Archive | September 2014

Hamas and Islamic State. Two sides of the same coin.

IMPORTANT ARTICLE BY F.L.A.M.E.Facts and Logic About the Middle East (www.factsandlogic.org)

 

ISIS and Hamas: Two murderous terror groups that want to establish an Islamic empire in the Middle East.  Should we destroy one and not the other?  When ISIS beheaded American journalist James Foley, President Obama expressed his outrage and called ISIS a “cancer” that must be prevented from spreading.   A visibly agitated Secretary of State Kerry declared that ISIS is “evil” and “must be destroyed.”

 

These angry characterizations are no doubt accurate, and few in the West will argue about the need to defeat ISIS—even though the group has so far not attacked the United States.

We wonder, though, why Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry can be so adamant about the evil of ISIS, yet so keen to insist that Israel stop fighting with Hamas, an equally brutal terrorist group that has been trying to commit genocide on the Jewish people for its entire existence.

There are certainly differences between ISIS and Hamas, just as there are differences between Al Qaeda and the murderous Nigerian Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram.   Yet these groups have common values, strategies and goals—and all are evil.

 

Here are three defining qualities that these Islamist groups – ISIS, Hamas, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram – share:

  1. All want to establish a worldwide caliphate (or empire) under strict sharia law. That means they are dedicated to conquering and colonizing the lands of other religious, national and ethnic groups.
  2.  All four groups believe that their jihad justifies killing innocent civilians including Muslims through terrorist acts, like suicide bombs, rocket attacks and beheadings.
  3. These groups all consider Christians, Jews, Hindus and any religious groups outside of Islam to be infidels, subject to second-class citizenship at best and, more commonly, exile or death.

 

Does President Obama really think that ISIS should be destroyed, but not Hamas?  American assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders confirm a U.S. commitment to destroying Al Qaeda, but where is the U.S. commitment to destroying Hamas?

It’s ominous that we heard no encouragement from Obama and Kerry for Israel to destroy the Gaza-based Islamist terrorists who attacked Israel and launched more than 4,000 missiles at Jewish and Arab Israelis in just four months.  Why is that?

Rather, we heard U.S. criticism that Israel, despite all Herculean efforts to spare innocent Palestinians, was too aggressive, used too much military force.

This week’s FLAME Hotline featured article, by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, makes an iron-clad case for destroying both terror groups—and further, for allowing Israel to do what’s necessary to defend itself against any enemy that threatens its existence.

While Israel bravely defended itself from direct attacks by the Gaza-based Islamist terror group, Hamas, the world complained that Israel’s response was disproportionate.  Yet now the U.S. has begun striking back at ISIS—and is greeted with thanks from all corners—as though fighting ISIS and Hamas terrorists were not the same struggle against the same global jihad.

 

President Barack Obama has rightfully condemned the ISIS beheading of American James Foley in the strongest terms. This is what he said:

 

“There has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so it does not spread.  There has to be a clear rejection of these kinds of nihilistic ideologies.  One thing we can all agree on is group like (ISIS) has no place in the 21st century.  Friends and allies around the world, we share a common security a set of values opposite of what we have seen from ISIS.  We will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and stability.”

 

At the same time that President Obama has called for an all-out war against the “cancer” of ISIS, he has regarded Hamas as having an easily curable disease, urging Israel to accept that terrorist group, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, as part of a Palestinian unity government. Can we imagine him urging Iraq, or any other Arab country, to accept ISIS as part of a unity government?

Former President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have gone even further, urging the international community to recognize the legitimacy of Hamas as a political party and to grant it diplomatic recognition.   It is hard to imagine them demanding that the same legitimate status be accorded ISIS.

 

Why then the double standard regarding ISIS and Hamas?  Is it because ISIS is less brutal and violent than Hamas?  It’s hard to make that case. Hamas has probably killed more civilians – through its suicide bombs, its murder of Palestinian Authority members, its rocket attacks and its terror tunnels – than ISIS has done.

If not for Israel’s Iron Dome and the Israeli Defense Forces, Hamas would have killed even more innocent civilians. Indeed its charter calls for the killing of all Jews anywhere in the world, regardless of where they live or which “rock” they are hiding behind.  If Hamas had its way, it would kill as least as many people as ISIS would.

 

Is it the manner by which ISIS kills?  Beheading is of course a visibly grotesque means of killing, but dead is dead and murder is murder.  And it matters little to the victim’s family whether the death was caused by beheading, by hanging or by a bullet in the back of a head.   Indeed most of ISIS’s victims have been shot rather than beheaded, while Hamas terrorists have slaughtered innocent babies in their beds, teenagers on the way home from school, women shopping, Jews praying and students eating pizza.

