Bernie is better than Hillary on racial issues

There was once a time on Twitter when bringing up Obama’s warmongering and widespread NSA surveillance got you labeled a “white dudebro.” Today these same people are doing everything they can to give Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination through the use of weaponized Sociology 101 terms and she gave them a brief shout-out at her speech in Harlem.

The current Narrative is this: Bernie Sanders is a racially aloof white man who cares too much about economic issues and will somehow screw over the black community specifically. There is plenty to be frustrated with Bernie Sanders about, he is after all a right-social democrat, not a socialist as he often claims. It’s also hard to deny that he can come across as awkward and not “with it” (as if Hillary is?). But many of his loudest detractors are not even hiding their affinity for Team Hillary anymore. It can be a frustrating spectacle to watch as Bernie is put through the ringer by neo-liberal and pro-war shills who cynically exploit misread buzzwords like “intersectionality” to make themselves look like radicals rather than the reactionaries they are. Beyond all this bluster there is a noticeable lack of discussion of one thing: the actual policy proposals of both candidates. You would think this would be the most obvious thing to discuss, but we live in an age when style’s triumph over substance is outright celebrated in pseudo-intellectual think pieces rather than bemoaned.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to racial issues, Bernie is indeed far superior to Hillary. Let me list a few of the differences in the racial justice pages on both their campaign sites:

Bernie Sanders is much more serious about combating police brutality
Hillary’s plan on police reform reads like a vague “let’s work together” statement that would put little to no pressure on police departments and their officers to stop abusing people. Admittedly, Bernie has many of the same tame ideas as Hillary such as body cameras and investments in “community policing” (*cringe*). But his page also asserts that:

We must ensure police departments are not abusing avenues of due process to shield bad actors from accountability. Local governments and police management must show zero tolerance for abuses of police power at all levels. All employees of any kind deserve due process protections, but it must be clear that departments will vigorously investigate and, if necessary, prosecute every allegation of wrongdoing to the fullest extent.

Police departments must investigate all allegations of wrongdoing, especially those involving the use of force, and prosecute aggressively, if necessary. If departments are unwilling or unable to conduct such investigations, the Department of Justice must step in and handle it for them. 

States and localities that make progress in this area should get more federal justice grant money. Those that do not should get their funding slashed. 

By contrast, Hillary’s statement on police reform reads like someone unwilling to rock the boat:

Strengthen bonds of trust between communities and police. African American men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men found guilty of the same offenses. From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable. Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that. Hillary believes that effective policing and constitutional policing go hand-in-hand—we can and must do both. As president, Hillary will invest in law enforcement training programs on issues such as implicit bias, use of force, and de-escalation. She will also create national guidelines for use of force, provide federal matching funds to make body cameras available to every police department in America, and support legislation to ban racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials.

So the biggest stick Hillary brags about wanting to promote is legislation that bans racial profiling, a welcome proposal to be sure. But the overarching language is of someone who lacks a desire for confrontation with various law enforcement agencies. Bernie twice mentions the necessity of prosecuting bad cops and suggests cutting federal funding to police departments that are particularly abusive. Nothing revolutionary, to be sure, but Hillary makes zero mention of prosecuting cops on her page and puts much less emphasis on federal actions that might be seen as infringing on “states rights.”

Bernie supports much more comprehensive sentencing and prison reform
A perfect example: Bernie wants to abolish mandatory minimums altogether while Hillary wants to cut them in half. Consider it a kind of microcosm of what this primary is about: meaningful reform vs. reform that is intentionally incremental for the sake of being incremental. Bernie also proposes to “ban” privatized prisons while Hillary simply wants to “move away” from them. This language difference may seem trivial to some but to me it suggests that Hillary wants more flexibility in approaching what to other progressives is  a no-brainer: that prisons run for profit is one of the most wretched of wretched ideas that create a perverse incentive to imprison more people and should be banned at all levels and in all forms.

