under the occupation. This is their livelihood. The eternal negotiator since the Madrid Conference of 1991, Saeb Erekat, is a professional negotiator and not doing badly out of it financially.

John Kerry seems to be devoid of reality and this reflects in his departure speech. He said the right things that are true and really indisputable. He condemned terror in general terms as if it's the settlements that promote it.

Even if there were no settlements in the occupied territory as was the case prior to the June 1967 War, an excuse will be found as it was then to destroy Israel. The problem between Israel and the Palestinians is existential. One needs to read the hate propaganda against Israel even before the Six Day War of 1967 to understand that. The Palestinian education system is full of anti-Israel hate as well as being anti-Semitic. The conflict is not only about land but about religion as well. In this respect, Daesh and Hamas share similar goals. It is unfortunate that Kerry did not touch on this subject in his speech as it really is the root course of the conflict. The settlements in the occupied territories is an added factor of course but the basic hate for Israel even existed before the occupation.

Businesses also play a vital role in sustaining the settlements, thereby facilitating and benefiting from Israel's violation of the international law prohibition on an occupying power transferring its civilian population into occupied territory and contributing to Israel's discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank. [3]

Israel under PMs Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, and Yitzhak Rabin did make serious attempts at peace, including land swaps, which the Palestinian leadership rejected. It is a pity that Kerry did not mention these. The freezing of settlement activity by PM Netanyahu for 10 months on November 25th 2009 was cosmetic and can be taken with a pinch of salt. The Palestinians were zig -zagging all the time by disagreeing with every Israeli proposal that Kerry avoided mentioning in his speech. He failed to recognize that the Palestinians do not recognize Israel's right to exist. It was all a show over the years. If they did, progress could have been made and even land swaps initiated to end the occupation and achieve a solution. This is the cold reality. Now with Hamas involved in Palestinian Street, the emphasis on non recognition of Israel is even more blatant. Now we have a dangerous stalemate, which will lead to more violence between Israel and the Palestinians with the Two-State solution receding from reality.

It is no use crying over spilt milk, but had there not been settlements established after 1967 and had Israel declared these occupied territories a closed military zone totally settlement free, Israel would not have been accused of colonizing territories and its credibility would be high as well as gaining world support as was the case prior to 1967. The occupied territories would be held as a trump (not to be confused with US President-Elect Donald Trump) card for a true peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians. The world would have pressurized the Arab countries and the Palestinians to make peace with Israel and the Two-State Solution would have had a chance of becoming a reality.

Rightly or wrongly, world support is always against the conqueror and for the conquered. The Palestinians are viewed as the conquered.

All that remains is to see how President-elect, Donald Trump will handle the situation and if he will stick to his pledge of being more settler-friendly. This is the last great hope of PM Netanyahu after he had been spraying invective against those who voted against the settlements and the US, who had abstained in UN Security Council Assembly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution. Accessed 30 Dec. 2016.

[2] http://www.voanews.com/a/kerry-to-outline-us-vision-for-israeli-palestinian-accord/3653728.html. Accessed 30 Dec. 2016.

[3] https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/19/occupation-inc/how-settlement-businesses-contribute-israels-violations-palestinian. Accessed 31 Dec. 2016.

Related articles

• EU still behind two-state solution for Palestinian-Israel peace but right-wing resolve hardening
• What Kerry Should Have Said
• Netanyahu is rallying Israelis against Obama and the UN
• After Backlash From Israel, Kerry Argues Alliances Need 'Hard Truths'
• Kerry threatens support for UN action against Israel

Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism in the British Labor Party or Both?

It is not customary for me to write about foreign political parties or get involved in their policies. However in the case of the British Labor Party some very worrying developments have occurred amongst some of its members that gives grave cause for concern. Individual members of this party have come out with statements that go beyond anti-Zionism and moving towards delegitimizing Israel.

Jeremy Corbyn

We must bear in mind that this phenomenon has been latent in the post-Tony Blair years especially. It has given expression in party members electing Jeremy Corbyn as their party leader by a sizeable majority. He has made some very problematic statements that point in a direction of affinity for Hamas and Hezbollah.

The following comes from The Guardian 13^th August 2015:

“There is Corbyn’s apparent proximity to anti-Semitism. While I genuinely believe that Corbyn does not have an anti-Semitic bone in his body, he does have a proclivity for sharing platforms with individuals who do; and his excuses for doing so do not stand up.

Take the fact that Corbyn once described it as his “honour and pleasure” to host “our friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah in parliament. According to Corbyn, he extended his invitation to the aforementioned groups – and spoke of them glowingly – because all sides need to be involved in the peace process.

