Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein trav­els across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Britain, Greece, and Australia to witness the reality of disaster capitalism. He discovers how companies such as G4S, Serco, and Halliburton cash in on or­ganized misery in a hidden world of privatized detention centers, militarized private security, aid profiteering, and destructive mining.

Disaster has become big business. Talking to immigrants stuck in limbo in Britain or visiting immigration centers in America, Loewenstein maps the secret networks formed to help cor­porations bleed what profits they can from economic crisis. He debates with Western contractors in Afghanistan, meets the locals in post-earthquake Haiti, and in Greece finds a country at the mercy of vulture profiteers. In Papua New Guinea, he sees a local commu­nity forced to rebel against predatory resource companies and NGOs.

What emerges through Loewenstein’s re­porting is a dark history of multinational corpo­rations that, with the aid of media and political elites, have grown more powerful than national governments. In the twenty-first century, the vulnerable have become the world’s most valu­able commodity. Disaster Capitalism is published by Verso in 2015 and in paperback in January 2017.

Profits_of_doom_cover_350Vulture capitalism has seen the corporation become more powerful than the state, and yet its work is often done by stealth, supported by political and media elites. The result is privatised wars and outsourced detention centres, mining companies pillaging precious land in developing countries and struggling nations invaded by NGOs and the corporate dollar. Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea and across Australia to witness the reality of this largely hidden world of privatised detention centres, outsourced aid, destructive resource wars and militarized private security. Who is involved and why? Can it be stopped? What are the alternatives in a globalised world? Profits of Doom, published in 2013 and released in an updated edition in 2014, challenges the fundamentals of our unsustainable way of life and the money-making imperatives driving it. It is released in an updated edition in 2014.
forgodssakecover Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?   We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.   Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.   Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sakepublished in 2013, encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.  
After Zionism, published in 2012 and 2013 with co-editor Ahmed Moor, brings together some of the world s leading thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution. Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonization of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably. This daring and timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Antony Loewenstein, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ahmed Moor, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.
The 2008 financial crisis opened the door for a bold, progressive social movement. But despite widespread revulsion at economic inequity and political opportunism, after the crash very little has changed. Has the Left failed? What agenda should progressives pursue? And what alternatives do they dare to imagine? Left Turn, published by Melbourne University Press in 2012 and co-edited with Jeff Sparrow, is aimed at the many Australians disillusioned with the political process. It includes passionate and challenging contributions by a diverse range of writers, thinkers and politicians, from Larissa Berendht and Christos Tsiolkas to Guy Rundle and Lee Rhiannon. These essays offer perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream. They offer possibilities for resistance and for a renewed struggle for change.
The Blogging Revolution, released by Melbourne University Press in 2008, is a colourful and revelatory account of bloggers around the globe why live and write under repressive regimes - many of them risking their lives in doing so. Antony Loewenstein's travels take him to private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, to the homes of Cuban dissidents and into newspaper offices in Beijing, where he discovers the ways in which the internet is threatening the ruld of governments. Through first-hand investigations, he reveals the complicity of Western multinationals in assisting the restriction of information in these countries and how bloggers are leading the charge for change. The blogging revolution is a superb examination about the nature of repression in the twenty-first century and the power of brave individuals to overcome it. It was released in an updated edition in 2011, post the Arab revolutions, and an updated Indian print version in 2011.
The best-selling book on the Israel/Palestine conflict, My Israel Question - on Jewish identity, the Zionist lobby, reporting from Palestine and future Middle East directions - was released by Melbourne University Press in 2006. A new, updated edition was released in 2007 (and reprinted again in 2008). The book was short-listed for the 2007 NSW Premier's Literary Award. Another fully updated, third edition was published in 2009. It was released in all e-book formats in 2011. An updated and translated edition was published in Arabic in 2012.

Speaking in Tongues

Following my appearance on SBS TV this week [now available online, select “Episode 11: Monday 16th January” and here], it’s worth offering some reflections (for further background reading, check here.)

I was moderately happy with my performance. I remained calm throughout, explained why Jews shouldn’t be Zionists due to its racially exclusionary doctrine and that present-day Israel is on a path to oblivion unless it undergoes a fundamental shift. As Israeli historian Ilan Pappe said in 2002: “I think the de-Zionization of Israel is a condition for peace.”