Bernie has a much more ambitious plan to combat poverty
Hillary herself said that economic and racial issues “intersect” so it should follow naturally that the candidate that is better on economic issues is probably better on racial issues. I mean, let’s not mince words here: black people in America have been screwed over massively by the US’ economic system. They brought here as slaves and created much of its early wealth under the brute savagery of the whip. Today they still face massive discrimination in jobs and housing. As a result of this legacy of malign neglect in the best of times and genocidal terror in the worst of times, the black community still faces massive impoverishment. Bernie’s plans for single-payer health care, a $15/hour minimum wage and a more expansive welfare state may not specifically target black poverty, but considering the disproportionate levels of poverty in the black community they sure as hell would help. According to his racial justice page, his proposed minimum wage policy alone would “increase the wages of about half of African-Americans and nearly 60 percent of Latinos” if enacted.

Bernie also endorses a $1 trillion dollar plan to rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure and create jobs while Hillary’s plan only calls for $125 billion. For the record, the American Society of Civil Engineers gives a number of $3.6 trillion needed to fix America’s infrastructure by 2020. Needless to say, Bernie’s plan comes much closer to this number and has a much greater chance of preventing future tragedies similar to the Flint water crisis.

On a side note: Hating Wall Street isn’t just a “white” thing…
One of the most bizarre and enraging talking points being bandied about by Hillary supporters is that Bernie’s focus on malfeasance by large financial institutions is an obsession among upper-class white progressive and generally not a sentiment shared by the poorer and darker-skinned. In the real world, the recent foreclosure crisis that accompanied the financial crisis hit America’s marginalized minorities the absolute hardest and severely reduced their net wealth. So, a candidate that accepts more money from big banks and has a history of being more open to liberalizing financial regulations may, in fact, be worse for black Americans. I mean, duh!

So, uh, yeah. All of this should be incredibly obvious to anyone who doesn’t prioritize fancy photo-ops and endless posturing about “authenticity” over the gritty details of public policy. I mean, Bernie is far more progressive than Hillary on most issues, except for guns, maybe.

What the fuck? How are we even having this debate?

Recommended Reading:
Hillary Clinton’s cynical race appeals: The revenge of neoliberal identity politics” by Daniel Denvir



Bernie Sanders’ public statements on Gulf War I

It’s no secret that Bernie Sanders is making Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq a big issue on the campaign trail and at Democratic primary debates. However, this commitment to a supposed antiwar position is a bit iffy when you look at his record on other US interventions. Indeed, during the first Democratic debate he openly bragged about his support for NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999. I feel that the issue of Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion needs to be looked at to get a greater feel of the candidate’s stance on war and peace. In this post, I will address his stance on the First Gulf War.

In early 1991, Sanders made numerous statements into the Congressional Record about his opposition to a US-led military solution to the Iraq-Kuwait crisis. It is clear from these statements he was adamantly opposed to any sort of military action but believed that sanctions could and should be maintained to pressure Saddam’s regime to leave Kuwait. In fairness, many antiwar activists held this pro-sanctions position at the time but later changed their minds when it became clear that the combined effects of the embargo and the Coalition bombings were causing a humanitarian crisis. He also made a number of statements that connected US’ willingness to go to war to protect “feudalistic dictatorships as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait” with its unwillingness to take care of its own domestic population. Once and a while he did touch upon the suffering among Iraqi civilians that the war would inevitably create:

What I don’t agree with, however, is that war–and the potential loss of thousands of young American, lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children–is the only means by which we can achieve our goals.

It seems to me, however, that the challenge of our time is not simply to begin a war which will result in the deaths of tens and tens of thousands of people, young Americans, innocent women and children in Iraq, but the real challenge of our time is to see how we can stop aggression, how we can stop evil in a new way, in a nonviolent way.

He also contrasted the eagerness to go to war with the hesitance to combat Third World poverty:

Today, 30,000 children starve to death in the Third World, and all over the planet people were saying, ‘Finally, now we can begin to address those problems, deal with the needs for helping the Eastern European countries that are becoming democratic.’ There is rejoicing. Then suddenly once more we heard that as soon as we took a deep breath that the cold war was over, there is another war upon the world.

While the condemnations are likely far beyond what most anti-war members of Congress could muster at the time, they still far short of anything a Marxist–or even a committed anti-imperialist–would have said.

But credit where credit is due: Sanders voted against the Gulf War and forcefully spoke out against it. Perhaps more impressively, he was one of only six brave Congress members to vote against a resolution that “supported the United States presence in the Persian Gulf.” The text of the resolution was boilerplate “Support Our Troops” stuff that far too many anti-war voices find inoffensive. So props for that one.