 

Is it because ISIS murdered an American?   Hamas has murdered numerous Americans and citizens of other countries.   They too are indiscriminate in who they kill.

 

Is it because ISIS has specifically threatened to bring its terrorism to American shores, while Hamas focuses its terrorism in Israel?  The Hamas Charter does not limit its murderous intentions to one country.   Like ISIS it calls for a worldwide “caliphate,” brought about by violent Jihad.

 

Everything we rightly fear and despise from ISIS we should fear and despise from Hamas.   Just as we would never grant legitimacy to ISIS, we should not grant legitimacy to Hamas-at the very least until it rescinds its charter and renounces violence.   Unfortunately that is about as likely as America rescinding its constitution.   Violence, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are the sine qua non of Hamas’ mission.

 

Just as ISIS must be defeated militarily and destroyed as a terrorist army, so too must Hamas be responded to militarily and its rockets and tunnels destroyed.

 

It is widely argued by many academics and diplomats that there can never be a military solution to terrorism in general or to the demands of Hamas in particular.

This conventional wisdom ignores the lessons of history. Chamberlain thought there could be a diplomatic solution to Hitler’s demands.  Churchill disagreed.  History proved Churchill correct.  Nazi Fascists and Japanese militarists had to be defeated militarily before a diplomatic resolution could be achieved.

So too with ISIS and Hamas.  They must first be defeated militarily and only then might they consider accepting reasonable diplomatic and political compromises. Another similarity between ISIS and Hamas is that if these terrorist groups were to lay down their arms, there might be peace, whereas if their enemies were to lay down their arms, there would be genocide.

A wonderful cartoon illustrates this:  at one end of the table is Hamas demanding “Death to all Jews.”  At the other end is Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.   In the middle sits the mediator, who turns to Netanyahu and asks: “Could you at least meet him half way?”

 

No democratic nation can accept its own destruction.  We cannot compromise – come half way – with terrorists who demand the deaths of all who stand in the way of their demand for a Sunni caliphate, whether these terrorists call themselves ISIS or Hamas.   Both are, in the words of President Obama, “cancers” that must be extracted before they spread. Both are equally malignant.

Both must be defeated on the battlefield, in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law.   There can be no compromise with bigotry, terrorism or the demand for a caliphate.   Before Hamas or ISIS can be considered legitimate political partners, they must give up their violent quest for a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

 

Caroline Glick: A realistic alternative to the failed “Two-State Solution”

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Friday, 25 July, 2014

 

The Era Of Widespread Biometric Identification And Microchip Implants Is Here

 

by  Michael Snyder

Are you ready to have your veins scanned every time you use your bank account? Are you ready to use a “digital tattoo” or a microchip implant to unlock your telephone? Once upon a time we read about such technologies in science fiction novels, but now they are here. The era of widespread biometric identification and microchip implants is upon us, and it is going to change the way that we live.
Proponents of these new technologies say that they will make our private information and our bank accounts much more secure. But there are others that warn that these kinds of “Big Brother technologies” will set the stage for even more government intrusion into our lives. In the wrong hands, such technologies could prove to be an absolute nightmare.
Barclays has just announced that it is going to become the first major bank in the western world to use vein scanning technology to control access to bank accounts. There will even be a biometric reader that customers plug into their computers at home…
Barclays is launching a vein scanner for customers as it steps up use of biometric recognition technology to combat banking fraud.
The bank has teamed up with Japanese technology firm Hitachi to develop a biometric reader that scans a customer’s finger to access accounts, instead of using a password or PIN.
The biometric reader, which plugs into a customer’s computer at home, uses infrared lights to scan blood flow in a person’s finger. The user must then scan the same finger a second time to confirm a transaction. Each “vein profile” will be stored on a SIM card inside the device.
Vein recognition technology is used by some banks in Japan and elsewhere at ATM machines, but Barclays said it is the first bank globally to use it for significant account transactions. But Barclays is not the only one that is making a big move into biometric identification.
Online retailing behemoth Alibaba is going to start using fingerprint scanning in an attempt to make their transactions more secure…
Alibaba, the giant Chinese online retailer, is integrating fingerprint scanning into its Alipay Wallet app. Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer of the iPhone and iPad, threw nearly $5 million at Norway’s NEXT Biometrics, which develops fingerprint scanning technology, back in May. And earlier this month it took a 10% stake for $2 million in AirSig, a Taiwanese company that uses smartphones’ built-in gyroscopes to track air handwriting. The company says AirSig provides three-factor authentication: your signature, your phone, and the way you sign with a flourish in mid-air