Ken Livingstone

So far, so reasonable. Yet negotiation is not on Hamas’s agenda, as Corbyn ought to know. In its charter Hamas states: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.”

Most of us in Israel are in favor of  negotiations with Hamas and Hezbollah in order to reach a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in the widest possible terms. This unfortunately is not the case of Hamas and Hezbollah. They have closed every door to any possible negotiation with Israel on any form of solution to the conflict. Their actions of hostility and terror towards Israel over the years are proof of that. Describing these two terrorist organizations as “friends” of Jeremy Corbyn in his own words is cynical and raises many questions of the Labor leader’s understanding of the dynamics of irreversible hate for Israel. Gorbyn’s attitude towards Israel has many questions that remain unanswered. Much is left to interpretation by many of his own party members, who have taken it a step further towards anti-Israel statements that have also slipped towards an anti-Semitic direction.

Anti-Zionists have always existed amongst the Jewish People. They have given many academic arguments against Zionism. Some points that Jewish anti-Zionist philosophy academics have made are certainly not anti-Semitic even though the methodology that they have used in arriving to their conclusions is questionable, including their sources of information.  

However having said this, there is a trend within the Labor Party for anti-Semites to climb the band wagon of anti-Zionism for delegitimizing Israel for its so-called human rights abuses against Palestinians under occupation and settler expansion in the territories. Israel is by no means perfect and criticism of the Israeli Government attitude towards the occupation is legitimate and desirable. PM Netanyahu’s statement that Israel must be recognized as the nation state of the Jewish People rather than the state of all Israel’s citizens does add a question mark as to the status of the non-Jewish minorities and sounds very exclusive, rather than including them as an integral part of Israel. It does not mean that those who criticize Israel Government policy towards the Palestinians are anti-Semitic or even anti-Zionist and delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.

Jeremy Corbyn has opened the anti-Semitic Pandora Box within the Labor Party and the anti-Semitic genie has jumped out. He realizes that it will boomerang against the Labor Party. He is now applying a band-aid by suspending 50 Labor members suspected of anti-Semitism.

Two stalwarts of the Labor Party, Ken Livingstone, who was Mayor of London, and George Galloway, an ex-Labor MP, have made disparaging comments about Israel and the Jewish People that leave no doubt of their rabid anti-Semitism.  

It boggles the mind how many Labor Party members are going down xenophobic street, punting for the Palestinians and making comments against Israel that have anti-Semitic overtones as well. A party that claims to fight racism seems to be going soft on anti-Semitism. How can the Labor Party support a Palestinian leadership that is enriching itself on the tragedies of the Palestinian People? Hamas wealth is well documented. The leader, Khaled Maashal is a multimillionaire; Ismail Hanniyeh and Musa Marzook are all in comfortable, luscious exile. They use their people in fighting wars and committing terrorist acts against Israel.

 During the Gaza War in July-August 2014, they were not in Gaza to be near their people. They were either in luxurious hotels in Qatar or in bunkers. The long suffering Palestinian People took the flack as their wealthy, despotic leadership led them to disaster. Their rhetoric during the war was conspicuous by its total absence. Only when the war was over did this cowardly enriched mob surface as if they were victorious over Israel with their hateful rhetoric and mantras based on nothing but their fantasies.

Is this the kind of despotic, undemocratic Palestinian regime that the Labor Party supports in order to get at Israel? Are these wealthy Hamas despots “friends” of Jeremy Corbyn? Are they going to lead the Palestinians to a democratic state where human rights exist? Many of these so-called double-standard left wing hypocritical, human rights activists will say that any truth written about Hamas, Hezbollah and their Islamist terrorist allies is nothing but Israeli and Zionist propaganda. It does not suit their ideology. They believe that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes a truth. In this, the “socialist” ideology of Labor resembles the Stalin-Hitler tactics of deception.

The downhill slide of the British Labor Party into an abyss of anti-Semitism bodes evil for the party and it does not dovetail with its socialist ideology that is against xenophobia in all its forms. Jeremy Corbyn must be held accountable for this negative development within the party. If the Labor members do not work to replace him, the anti-Semitic stain will remain in the party for many years and their chances of winning an election will be remote.