In my next post I will address his (relatively hard to find) stances on the sanctions against Iraq.

Sanders Statements (1991):
Public opinion supports continuing sanctions, rejects war (January 09)
Avoiding war in the Persian Gulf (January 09)
Unions urge president to let the sanctions work (January 10)
Four Minutes during a debate (January 11)
Reflections on my views (January 15)
A tragic day for humanity (January 17)
An appeal to the White House to stop the bombing (January 17)
Why I voted ‘no’ on the resolution (January 18)
The Persian Gulf War (February 06)

Millionaire Ezra Klein thinks raising taxes on the rich is Bad Now

Vox’s Ezra Klein on Bernie Sanders health care plan (bolding mine):

Clinton’s third attack was that Sanders’s plan would raise taxes on the middle class. In response, Sanders gets very detailed on the financing of his plan. It would raise taxes on the middle class — in part through a 2.2 percent tax increase on all income, and in part by a 6.2 percent “income-based premium” on employers (which would, in turn, get passed onto workers through lower wages and higher prices).

The rest of the financing would come through a raft of new taxes on the rich. Sanders would raise marginal rates on income over $250,000, he would raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income, he would hike the estate tax, and he would close sundry deductions and loopholes.

In general, I’m comfortable with higher taxes on the rich — though they’ve risen substantially in the Obama era already — but tax increases of the scale Sanders proposes here would begin to have real economic drawbacks. European countries tend to pay for their health-care systems through more broad-based, economically efficient taxes like VATs; Sanders’s effort to fund a universal health-care system so heavily on the backs of the wealthy would be unprecedented.

The highest tax rate under Sanders’ plan, for the record, is 52% for incomes exceeding $10 million a year. Now I certainly realize that 52% sounds like a big chunk of anything, but once you hear the “FOR INCOMES OVER TEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR” any such concern should dry up. I mean seriously, if you honestly feel the slightest bit of sympathy for someone making over $10 million in a year because they face paying more in taxes to support health care for all Americans, you shouldn’t get to call yourself a “liberal” (and I realize how diluted that term has become already). You are a moderate libertarian.

I really wish Klein and his crew of “wonky” moderate libertarians would just fuck off already. It’s bad enough that self-proclaimed “liberal Democrats” are shitting on the very concept of single-payer health care because Hillary is against it. Now we’re supposed to believe that taxing the rich can Go Too Far because everyone’s favorite millionaire boy genius says it could be “inefficient.”

And for the record: I don’t even like Bernie. I’ve loathed him since I heard him lauding the bombing of Serbia at the first Democratic debate. In addition to warmongering, his brand of social democracy aims at middle class respectability far too much. But good god, if establishment progressives are now convinced that taxing multi-millionaires at a rate only slightly above half is “too much” then things are even worse than I could have imagined.

Sources and quotes on war crimes by the US and its proxies in the Korean War



USAF Far East commander Gen. George E. Stratemeyer, 5 September 1950 (Source, p. 258):

The gist of General MacArthur’s instructions are as follows: Every installation, facility, and village in North Korea now becomes a military and tactical target. THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE: the big hydro-electric power plant on the Manchurian border at Changsi and the hydro-electric power plants in Korea. General MacArthur reiterated his scorched earth policy to burn and destroy. Starting from the Yalu River into Korea, every method of surface communication will be destroyed. The towns on the Korean side, bordering the Yalu River–except between Korea and Russia – will be destroyed.

Gen. Stratemeyer, 5 September 1950, 5 September 1950 (Source, p. 261):

FEAF [Far East Air Force] Bomber Command will destroy the cities and large towns. Aircraft under Fifth Air Force control will destroy all other targets including all buildings capable of affording shelter.

US Ambassador to South Korea John Muccio, 17 November 1950 (Source):

The General [Douglas MacArthur] then went on that he had finally received authorization to knock out the Korean end of the bridges across the Yalu; the Air Force was concentrating on doing so and, at the same time, destroying all resources in the narrow stretch between our present positions and the border. Unfortunately, this area will be left a desert.

US Defense Secretary Robert Lovett, 12 September 1952 (Source):

If we keep on, tearing the place apart, we can make it a most unpopular affair for the North Koreans. We ought to go right ahead.