It is only a matter of time before more banks, online retailers and major websites start using this kind of technology. We live at a time when theft on the Internet threatens to spiral out of control, and big corporations are going to be continually looking for answers.
Cell phone security is another area of great concern these days. If someone can get a hold of your phone and unlock it, that person can potentially do all sorts of damage.
So Motorola has developed a “digital tattoo” that will be used to ensure that only the owner of a phone is able to unlock it. The following is how Motorola described these new digital tattoos…
Made of super thin, flexible materials, based on VivaLnk’s eSkinTM technology, each digital tattoo is designed to unlock your phone with just a touch of your Moto X to the tattoo, no passwords required. The nickel-sized tattoo is adhesive, lasts for five days, and is made to stay on through showering, swimming, and vigorous activities like jogging. And it’s beautiful—with a shimmering, intricate design.
It’s another step in making it easier to unlock your phone on the go and keep your personal information safe. An average user takes 2.3 seconds to unlock their phone and does this about 39 times a day—a process that some people find so inconvenient that they do not lock their phones at all. Using NFC technology, digital tattoos make it faster to safely unlock your phone anywhere without having to enter a password.
Pretty bizarre stuff, eh?
But others are taking cell phone security to even greater extremes.
For example, some people were actually implanting themselves with microchips in anticipation of the release of the iPhone 6 on September 9th…
With a wave of his left hand, Ben Slater can open his front door, turn on the lights and will soon be able to start his car. Without even a touch he can link to databases containing limitless information, including personal details such as names, addresses and health records.
The digital advertising director has joined a small number of Australians who have inserted microchips into their skin to be at the cutting edge of the next stage of the evolution of technology.
Slater was prompted to be implanted in anticipation of the iPhone 6 release on September 9.
The conjecture among pundits and fans worldwide over what chief executive Tim Cook will reveal is building.
At present the iPhone cannot read microchip implants. However, Mr Slater believes the new version will have that capability. His confidence is now lodged between his thumb and forefinger. Of course this kind of thing is not new. People have been getting implanted with microchips for years. If you doubt this, just do an Internet search for “biohackers” and see what you find.
But it is starting to become more mainstream, and there are already some thinkers that are quite eager to use such technology for very authoritarian purposes.
For example, one prominent philosopher recently suggested that we should use implantable microchips to prevent anyone that is “deemed unworthy” from becoming a parent…
Although he admits it “sounds blatantly authoritarian” and “violates just about every core value we possess in a free society,” a noted transhumanist author has said a world government body should forcibly sterilize anyone “deemed unworthy” of parenthood by using implanted microchips.
Constitutional attorney and civil liberties expert John W. Whitehead, founder of The Rutherford Institute, warned LifeSiteNews earlier this year that political officials would long to use this seminal technology.
In an article for Wired.com today, philosopher Zoltan Istvan wrote that the notion first crossed his mind when he heard a blonde nurse say, “with 10,000 kids dying everyday around the world from starvation, you’d think we’d put birth control in the water.”
After careful thought, in an effort to “give hundreds of millions of future kids a better life, I cautiously endorse the idea of licensing parents,” Istvan wrote today. You might be tempted to think that this is crazy talk.
But the truth is that this kind of technology is already being developed.
In a previous article, I quoted a news article which discussed how billionaire Bill Gates is funding the development of a birth control microchip that “acts as a contraceptive for 16 years”…
Helped along by one of the world’s most notable billionaires, a U.S. firm is developing a tiny implant that acts as a contraceptive for 16 years — and can be turned on or off using a remote control.
The birth control microchip, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, would hold nearly two decades worth of a hormone commonly used in contraceptives and dispense 30 micrograms a day, according to a report from the MIT Technology Review.
The new birth control, which is set to begin preclinical testing next year with hopes of putting it on shelves in 2018, can be implanted in the buttocks, upper arm or abdomen.

Yes, I know that a lot of the things that I have talked about in this article sound really weird.
But the reality of the matter is that technology is changing at an exponential rate, and our world is going to get crazier and crazier as time goes by.
Are you ready for what comes next?

