by Felix Quigley

January 14, 2008

Adam le Bor who is linked to the reactionary pro NATO Harry’s Place has opened up a new front against Israel as the small Jewish country fights for its survival against Islamic Jihad and world anti-Semitism, as seen in the anti-Semitic placards carried on demos in many cities last weekend.


Le Bor is not only linked to the leeches on Harry’s Place and to people like Oliver Kamm, he is also associated with a guy called  Anthony Dworkin who runs the pro NATO Crimes of War website.

So far the links between the Jihad against the Serbs, supported by US and EU Governments have not been drawn to what is happening against Israel.

But these links are very real.

The same Big Lie techniques of the Media that were used against the Serbs are being used wholesale against the Jews.

Le Bor is just one. There were so many involved in the Big Lie against the Serbs, people like Maggie O’Kane from Dublin and almost all of the rotten Media. One exception and one exception only the wonderful, sadly now deceased Eve Ann Prentice.


Le Bor is the first of these to come out in a scandalous atack on the right of the Jews of Israel to defend themselves against a Jihadist enemy.

This link is of the greatest importance because it opens up the way that the US and EU Governments are feeding finance into Abbas who in turn is passing it on to Hamas.


Le Bor is either a total idiot or a scheming liar. I caught him on the Maurice Boland radio show some months ago claiming that Hajj Amin el Husseini had spent the war years in Berlin. Having written books on the area le Bor claimed then that he did not know. That is he did not know the fact that is known by all historians, el Husseini was the leader of the Holocaust in the Balkans and is photographed there with the Nazi SS. You take your pick about Le Bor, idiot or liar, I know which one I choose, liar.

Why did Le Bor insist on keeping el Husseini in Berlin and not in the Balkans? he did so because he wanted to keep his association with Izetbegovic hidden. In fact they both were members during the Holocaust in the Balkans of the Muslim Brotherhood. They had to be closely involved in the Holocaust of Jews, Serbs and Romany in the Balkans and wider.

Dworkin introduces his piece called “On War Crimes in Gaza” and its first sentence suffices for us to know his anti Israel line. I have no intention of delving any deeper in the reactionary guff of Dworkin because really his whole politics is contained in his first sentence


[Begin quote here from Dworkin]


Israel launched its latest full-scale offensive against Hamas in Gaza on December 27, saying its action was necessary to end rocket attacks against Israeli towns.


[End quote from Dworkin here]


On 4international we are mindful of our reader’s time. Why delve any deeper into this anti Israel filth from this liar?


Dworkin seems to live in an imaginary world, where rocket attacks are only at the level of Israel “saying” that Israel is being attacked.


No Dworkin you political fool the rockets are real and everybody in the world knows that they are real, so why is it in your mind only a matter of “Israel saying”!


Dworkin never once refers to the anti-Semitic political theory that underpins Hamas and Fatah. Dworkin does not once tell the actual history of these rockets. Of course how could he since he does not really believe the rockets are a fact, that they exist in this real material world, just that Israel is “saying”.


Dworkin never refers to the Jews leaving Gaza and handing it to the Arabs. Why not?


He is moving the reader into “proportionality” etc and into discussing how many Arabs die, how many Israelis die.


Which is totally immaterial.


The only thing that matters in this case is the very first rocket that was fired by these Arab terrorists into Israel from Gaza. It is the first rocket that is the casus belli. Not the second or third Dworkin you Dwork! The first, got it!


And since Hamas has fired 6000 rockets over 8 years against Jews in Israel then there must have been a number 1. That Dwork is the casus Belli.


Let us turn to Adam le Bor who is posing as a friend of the Jews, writes for all sorts including this site Jewcy!!!


In fact let us treat our readers re le Bor to the same treatment. Let us not BORE our readers unduly with le Bor!


So I will spare the reader all with just one paragraph and here I am being most generous because in fact boredom may indeed set in before the end. Try to stick with it!