USAF Gen. Curtis LeMay, 15 June 1984 (Source, p. 88):

Right at the start of the war, unofficially I slipped a message in “under the carpet” in the Pentagon that we ought to turn SAC [Strategic Air Command] loose with incendiaries on some North Korean towns. The answer came back, under the carpet again, that there would be too many civilian casualties; we couldn’t do anything like that. So we went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too. We even burned down Pusan-an accident, but we burned it down anyway. The Marines started a battle down there with no enemy in sight. Over a period of three years or so, we killed off–what–twenty percent of the population of Korea as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure? Over a period of three years, this seemed to be acceptable to everybody, but to kill a few people at the start right away, no, we can’t seem to stomach that.

Quotation of an officer from Capt. Walter Karig’s Battle Report, 1952 (Source):

So, we killed civilians, friendly civilians, and bombed their homes; fired whole villages with the occupants–women and children and 10 times as many hidden communist soldiers–under showers of napalm, and the pilots came back to their ships stinking of vomit twisted up from their vitals by the shock of what they had to do!

Gen. William F. Dean, who was released from North Korean custody (source):

The town of Huichon amazed me. The city I’d seen before–two-storied buildings, a prominent main street–wasn’t there any more.

South Korean strongman Syngman Rhee on his intentions for the occupation of North Korea (source):

I can handle the Communists. The Reds can bury their guns and burn their uniforms, but we know how to find them. With bulldozers we will dig huge excavations and trenches, and fill them with Communists. Then cover them over. And they will really be underground.

Bruce Cumings (source):

The Korean Truth Commission on Civilian Massacres was organized in September 2000. Its charge was to investigate massacres of civilians by all sides before and during the Korean War. […] Ultimately it appears that after the war began in June, South Korean authorities and auxiliary right-wing youth squads executed around 100,000 people and dumped them into trenches and mines, or simply threw them into the sea. […] However much it may discomfit American sensibilities, the record shows that Communist atrocities constituted about one sixth of the total number of cases, and tended to be more discriminating.

#OregonUnderAttack and the occasional authoritarianism of “privilege” discourse

[I try to keep internal left disputes and Twitter stuff off of this blog for the most part but I can’t really restrain myself right now, sorry.]

The recent occupation by an armed militia of a federal building in Oregon has created a predictable stir of indignation on Twitter directed mostly against the media for purportedly either not covering it enough or not immediately labeling the perpetrators “terrorists” as they do for non-white and/or left-wing militants. We’ve seen and heard all this stuff before, and much of the underlying sentiment is understandable. It can be frustrating to see the federal government officially charge animal rights activists with “terrorism” for freeing minks and watch conservative outlets portray desperate refugees as potential terrorists while right-wing militants and their sympathizers appear to receive preferential treatment. However, there comes a point when this type of “privilege checking”  seems to be more focused on revoking certain privileges rather than expanding them to cover marginalized groups.

Case in point: whenever a white mass shooter is arrested alive we hear complaints that this treatment was not afforded to the endless list of black individuals who were murdered by police with impunity. On the surface, there appears to be a legitimate case for pointing out the double standard. But when this point is made over and over and over again (as certain “takes” often are on Twitter), it can subconsciously reinforce authoritarian narratives. Last year, when rival biker gangs and police got into a shootout in Waco, Texas, and 9 of the bikers ended up dead, a presumption in progressive circles was made that the bikers who were arrested (all 177 of them) were beneficiaries of white privilege and thus any further discussion of the incident was Officially Over. Despite the discrepancies in the police version of events, an admission that police bullets hit bikers, media reports of “police threatening to shoot people if they rise from the ground” and a convenient gag order on the accused, self-appointed BlackLivesMatter leader Shaun King decided to push the idea that those charged in the deaths (none of them cops) were somehow the “definition of white privilege.”

Now, we obviously do not have all the facts yet. But it should be considered an absolute disgrace that a self-purported opponent of police brutality would immediately take the police’s account of the event at face value. One can’t help but wonder how far this type of “logic” goes.