 

Mad Science: ‘Genetically Modified Micro Humans’ To Be ‘Farmed’ For Drug Testing By 2017

 

by  Christina Sarich

Developers of artificial micro-humans, or ‘mini GM humans,’ are hoping to release their technology on the market by 2017.
No this isn’t a sci-fi joke. Scientists are developing artificial humans in the same vein as GM plants with the hope that these creations will replace the need for using animals in laboratory testing.
Artificial humans will be ‘farmed’ with interacting organs that can be used in drug tests, speeding up the process of FDA and other government regulatory approvals, and supposedly without damaging rats or other animals currently used in laboratories. The GM humans will contain smartphone-sized microchips that will be programmed to replicate up to 10 major human organs.
Each GM human will be tiny – roughly the size of a microchip itself, simulating the response of humans to substances inhaled, absorbed in the blood, or exposed to in the intestinal tract.
Early versions comprising an artificial kidney, heart, lung or gut are already being used by the cosmetic industry and to observe the use of chemical drugs on non-GMO humans.
The Times of India reported that researchers said this could replace up to 90 million animals each year in labs. Uwe Marx, a tissue engineer from Technische Universitat Berlin and founder of TissUse, a firm developing the technology said:
“If our system is approved by the regulators, then it will close down most of the animal-testing laboratories worldwide.”
Currently, this type of technology is already used on artificial organs like hearts and livers, but the results must be verified on a ‘live’ being – animals in a lab, for instance, to prove that substances are safe when interacting with a living being with real organs.
The problem with current testing, and obviously this proposed ‘solution,’ is that artificial organs, like animals, won’t respond the same way as a human body. We have already observed unforeseen side effects during human trials after animal trials that are far from ‘safe’ – GM crops are a perfect example of this phenomenon.
Organs cannot be divided into ‘fake’ computerized components. They interact with one another, the endocrine system, the brain, the nervous system, environmental cues, emotions, and according to advanced research, even our energetic bodies.
This reminds me of how genetically modified humans are planned to be the next venture for biotechnology companies working with the United States military, with the admitted goal of producing a ‘super soldier’ that does not require food or sleep to perform Olympic-style physical feats. The genetically modified humans, or ‘super soldiers’, will even be able to regrow limbs that were destroyed by enemy fire and live off of their fat stores for extreme lengths of time. You can read more on GMO super-humans here.
While the new GM human farms seem great on paper, since eliminating animal testing is indeed noble, they do not address possible far-reaching, negative ramifications for trying to re-create the complexities of Mother Nature’s form. It seems the pharmaceutical industry and biotech don’t learn from their mistakes at all.

 

Is Winning The War Against The Islamic State Only The Beginning?

 