Related articles

• Listen: Ken Livingstone comes to Naz Shah's defence
• Labour faces anti-Semitism storm as MP Naz Shah suspended
• British MP Suspended from Labour Party After Saying Israel Should Be Moved to U.S.
• Major Labour donor withdraws support amid anti-Semitism scandal
• Britain's Labour Party suspends anti-Semitic columnist from Ireland

Recognizing Israel's Right to Exist

nakba woman jug 1948 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The last few articles written on this blog were devoted to the feasibility of ending the occupation as well as a possible scenario that could occur if Israel would end the occupation and withdraw from territories occupied in the Six Day June 1967 War. It is really a vicious circle and we always seem to return to the same problem. The problem of the inability of the Arab States to recognize Israel's right to exist is an engraved mantra going back over 100 years. It is NOT the occupation since the Six Day June War of 1967. As mentioned in previous articles, wars were fought prior to the Six Day War. History has illustrated this. The occupation is a result of a Israel's strike against Egypt as Egypt had closed the Tiran Straits to Israel's shipping after ordering the UN to remove its UNICEF from there.  Jordan and Syria joined Egypt in an attempt to destroy Israel. Israel could not afford to lose this war. Had Israel lost, it would cease to exist.

If we go back before the establishment of Israel in 1948, we notice that the Arabs were consistent in a rejectionist attitude towards the establishment of a Jewish state in their midst. When Israel was established on 14 May 1948, the Arabs referred to it as Al Naqba - the Catastrophe, and since then wars were fought against Israel in an attempt to destroy the Jewish State.

The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict reveals 24 major junctures when compromise was offered since the 1920s, dating from pre-state, League of Nations Mandate to the present time. Plan after plan, including patently pro-Arab proposals, were put on the table. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, 15 agreements and memorandums have been signed. 

If we examine the history of this conflict, it is not difficult to realize that the conflict did not begin with the occupation of 1967 but many years before Israel's establishment. The emphasis on the occupation being the cause of the conflict is simply because of political interests and the desire to delegitimize Israel. This does not mean that the "occupation" is justified if it allows Jewish settlements. After all, it is disputed territory. Establishing settlements simply weakens Israel's case in that it turns Israel into an occupying and colonizing power on the ground, ruling a people that are hostile.

Today with the uncompromising attitude of Hamas, the duplicity of the PA, and the radical changes in the Arab environment around Israel, including Daesh (ISIS) and various other Islamist terror groups, creates great instability. This is not conducive to solving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Peace negotiations between the two sides are moribund. 

It is obvious, despite the very bleak situation that a solution to this conflict lies in negotiations between the warring parties. Hamas has closed the doors to that and the PA has no authority to jump start negotiations without Hamas support, which will just not happen under the present environment.

Maybe there is another way of facilitating the initiation of negotiations. A hint of this could perhaps come from the Joint List in the Knesset. They are in an ideal position to be mediators or facilitators. These Knesset members speak Arabic and Hebrew fluently. They support the Two-State Solution, interact with Israelis and understand the Palestinian position. They also do have Palestinian support in the West Bank. This mediation position that they could take stands a greater chance of success towards solving the conflict than if a third country, ignorant of the Palestinian and Israeli psyche, would ever have. Giving the Joint List more responsibility in peace negotiations has never been tried and perhaps there is a possibility that they can really play a positive role. 

The Joint List is composed of an alliance of Balad, Hadash, Ta'al and the United Arab List (the southern branch of the Islamic Movement). Balad is the most radical partner in this list. Three MK's from this list, Hanin Zoabi, Jamal Zahalka and Basel Ghattas, visited the parents of the terrorists, who stabbed and killed innocent Israelis, to sympathies with them and stood in silence as a mark of respect for these "shuhada (martyrs)". The excuse was to negotiate the return of their corpses for burial in the territories. When interviewed over TV Arutz 2, Jamal Zahalka, said that he viewed the stabbings and killings of innocent people whether Jewish or Palestinian as "Victims of the Occupation". (This interview is in Hebrew) He did express his disapproval of murdering innocent people for what it is worth. One may argue as to what the occupation is - whether it is the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as appears in the Hamas Charter or the territories occupied in June 1967 War. The Joint List does support the Two-State Solution, so it does recognize Israel's right to exist. 

The avoidance by the Palestinian Leadership of critical issues over many years of dead-end negotiations is because they cannot come to terms with Israel's existence. It is perhaps on these issues that the Joint List has the potential of being a facilitator in future peace negotiations. The issues are so crucial for both Israelis and Palestinians and lack of vision for new ideas on both sides do not give much promise on making peace. The Joint List option could be a new direction that may produce positive results as they are not viewed as enemies of the Palestinian people in the PA-Hamas controlled areas. The Joint List, even though they are regarded with suspicion and the action of the three MK's mentioned was not productive, created further animosity as a really bad tactic that was unnecessary and achieved nothing. After the hype of this unfortunate meeting will blow over and the possibility of Joint List participation in bridging the wide gaps between the two sides can be given more serious consideration.