In the case of Ruby Ridge, federal authorities shot dead both the son and wife of their target in the initial investigation, Randy Weaver. It turned out that the FBI actually rewrote its rules of engagement for the siege and, as a probable result, Weaver’s wife was shot dead by an FBI sniper as she was standing behind a door and holding a 10 month old baby in her arms.

At the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, the ATF started the conflagration with a showy and likely unnecessary raid. The FBI was then put in charge and a 51 day siege commenced. The FBI’s own negotiators criticized the bureau’s tactical commanders for “undercutting” negotiations. In the final assault, which was approved by then-Attorney General Janet Reno, the bureau pumped large amounts of tear gas into the compound. A number of fires broke out and killed most of the sect’s members who remained in the compound. The government maintains that the fires were all intentionally started by sect members while some of those who escaped alleged that they were “accidentally or deliberately started by the [FBI] assault.” By the most charitable reading of events that transpired that could be offered by any reasonable person, federal law enforcement was overly gung-ho on finding a militarized solution than negotiating a peaceful means of ending the standoff.

The US left very rarely focuses on either of these events in American history, writing them off mere causes célèbres for right-wing extremists. This is unfortunate, because both incidents were clear abuses of official power. While it is true that Randy Weaver was himself a right-wing extremist and had ties with white supremacists, the Branch Davidian sect had no real sympathies for the far-right or white supremacy. There is actually evidence to indicate the contrary, as 29 of the members who died were black and numerous others were Hispanic and Asian. Additionally, during the seige there was a sign hanging from one the windows that read “RODNEY KING WE UNDERSTAND.” Of course, no one needs to endorse David Koresh’s behavior and beliefs in order to condemn the federal government’s actions at Waco than one needs to endorse Saddam Hussein to condemn the numerous US crimes against the Iraqi people.

So, without in anyway defending the armed militiamen that are occupying a federal building in Oregon, let me just suggest that you try not to justify, or neglect, government abuses of power under the guise of internet “social justice” rhetoric.

UPDATE: People are saying that this situation is considerably different than both Waco and Ruby Ridge and that there is a legitimate public interest in suppressing these militias. Both of these arguments are generally on the right track.

First, it is true that the only people currently inside the building being occupied are either armed militiamen or their willing adult male supporters. As such, any federal attempt to move in on the building would not be restricted by the restraints one would expect of them if it was a private residence with women and children inside. Considering such circumstances, federal agents would be justified in establishing a perimeter around the building, giving those inside a deadline to surrender and then raiding it once the deadline passes. In the case of the Branch Davidian compound, the government had a clear obligation to rely more on negotiation since there were women and children inside.

It is also true that there is a legitimate reason for suppressing anti-public lands militia activity. It cannot be said that these groups have any legitimate grievances. Indeed, they openly represent the interests of wealthy ranchers, miners and others with an obvious interest in privatizing publicly owned lands.

It still needs to be said that the government should abide by the proper rules of engagement upon engaging in any type of raid, individual agents should not open fire unless directly threatened with a gun themselves. That’s about it.

UPDATE 2: After reading this I’m not certain what the solution is. It appears I was mistaken in my earlier assumption that there were no women inside. There’s a lot of contradictory media accounts going around and it seems it isn’t clear if that many of the occupiers are even armed. Now, it may be that the Oregonian is being biased and painting a rosy picture. I honestly don’t know what is going on. I am going to strikeout my most of my previous update until more details come to light. I still stand by my belief that the militia’s demands are ridiculous.

Right-wing rages over aid for refugees and human trafficking victims

A confusingly written article  in the always deceptive, neocon-run Washington Free Beacon is attracting a fair share of rage clicks from US conservatives and attention from Rush Limbaugh. The headline states  that the recent budget deal passed by Congress contains “$1.6B to resettle illegal immigrants arriving at border through 2018.” It bases this assertion on the following passage:

For necessary expenses for refugee and entrant assistance activities authorized by section 414 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, and for carrying out section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (“TVPA”), section 203 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998, $1,674,691,00 […]

The article is incredibly misleading because it suggests that government efforts to assist refugees seeking asylum and victims of human trafficking are somehow a form of “resettlement,” a word that heavily implies a grant of permanent residency. In reality this aid is a temporary measure so that certain immigrants who claim to have been victimized by repression in foreign counties or enslaved by labor or sex traffickers don’t have to be held in detention (a more inhuman and expensive, but profitable for prison companies , solution) while they await their status. In the vast majority of cases of immigrants from Mexico and Central America seeking protected status (which the article singled out for fear-mongering), they are typically rejected   and eventually deported. Even rescued victims of human trafficking are typically placed in detention and deported, as I have pointed out years ago. If the passage authorizes any type of aid to “resettle” people, it means that their asylum claims have succeeded and are now legal residents (duh!).