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

In recent weeks, the media are filled with reports on the international preparations for a war against the “Islamic State” and an International Conference was even convened in Paris in an attempt to enlist the cooperation of as many nations as possible in waging it.
At the same time, US air force planes have intensified their attacks against “Islamic State” forces, especially in the vicinity of the dams in northern Iraq, this to prevent their being blown up and causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqis.
This week we heard a short and decisive speech by US President Barack Obama, into which he inserted rhetoric elements that he has hardly used before, certainly in comparison to the speeches of his predecessor George W. Bush.
I have not heard all of Obama’s speeches, but those I did rarely included the expression “our friends and allies”. Bush used those words day and night when talking about the war against terror. Does this change in rhetoric express a change in Obama’s approach? I am not sure if it does.
In his speech, Obama repeated several times that Iraq is an ally of the United States. And right at the start of his words, he said that the USA cannot do for the Iraqis what they must do for themselves. That sentence is a perfect example of Obama’s erroneous strategic thinking – he continues to see the Iraqis as a single group. He has still not internalized the fact that the Iraqis have never succeeded in developing the sense of unity and solidarity that defines a nation.
In Iraq the tribal divisions are alive and kicking and there are over 70 of them, as well as four ethnic groups and about ten religions, all divided among a not inconsiderable number of communal sectors. The possibility that the Iraqi government can function any better than those that preceded it is not great, and therefore the assumption that the Iraqi army can be more stalwart in its battle against the knife-wielding Islamic State fighters is yet to be proven correct.
It’s tough trying to build an international coalition, because there are factors unconnected to the Islamic State that come into play. There is a war in eastern Ukraine playing out in the background and Russia is the main actor in that war. Russia does not support a war against the Islamic State, so not many European countries are lining up to join Obama’s coalition against Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and his jihadists.
Regional questions also play a part, including the role that will be allotted to countries in the area such as Iran and the Assad regime, both of whom have a clear interest in joining the coalition. Iran will expect to be rewarded with an easing of demands for nuclear controls and Assad will expect an insurance policy to prevent his being deposed, even though he has been defined as a “war criminal”.
The West is not interested in giving Assad this insurance policy, since he has already announced that any military activity by another country on Syrian soil or over Syrian airspace will be considered an act of hostility against Syria to which that country will respond. The bigger problem is not Syria, but Russia, as any incursion on Syrian soil would be interpreted as a green light for Russia in Ukraine.
Another country in the area that poses a problem is Turkey, which has been aiding the Syrian rebel forces from the very first anti- Assad demonstrations in 2011, those very forces that spawned the “Islamic State” over a three year period. Thousands of jihadists from many different countries arrived at the bloody battlegrounds of Iraq and Syria by way of Turkey.
Turkey purchases oil from the “Islamic State” at a remarkably reduced rate, and resells it in the international market, so that Turkey is basically funding the “Islamic State” while raking in huge sums for its own treasury. It has recently been claimed that Turkey gives weaponry to the “Islamic State”.
Qatar is not enthusiastic about a war against the “Islamic State” either, having given it generous amounts of financial aid over a long period, knowing that its jihadists were anti-Assad. The Emir of Qatar is not eager to eliminate the “Islamic State” because he is afraid that his own state will then become the next goal of the Islamic State jihadists.
In fact, he pays them off so that they expend their aggressive energies on other countries. Saudi Arabia is also not happy about destroying the Sunni Islamic State as it might further empower the Shiite axis headed by Iran. Those who identify with the Muslim Brotherhood certainly feel comfortable with the “Islamic State”, even if they do not support all the brutal methods it employs.
Another point to be taken into consideration is the possible extreme reactions of Muslims around the world against the war and those taking part in it. The black flag of ISIS has been waved in country after country and the jihadist successes against the heretics of Iraq and Syria have made many Muslims around the world ecstatic, also causing many of them to identify with the “Islamic State”, its goals, and first and foremost, the idea of imposing the rule of Islam on the entire world. Radical Muslims who identify with jihad, and who can be found just about everywhere, may carry out attacks, kidnappings, murder and even behead infidels in order to take revenge on the coalition which acts against the “Islamic State”.
The war against the Islamic State looks like a rerun of the war fought against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan starting in 2001. Many of the elements that characterized that war are still around today, leading to the general feeling that the war against “Islamic State” will fail just as the war against al Qaeda did. The reasons are obvious: this is not a war against a state or an organization that will be defeated once its military might is destroyed. Here, we are first and foremost battling an ideology, fighting a faith vested in the hearts of millions of people who live all over the world.
The belief that Islam is the true religion and that Judaism and Christianity are false religions is a basic tenet of Islamic faith worldwide. The belief that Islam can and must rule the world is shared by many millions of Muslims. The belief that militant jihad is a legitimate tool for achieving Islamic supremacy over the world is anchored in Islamic history and the biography of Mohammed.
The belief that a Muslim must mete out the revenge of Allah against every infidel that dares to lift his hand against a Muslim is a natural part of Islam. The belief that “Islamic State”, the goal of the entire mission, reflects the real, pure and original Islam is shared by millions of Muslim worldwide.
It is clear that once al Qaeda was destroyed, the “Islamic State” came to be – so that if the Islamic state is destroyed, another Islamic entity will take its place.and attract thousands of Muslims from just as many countries. Add to that those converting to Islam from Europe, America, and the four corners of the globe, those blond and blue-eyed men and women who will rush to join the group in order to observe all the beliefs associated with Islam.
This can also happen in Africa, under the Boko Haram, in the Saharan plains under the Libyan Jihadists, sponsored by the butchers of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis.
The battle against the problematic tenets of the Islamic faith is not bound in place or time and like the genie that comes out of a bottle, cannot be put back in it. Muslim emigration to Western countries unsettles those governments internally due to the Islamic takeover of public space, politics, economics and its image in the politically correct media. In many parts of the world one can say that “Islamic State is here”, in neighborhoods that the local police do not enter, in the cities where a Muslim majority forces Sharia on supermarkets, pharmacies, bars and churches – and in the parliaments where the presence of the Islamic State is becoming more and more influential and solidly based.
The really significant battle is not in Iraq or Syria, where what is happening is just the introduction that follows the preface acted out in Afghanistan 13 years ago. The real war, far-ranging and dangerous, will develop once “Islamic State” is eliminated and the vengeance resulting from that success begins to be exacted in America, Europe, Australia and every place where man-made laws are in force. Its goal will be to impose the law of Allah as it is spelled out in Islamic sources.
Anyone who thinks that destroying “Islamic State” in Iraq and Syria will solve the problem had better think again, because the problem is not this or that organization or country. The problem is the ideology that today motivates one and half billion people who believe that the “religion of Allah is Islam” (Qu’ran chap.53, v.19).
This ideology will not be eliminated even if we get rid of the jihadists in Iraq and Syria down to the last man. Their followers are to be found in most parts of the world and that world must be prepared to change the rules of the game, otherwise it will find itself putting out fires instead of apprehending the pyromaniacs.