[Begin paragraph from Adam le Bor here]


Let’s start with Israel. International law requires that military operations meet standards of proportionality. Is the attack self-defense or an act of aggression? Is the scope and scale of the military campaign proportionate to the threat? Israel has the right under international law to take military action in self-defense against Hamas, but the proportionality of the scope and scale of its campaign remains debatable. The high civilian casualty figures — 920 Palestinians killed, including 292 children, according to Palestinian sources — only add to this unease. There is also the crucial question of intent. Is Israel seeking merely to end the rocket attacks, which is legally justifiable, or aiming to completely destroy Hamas as an organization and political force, which is not. However, even if Israel plans to destroy Hamas’ organization, this objective in itself is not a war crime.

[End quote here]

It is the sentence in the middle that I wish to draw the reader’s attention to in order to understand what kind of a man le Bor really is. This is the man who Maurice Boland, Dublin Jewish man, invited le Bor onto his radio show to talk about Yugoslavia and War Crimes committed by the Serbs on Muslims!!!

His figures like this:

920 “Palestinians” killed

292 children

and this supposed to be trusted journalist and supposed friend of the Jews writing of course on JEWCY adds a detail which may not be picked up by anybody who trusts le Bor, the words “according to Palestinian sources”.

Le Bor thus does not have time to seek out any Israeli sources.

But he takes the word of the Arabs for this vital statistic.

According to Le Bor it means that one in three in this war who has been killed by Israel is a child!!!

All I can say about Le Bor is “What a spreader of Arab Paslestinian lies he is”.

Is LeBor not part of the same gang who we saw in London Dublin etc going about on demos carrying these imitation babies. The same lying propaganda no!

Le Bor has written lots, but he has never written about the Mohammed el Durra France 2 case, never about the fake Jenin massacre, never about the Qana affair which was proved totally bogus by British site EU Referendum and in which the issue of dead children was used callously by Arabs against Israel.

Just on this one sentence Le Bor has given us all an insight into his lies and his lying political and journalistic method.

Here le Bor is a purveyor of the lies of the Arab Hamas crowd all Jew haters to a one. Is he not! Is this not what he is doing in essence? In Yugoslavia he was the purveyor along with so many, Maggie O’Kane et al, of all those lies of the Izetbegovic Islamist crowd against the Serbs!

The man is a sewer. He follows the Islamofascists around the world and purveys their lies for them. He did it for Izetbegovic. Now he is doing it for Hamas. Is he not?

Why would le Bor take this lying figure from the Arabs in the conflict?

It is the worst of all charges.


But le Bor does not even blush in spreading this figure no more than he did when he also falsely said that there was a massacre of 8000 in Srebrenica

These people who are posing as journalists etc are really the scum of the earth.

These are the people who are stepping up the attack on Israel which is fighting against a classic Jihad operation. The Jews move out of Gaza and give it to the Arabs. The Arabs stick it in their back pocket, say to the Jews thank you very much, and intensify the attack.

If Olmert gives Abbas and Fatah Judea and Samaria Abbas will pocket it as well, not even bother to say thanks, flood the area with Jihadists, and attack attack and attack again. But this time they would have gained more and made the central part of Israel 9 miles or so wide.

But why should le Bor care. As Jews face nuclear annihilation…He will be off writing another book and if Maurice Boland, Dublin Jewish radio host gives le Bor another plug on his show it will be worse than scandalous. It will be a betrayal of the Serbs. It will be a betrayal of the Jews.


I will add an apendix to this article. Please resist reading if you hate being bored by le Bor

These are 3 critical paragraphs

[Begin 3 critical paragraphs by le Bor here]

Three incidents in particular give cause for concern that Israel has breached international humanitarian law and/or committed potential war crimes. The first was the killing of numerous Hamas police officers at a passing out parade in Gaza city in the first wave of bombing. These policemen were part of Hamas’s political and civil infrastructure, certainly, but were not engaged in combat at the time and were not obviously involved in organizing or carrying out attacks against Israel, and that is the crucial point.  If the police were regularly engaged in attacking Israel then arguably they could be a legitimate target, even while on parade. But most press reports say that the Hamas police were used for traffic control and internal security.