Related articles

• The Demise of the Two-State Solution and Israel's Culpability
• Is it Feasible to End the Occupation?
• BBC News promotes 'one-state' stepping stone and political messaging

Dilemma - Possible Human Rights Abuse or anti-Israel Activity?

Lately there have been a lot of emotional discussions as to whether the NGO - Breaking the Silence - is investigating soldiers’ testimonies on human rights abuses of the IDF on a defenseless, innocent Palestinian population and using these testimonies to bash Israel internationally. There are people, who define the activities of Breaking the Silence as treasonable or treacherous. Those who do so have no understanding of the word “treason”

This word has been used colloquially in Israel to label anybody who does not agree with the Netanyahu Coalition Government line. Netanyahu Coalition pundits are giving “treason” a very wide definition, encompassing those who oppose the government line. Labeling Breaking the Silence and weakening their activity by passing laws that are close to outlawing them is detrimental to Israel’s vibrant democracy.

Breaking the Silence does pose a problem as it can be viewed in two ways:

1. It can be viewed as a watchdog for upholding human rights of innocent Palestinians in a war situation where Israeli soldiers enter Palestinian homes with search warrants for weapons or signs of hostility and prevention of looting by IDF.
2. It can be viewed as an NGO whose main purpose is to gain testimony from soldiers, who had served in the various campaigns in Gaza, claiming human rights abuse that are made public, even to countries who seek every opportunity to bash Israel on these issues. Hostile countries do wait for opportunities like this.  

Testimonies of soldiers made public are also available to those, who are hostile to Israel. This, unfortunately, is the price that is paid by a democratic country - the price of openness. This does not negate the importance of watchdog activity by an NGO such as Breaking the Silence. It is no less important that the IDF does examine itself in this sphere, despite the problems, and establish a committee to investigate the authenticity of these soldiers’ testimonies. It is not enough to say that “The IDF is the most moral army in the world.” The function of human rights NGO is to ensure that this statement remains true. This does not mean that all those, who serve in the IDF, have committed crimes against innocent Palestinians.  

If high ranking generals in the IDF, who had served with distinction, such as General Amiram Levin, support Breaking the Silence, we must bear in mind that they know what they are talking about. I do respect the high ranking officers’ decision in supporting Breaking the Silence. If these generals feel the importance of this NGO, who are we to question.   These high ranking generals are not traitors to Israel. They held responsible positions in the IDF and in the intelligence service as well as being entrusted with state secrets. In an ad in the liberal Haaretz daily titled “I too am breaking my silence,” former Shin Bet security service director and navy commander Maj. Gen. (res.) Ami Ayalon, and retired Northern District police chief Deputy Commissioner (ret.) Elik Ron wrote that Breaking the Silence, which is at the center of a fierce debate on the limits of free speech in Israel, strengthens the IDF and its morality.

Most human rights NGOs receive funds from the EU, US and some countries who have a political agenda against Israel. The NGOs involved in pro-Israeli government activities such as Im Tirtzu and other pro-settlement activity beyond the green line, receive funding from private donors (or “philanthropists” such as Irwin Moskowitz) as well as government subsidies. (In 2009, Im Tirtzu’s largest donor was the John Hagee Ministries (JHM) via the Christian-Zionist organization Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Im Tirtzu received US$100,000 from JHM and $34,000 from other sources. In 2010, The Jerusalem Post reported that JHM "expressed deep displeasure" with Im Tirtzu after its campaigns against the New Israel Fund and Ben-Gurion University and announced the cessation of its funding. A JHM spokesman said that Im Tirtzu "misrepresented its focus when they told us their mission was strictly Zionist education."^[55]

The group's spokesperson, Erez Tadmor, was found guilty of embezzling munitions from the Israeli military.^[56]

The organization was accused of acting in an Anti-Semitic fashion, including emulating Nazi propaganda, in its criticisms of U.S. Ambassador Martin Indyk and of the New Israel Fund.^{[57][58]  From Wikipedia )}

All NGOs, irrespective of political leanings, accept donations from any source sympathetic to the causes they represent. They are not concerned with the origin of donors’ funds. The main point is that the sources should be transparent and be held accountable for the amount of money they donate.

Another evil, racist organization, Lehava, is also involved in preventing assimilation of Jews in Israel with Arabs. They are more militant in contrast to Bayit Hayehudi of its leader, Naftali Bennett, and now the Minister of Education. The latter wants to instil a religious right wing Zionist education in the Department of Education and prevent students from gaining access to books or novels that are about intermarriage between Arabs and Jews. Here the similarity to the Lehava ideology is blatant.

