I normally post the original article that other posts focus their attention on, but in this case Norton has a lot more information about the Israeli author and I have only one minor problem with his post.
The minor problem is his use of "fascist" twice to describe ISIS. In this context he uses the word only as a kind of curse word. I think words matter, and fascism should not be emptied of its meaning as a capitalist regime that rules using police state methods.
Otherwise Norton correctly sees that the conflicted views of the Israeli professor regarding the terrorist organization of ISIS as representing accurately the views of the Zionist regime in Israel, and by extension, the views of most Zionists here in the US. The professor's tortuous reasoning used to justify the existence of this terrorist organization is followed by this argument: if it is good for Israeli hegemony in the region, it is good.
...stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia’s role, and prolong Assad’s tyranny.