The second incident was the bombing of the Fakhura school, run by the UN, in Jabaliyah refugee camp. Civilians are increasingly seeking shelter in UN buildings, the GPS co-ordinates of which are given by the UN to the IDF. About 40 Palestinian civilians were killed when an Israeli mortar hit the school. The IDF claimed that Hamas militants fired from near the school. It responded with three mortars. Two hit their targets, the third missed by thirty meters and hit the school, causing terrible carnage. Israeli troops are allowed to fire back at Hamas, but are obliged to ensure that harm to nearby civilians is not disproportionate. If there is a high risk that the attack would cause disproportionate harm to nearby civilians they are obliged to hold their fire. Again, the degree of risk is a matter of interpretation. Accidentally hitting a nearby school while engaged in actual combat with the enemy in that vicinity would be unlikely to classed as a war crime as the law allows for some degree of confusion and error.

The third incident took place in Zeitoun, a district of Gaza city, where, according to survivors’ reports, Israeli soldiers ordered about 100 members of the Samouni clan into a single home one night. Early the next morning Israeli troops repeatedly shelled the house, killing and wounding dozens. Some managed to flee, carrying the wounded and the dying. However, according to the Red Cross, Israel only allowed its medics to enter the house on Wednesday, where they found a chilling scene: four weak and distraught toddlers, clinging to the bodies of their mothers. According to the Red Cross: “the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded.” Israel said it was waiting for the Red Cross to present its evidence.

Paragraph 1…What world is le Bor living in? Hamas is at war with Israel. Does le Bor not get that yet?

Critical words are when le Bor gives his sources as being “most press reports” but so what le Bor, if the Press is hostile to Israel and is friendly to the terorists of Hamas


Paragraph 2.

Where did the IDF claim that? Le Bor gives no sources, in fact never does in this article. Nice and vague!

Paragraph 3

Critical words of professional liar le Bor are “according to survivors reports”.  That is acording to Arab Palestinian Hamas reports. What if the “survivors” were spinning a yarn which was precisely the points I made to Boland re the le Bor claims on Srebrenica.

Extra little note for Jewish readers:

Overlap takes place here, please note all Jewish people. The “Red Cross” was proven to be total liars in Srebrenica and in Yugoslavia in general!

Just because something is called “Red Cross” does not mean it tells the truth!




By Felix Quigley

January 13, 2009

The last weekend saw many Israel haters in Ireland take to the streets, in effect shrilling for the Fascist Hamas. It is a strange phenomenon and shows a large antisemitic movement taking to the streets, the ground having been prepared by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign antisemites over many years

They were led by Sinn Fein, reactionary trade union leaders and by professional Israel haters of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Even present was the notorious pro British Imperialist Mairead Corrigan. I remember when this lady was booed off the falls Road because of her support for the real British Imperialist troops in Belfast and Derry.

No problem to these opportunists in the Sinn Fein movement. At the weekend they were arm in arm along with the notorious Mairead Maguire, who is now an Israel hater supreme.

It was in Derry, Protestant Unionists call it Londonderry, a radio wit called it London stroke Derry, that the worst lies were told about Israel and the Jewish Homeland. They were told by a leading member of the Derry Anti War Coalition, a guy called McAuley, as reported by the Belfast Telegraph of 2 January, 2009

[Begin quote here]

Speaking ahead of the event, DAWC spokesman Davy McAuley said today: “More than 400 people been killed by the Israeli bombing since Christmas. We want people to show their opposition to this slaughter by coming to the protest in Guildhall Square at 3pm on Saturday.

And then McAuley came out with this massive lie

[begin quote here]

McAuley claimed the bombing however was not in response to Palestinians firing rockets into Israel.

“It began with the expulsion of the Palestinians at gunpoint from their homeland 60 years ago. They have lived since in refugee camps or crammed into tiny areas like Gaza — an area a sixth the size of Co Derry, with a million and a half people.”

What McAuley did not say is that if the Gaza is that size, then Israel is not much more than the size of Derry. But then McAuley is obviously one of those who wear blinkers when it comes to all things about Israel.

The big lie of McAuley is contained in that business about the “expulsion of the Palestinians”.

A slight problem immediately but one not likely to worry McAuley. There were NO Palestinians in 1948. The Arabs did not in general use that name at all until well after 1967.

But at gunpoint! Expelled!

Thus is part of the Big Lie narrative. I happen to think, especially looking back and since hindsight is handy, that the Arabs should have been expelled from the Israel to be. The Arabs were all hostile to the Jewish state, that is the Arabs were anti-Semitic.