 

Gazans Speak Out: Hamas War Crimes

 

 

Palestine: Time to Tell the Truth

What land are Palestinian Arabs talking about when they speak of ‘occupation’?

What land are they talking about when they say they want to live in peace on the land of their fathers?

Do you understand them to mean the West Bank and Gaza? Do you believe they have rights to that land, and that Israel has taken it from them?

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was formed in 1964 for the purpose of “liberating occupied Palestine”. It is still the overarching representative authority of  those Arabs who call themselves Palestinians . Its original 1964 charter was, until the end of August 2014, available for all to see on the United Nations website, by simply typing PLO Charter into your browser. Now you will see an updated version that has had a few changes made to it, but still contains statements that support the point I am making here.

Article 24 in the original 1964 version of the PLO Charter stated: “This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area.”

The  recently revised version states:

“This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.”

Yes that’s right! The land they are telling the world belongs to them, and is under Israeli occupation, was not the land they were talking about when they originally made that claim back in 1964. And the revised wording still implies the PLO’s recognition of the West Bank as sovereign territory of Jordan, and that Gaza belongs to Egypt. What they were in fact claiming back  in 1964, and still claim today, is the land that was legally given to Israel by the United Nations.
It wasn’t until after the 1967 Arab/Israeli war, when Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc, with the help of Palestinian Arabs, attacked Israel, in an attempted war of annihilation. Israel won that war, liberating land in Gaza from Egypt, and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan from Syria.
Taking land from the aggressor in time of war is legal under international law.
Following Jordan’s loss of the West Bank and Egypt’s loss of Gaza during that Six Day War in 1967, article 24 was suddenly forgotten, and the new PLO land claim was born. That is, the land they tell the world they are after.
The bogus nature of their claim – and indeed the invention of the Palestinians in 1964 was underscored when the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Zuhair Mohsen told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

Total rejection of international law by the Palestinians was also part and parcel of this invented nation – since the League of Nations in 1922 and the United Nations in 1946 had already recognized the legitimate right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine whilst the United Nations had admitted Israel as a member on 11 May 1949.

Article 17 of the 1964 Charter expressed this view in the following manner:

The Partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestinian people and their natural right to their homeland, and in violation of the basic principles embodied in the charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.

By 1968 Article 17 had been excised and replaced by Article 20 which declared:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

So where are the borders of Palestine?
The name ‘Palestine’ is not an Arab name at all. It was given to the land by the Roman emperor Hadrian (That’s right! The one who built the wall between Scotland and England) after he ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous inhabitants from the land. And those indigenous inhabitants were Jews. If you look back before Israel’s re-birth as a nation in 1948, you will find the name Palestine was synonymous with Jews. A Palestinian Arab nation did not exist! There was never any Palestinian state. The land was classed as a province of Syria under Ottoman Turkish occupation for 400 years prior to British liberation in 1917.

The 1921 League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland, points out the context in which Israel came into existence in 1948, and “Palestinian” did not become a common term until after 1977.

This propaganda war has been successfully waged by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)  since its creation by the KGB in 1964.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service in an interview with Front Page Magazine on 1 March 2004 spilt the beans on the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime when he said:

The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.

In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow.

The language used in the 1964 version of the PLO Charter was slick –  designed to establish that “Palestine belongs to the Palestinians”. Who could possibly disagree with that motherhood statement – especially if it was repeated ad nauseum?
The problem was that the Charter’s definition of “Palestinians” included only the Arab residents of former Palestine and a limited number of Jews.
Article 6. The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.
Article 7. Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine. (Yeah! Like those who were massacred in Hebron 1929)
The PLO has seen its propaganda campaign succeed to a stage where “Palestine” has been admitted as a member “state” of UNESCO in apparent contravention of the UNESCO Constitution, the Montevideo Convention and customary international law..