In a democratic country, education should be non-political. Healthy discussion with responsible, objective moderation should be encouraged. The same is true of Breaking the Silence. There should be NGO monitoring of activities (not concerned with security secrets) in the IDF as well as the government law-making process to ensure that democratic values and transparency remains paramount. 

The Bias and Hypocrisy of the UNHRC

ISIS Savages

What has happened to the UN? So many cruel incidents are occurring in the Middle East today and one would expect that the UN would play a more active role in condemning the Islamist terrorist movements that have mushroomed over the last 45 years. Instead, Islamist terrorist movements had started off as “freedom movements” fighting against the Israeli Occupation since June 1967 under various guises - such as hijacking civil air flights, terrorizing passengers and holding them hostage as well as shooting innocent people. This had “revolutionized” to the Trade Centre Twin Tower Tragedy committed by Al Qaeda on 11th Sept, 2001 as well as many other mega terror operations under radical Islamist groups such as Al Qaeda and their proxies. The incidents of terrorist activity against innocent people spread through Europe and the rest of the world like a cancer, exacting a high cost in innocent lives. The list of Islamist terrorist acts continues unhindered and increases on an almost daily basis.

More victims of ISIS. The organization is parading their murders as a means of intimidating

This does not seem to perturb most UN members and their pathetic lackey the hypocritical, double-standard UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Not a word from these “reputable” international bodies of any condemnation of the massacres occurring in the Middle East and in Africa. ISIS, the most evil and cruel representative of Islamist terror on earth, has an almost free reign to do exactly as they wish. Their aim is to establish an Islamist Caliphate in every state that they conquer by using the cruelest, satanic methods that boggles the imagination. The UN and the UNHRC are so involved in condemning Israel for defending itself against Hamas terror during Operation Protective Edge that it gives the ISIS savages the green light to massacre their opponents at will all over the world. The UN should hang its head in shame as well as their disgusting UNHRC. These world bodies allow ISIS a free hand to behead and pillage at will. This incredible apathy sends out a signal to the world that they are accomplices to terror committed by Islamist terror groups by gunning for Israel all the time with their Operation Protective Shield Report on the Gaza War of July-August 2014.

Hamas was not condemned for their terrorism against Israel or for starting the war as strongly as Israel was blamed for defending itself against Hamas terror. This is a sign of weakness on the part of those illustrious legal professionals, who compiled this report. Its worth is that of human feces, as it is written in “unbiased” legalese verbosity. The message that it sends out is one of almost total indifference to Hamas terror and even ISIS terror. ISIS is waiting on the borders of Gaza to form a coalition with Hamas. They now have the support” from many UN members to “free Gaza” and the right to establish an Islamist Caliphate there together with Hamas. It will not stop in Gaza but will threaten Israel as well. There are signs that ISIS and Hamas are cooperating, although it may be a bit premature to confirm this despite Hamas denials. The credibility of Hamas is poor so it could be a strong possibility. Both terrorist groups have similar goals and the ill-fated flotilla from Sweden that did not succeed in breaking the Gaza blockade is actually serving the Hamas-ISIS axis.

ISIS is threatening not only the US, EU and the Arab states, but the whole world. They are taking over large areas of territory in Syria, Iraq, Libya and they have proxies in Nigeria called Boko Haram that are slaughtering and kidnapping people. As usual, the world under the UN umbrella remains indifferent. All seem so concerned to enforce BDS against Israel to worry about the terrible massacres and cruelties of ISIS and Hamas.

Many imams in the heart of Europe are brainwashing non-Muslims from their mosques to join ISIS and the fight against these evil imams is not effective.

Why does the world not wake up and form a united coalition to destroy ISIS that is threatening not only the Middle East but the Western World as well? These savages are hardly curtailed in their blood-lust to establish a Caliphate. If the UN does not take a stand against these ISIS savages, they are culprits no less than ISIS. The UN members are too involved in bashing Israel. Under an ISIS-Hamas caliphate, many Palestinians will be slaughtered for not holding the ISIS world view. The only nation that unfortunately has no state and is putting up a courageous fight against ISIS is the Kurds. They have more balls than Europe and their wimpish leadership and the US together. They have still not tasted the coffee in the Middle East.

Related articles

• Netanyahu vs. UN: Israeli PM slams UNHRC after its report ratified
• UN Human Rights Council? UN Human Wrongs Council!
• Israel defends Gaza conflict as 'moral war'
• Judge Davis: Israel Must Stop the Use of Military Force
• Report: In 9 Years' Existence, UNHRC Condemned Israel More Times Than Rest of World Combined