But actually the Israeli leaders were on a different track altogether and they have paid for their kindness so dearly since then.

A more truthful answer is found in this reply to a similar liar to McAuley by CAMERA organization. The CAMERA answer was to a fellow liar of McAuley called Buttu and it is very comprehensive. If you are reading this up in Derry then check it out

[begin quote here]

Moreover, Arab terrorism against Jews predates Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza as well as the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. More than 500 Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine were killed by their Arab neighbors. And during the 1950s and early 60s, more than 50 Arab terrorist attacks in Israel claimed the lives hundreds of Israeli civilians. Thus, Buttu’s allegation that Israel’s “occupation” is the cause of terrorism is incorrect.

On Palestinian Refugees & Right of Return

Buttu alleges that Israel “ethnically cleansed” 75 percent of Palestinians in 1948 because of their religion. For instance, on CNN’s “Q&A with Jim Clancy,” she avered:

Let’s remember that 75 percent of the Palestinian Christian and Muslim population were ethnically cleansed from their homelands back in 1948 and have never been allowed to return for one reason and only one reason, and that is because they are the wrong religion, they’re not Jewish. If they were Jewish, they’d be allowed to return to their homes, but because they’re not Jewish, Israel continues to bar them from returning to their homes… Palestinians will simply not acquiesce to being ethnically cleansed from their homes. (May 26, 2003)

Buttu on Canada AM, CTV:

Let’s remember that the only reason that these Palestinian refugees cannot return to their homes is because they are the wrong religion. Seventy-five percent of the Palestinian population was ethnically cleansed from their home in 1948 and have not been able to return because they are not Jewish. If they were Jewish they would be allowed to return…We will not be the first people in history to accept being ethnically cleansed…(June 4, 2003)

Buttu on USA Today, Talk Today:

…in order to create a “Jewish” state, seventy-five percent of the Palestinian population was ethnically cleansed, and, to this day, not allowed to return because they are not Jewish…

….approximately 75% of the Palestinian population were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel. Their property was taken at the same time.(June 25, 2002)

FACTS: Buttu combines several fraudulent claims. The term “ethnic cleansing,” which refers to the forcible expulsion of an ethnic group, is used by anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propagandists to suggest racism by the Jewish state.

But, by and large, the Palestinians refugees were not forcibly expelled, and certainly none were sent to concentration camps. They became refugees as they fled–often despite the counsel of their Jewish neighbors to stay–a war launched by their Arab brethren and leaders.

On May 14, 1948, the day the British Mandate expired, the Jewish People’s Council approved a proclamation declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The declaration included the following appeal to the non-Jews living there–something hardly suggestive of a nation planning to “ethnically cleanse” another population because of its religion:

We appeal–in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months–to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

But almost immediately, five neighboring Arab armies invaded and attacked the new country. Hundreds of thousands of local Arabs fled, many at the behest of their leaders. Only in very few cases, primarily due to military exigencies, were any of them forced out of their homes.

Estimates of the total number of Arab refugees vary from 472,000 (1948 Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine) to 726,000 (1949 U.N. Economic Survey Mission), with the most reliable estimate, 550,000, obtained by comparing pre-and post-1948 census figures. (All estimates constitute a considerably lower percentage of the total non-Jewish population than the figure of 75 percent that Buttu alleges.)

Buttu’s argument that Palestinian refugees cannot return to their homes because they are “the wrong religion” is similarly false. Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 Palestinian refugees during the 1949 Lausanne negotiations even prior to official discussion of the refugee question, but the Arab states rejected the offer because it would have implicitly recognized Israel’s existence. Nevertheless, Israel allowed over 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program, and after 1967 allowed a further 165,000 to return to the West Bank and Gaza.