None of these facts matter to the banshees of the US right-wing though. The false narrative of Obama the radical, communist, Third World sympathizer naturally comes before the objective reality of Obama the Deporter-in-Chief.

The same bill contains $5,779,041,000 for the ICE to use for “necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and customs laws.” Of this amount, $3,217,942,00 is to be specifically set aside for “enforcement, detention, and removal operations.” Militarizing the border, putting people in cages, deporting them is incredibly expensive. There is a case to be made that a more lenient immigration policy, in addition to being morally correct, would be much cheaper   than the current status quo of mass detention and deportation. But cost-effectiveness is not a value of the modern conservative movement despite its self-purported emphasis on “fiscal conservatism.” State-mandated sadism, specifically towards the poorer and darker skinned, comes first. Always.

Casual reminder that Israeli establishment views ISIS as bulwark against Iran and Shia influence

Michael Oren, ex-Israeli ambassador to US, 27 June 2015  :

if we have to choose the lesser of evils here, the lesser evil is the Sunnis over the Shiites. … It’s an evil, a terrible evil. Again, they’ve just taken out 1700 former Iraqi soldiers and shot them in a field. But who are they fighting against? They’re fighting against a proxy with Iran that’s complicit in the murder of 160,000 people in Syria. You know, do the math. And again, one side is armed with suicide bombers in Iraq and the other side has access to nuclear military capabilities. So from Israel’s perspective, you know, if there has got to be an evil that is going to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail…

Series of tweets from Israeli PM’s official account, 2014-2015:

israel isis iran

Editorial by Gilad Sharon, Ariel Sharon’s son, 12 May 2015  (emphasis mine):

The fall of Assad’s regime would bring Islamic State to our borders – and that’s a problem. But it would also be a fatal blow for Hezbollah. Without the Assad regime and the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis, the threat from Lebanon would fade significantly. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen for sure.
Things aren’t quiet now, and thus Assad’s guarantee should expire. If the Golan Heights aren’t peaceful in any event, Israel then has no interest in the survival of the Syrian tyrant. Islamic State – unlike Assad and unlike Hezbollah – is the enemy of an international coalition that is fighting the organization; thus Israel wouldn’t have to face this new threat alone.
This is not to say that we would welcome the presence of the Islamic State lunatics on our border; but it’s certainly no worse, and may even be better, than the presence there of Hezbollah, which is the Lebanese proxy of the Iranian regime.

International Business Times, 7 December 2014  :

A report submitted to the United Nations Security Council by UN observers in the Golan Heights over the past 18 months shows that Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have been in regular contact with Syrian rebels, including Islamic State (ISIS) militants.
Israel initially had maintained that it was treating only civilians. However, reports claimed that earlier last month members of Israel’s Druze minority protested the hospitalisation of wounded Syrian fighters from the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front in Israel.

A statement issued by a group of Druze activists accused the Israeli government of supporting radical Sunni factions such as the Islamic State (ISIS).
The UN report also laid out instances where in Israeli army was seen interacting with armed rebels. In one incident, the report claimed that the IDF gave some boxes to the Syrian armed rebels.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), pro-Israel Congressman, 11 February 2015 :

Everybody is talking about ISIS, and they have videos of evil to show that they are on the cutting edge of unspeakable crimes. But the fact is that the Shiite alliance headed by Iran is far more deadly than ISIS, just in Syria, having killed perhaps as many as 200,000 people, and certainly they have killed more Americans, starting with the Marine barracks in Beirut in—I believe it was 1983. The Shiite alliance is more dangerous than ISIS. ISIS aspires, may have some capacities as of yet unproven, to carry out directed attacks in the West. […] Before we wage more intense war on ISIS, we have to ask who will fill that space and are we not weakening an enemy of the Shiite alliance without noting that that alliance is a greater threat to us than ISIS.