Buttu argues that the Palestinians’ right to return to Israel’s borders is guaranteed under international law and is in violation of U.N. Resolution 194 to which she claims Israel was bound. On USA Today’s “Talk Today,” she claimed:

All civilians who flee during war are entitled, under international humanitarian law, to return to their homes. Israel agreed to this in UN Resolution 194 but, of course, has NEVER allowed Palestinian refugees to return to their homes because they are the wrong religion. Anywhere else in the world, this would be considered intolerable discrimination. But, not in Israel. (May 2, 2002)

Buttu on Q&A with Jim Clancy, CNN:

Well, the right of return is a right that’s guaranteed under international law…

…it is a right that’s enshrined under international law and the Palestinians will simply not acquiesce to being ethnically cleansed from their homes. (May 26, 2003)

Buttu on USA TODAY, Talk Today:

[Nothing] negates the Palestinian right of return; under international law, refugees have the right to return regardless of the circumstances by which they became refugees. (June 18, 2003)

FACTS: The key document on which Buttu bases her claim, U.N. Resolution 194, was rejected by all the Arab states representing the Palestinians specifically because it did not establish a “right of return,” and because it implicitly recognized Israel. It is therefore disingenuous and hypocritical for those same Arab states and Palestinian representatives to reverse their position now that it suits them.

Moreover, the Arab states continually violated the resolution’s central provision, which called for the creation of a Conciliation Commission and:

… establishment of contact between the parties themselves and the Commission at the earliest possible date … to seek agreement by negotiations [and thereby reach] a final settlement of all questions between them. (paragraphs 4 and 5)

The Arab states, however, consistently refused even to meet with Israel, much less try to reach a peaceful settlement. In fact, the only clause the Arab side ever acknowledged was paragraph 11, which suggested (it could not “require,” since it was a General Assembly rather than a Security Council resolution) that:

refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date … [R]epatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation [should be facilitated]. (emphasis added)

This recommendation that refugees be “permitted” to return can hardly be characterized as creating a “right”–even more so, because returnees were required to first accept living “at peace with their neighbors,” something very few were willing to do. Furthermore, the recommendation did not even hint at any return rights for descendants of refugees.

On International Law and Disputed Territories

Buttu claims that under international law, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war legally belongs to the Palestinians. As she said on MSNBC’s “Alan Keyes Is Making Sense”:

…What we’re supposed to control is Areas A, B, and C, which is the entire West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip. This is land that was occupied by Israel in 1967, land that the entire international community has said that Israel must return back to the Palestinians. (April 30, 2002)

Buttu on Q&A with Zain Verjee, CNN International:

Well, Israel had absolutely no right to be there [Bethlehem]in the first place. We know this from international law. We know this from the signed agreements. And we also know it from the United Nations and from the United States. (May 7, 2002)

Buttu on CBC  “As It Happens”:

…Under international law, all of the territories that Israel occupied in 1967…belong to the Palestinians and Israel is not even entitled to a single inch of that.

…International law is very clear. There is an international border, and Israel simply has to withdraw to that international border, and from there we can begin to negotiate about other issues… (June 6, 2003)

Buttu on USA Today, Talk Today, June 18, 2003

Israel has, for 36 years, continued to steal Palestinian land and build more and more Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land. These settlements are illegal under international law, constitute a war crime and are also illegal under US law. (June 18, 2003)

The “entire international community” did not envision Israel’s ceding all of the West Bank. U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 was worded deliberately to indicate that Israel was not expected to withdraw from all the territories that had come under its control in the self-defensive war of 1967. Although it was expected to withdraw from some “territories,” according to the resolution, any Israel withdrawal would be predicated on its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” As American U.N. Ambassador at the time, Arthur Goldberg, noted, “the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal” to indicate “less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel’s prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure.”


Postscript by Felix Quigley

Great work by CAMERA. I would like to see their evidence refuted. But the McAuleys of this world just go on lying and don’t bother much with evidence of any kind. There is a very close parallel between what a guy like McAuley says and what this woman Buttu says. CAMERA proves easily that she is lying, but I do not think that this worries people like Buttu and McAuley.The prevalence of all of this from Spain through Ireland and Europe, even into Canada and the US, is like a real virus attacking historical veracity.

It makes me seriously think that the Nazi Big Lie pales into insignificance compared to this monstrosity. I also happen to think that it is closely connected to the Big Lie against the Serbs put about by the Media, by Islamofascvists in Iran, and by US and EU Imperialist Governments.

And my main conclusion. It is not so easily challenged never mind vanquished. It needs above all a cadre leadership which is based on a clear understanding of history, what really did take place in 1847 to 1949, and in 1967.