My debating opponent, “comedian” Austen Tayshus, preferred the tactics of bullying and arrogance. Tayshus served a useful purpose in exemplifying the ugly bigotry of the mainstream Jewish community. On the other hand, sadly, it reinforced very unfavourable opinions that have been created in the wider community – through the 2003 Hanan Ashrawi affair – of the intolerance of many Jews towards dissenting opinions and Palestinian voices of reason. Jews are often their own worst enemies. It also might help if Tayshus didn’t look so much like those awful caricatures we know from the 1930s!

After the screening, a friend reminded me of a passage by Marc Ellis, University Professor of American and Jewish Studies and Director of the Center for American and Jewish Studies at Baylor University. In his book, “Out of the Ashes“, he describes his participation in a panel on Israel/Palestine in Christchurch, New Zealand. He was up against Yossi Olmert, brother of Ehud [current Israeli Prime Minister]. He writes, parroting Olmert’s paranoid style:

“After all, isn’t every violation of order and decency in the Middle East a violation by Arabs who, if they had the power, would drive the Jews into the sea? Isn’t that the aim of every Arab on the street and every Arab government from now until the end of time? Aren’t moral arguments made on behalf of the Palestinians actually hypocritical, veiled attacks that carry the ominous prospects of another Holocaust? Am I, with others who criticise the Jewish state, contributing to a gathering storm of violence and retribution that might result in a catastrophe for Jews approaching or even surpassing the mass death of Jews in the twentieth century?

“As it turned out, my fears for the integrity of the panel discussion were unfortunately realized. Olmert dominated the discussion as if it were a solo lecture. Not only did he speak far longer than his allotted time, he resisted any attempt to stop him. As his orations grew longer, his vehemence increased.

“Olmert seemed obsessed with the era before the 1967 Israeli-Arab War when Jordan occupied east Jerusalem…With the evening ended, I returned to the home where I was staying. I reflected on the discussion and felt almost as if I had been physically violated…In the morning I had another sense of the previous evening. Rather than by debating skills or truth telling, Olmert had dominated me and the audience with bully tactics. This understanding of Olmert as a bully, remembering that bullies, absent their entourage or, in the case of Israel, an overwhelming arms advantage, are essentially cowards, forced me to a deeper level of sadness with regard to Israel and its future…I view this encounter with the ‘bully of Christchurch’ as a window into the Jewish world as it has evolved over the last decades. With the evolution and expansion of state power in Israel and the accelerated empowerment and achievement of elite influence in the United States, Jewish life around the world has been mobilized and militarised.”

Tayshus tried to steer the conversation away from the Middle East and highlighted the shameful subjugation of the Aboriginal people in Australia. He asked whether I felt ashamed living on occupied land and whether I was campaigning for the country’s rightful owners. I have spoken out on such matters and indeed used to work for a Victorian state government unit dedicated to increasing understanding between white and indigenous Australia.

Zionist adversaries will talk about everything other than Israel’s illegal behaviour and human rights record: Aborigines, Native Americans, Rwanda, life on Mars even. It is a telling tactic. Israel’s behaviour is so indefensible that even in a debate about the Middle East, Zionists prefer to talk about other matters. Indeed, his point was actually in my favour. Tayshus was acknowledging the problems created by an occupied state and showing what happens when that occupation continues unabated – genocide.

Within minutes of the program going to air, I received many emails from complete strangers, keen to learn more about the true situation in Israel and Palestine and engage on a rational level. A small selection of these messages follow:

“I’m sure you will get plenty of emails re: tonight’s show. Just a quick message to say that I thought you came across as sensible, intelligent and balanced. You kept your cool and were not an irrational bully – unlike Austen Tayshus. He embodied the aggressive intolerance that is present on a larger scale that make peace in the middle east so difficult to achieve. Keep up the good work.”

“Watched SBS tonight (Monday) and wondered whether Gutman realises that he does his cause more harm than good by his attitude and approach. It really was an appalling display of ignorance and prejudice. He didn’t give you much opportunity to say a word, and I know it was cut from its original half hour or whatever, but if it was all rant and rave, it is just as well it was cut.”

“You behaved with great restraint and dignity in the presence of a right bully. Whoever edited the piece, though, should be whipped.”

Edward Mariyani-Squire, a regular commentator on this blog, wrote:

“Gutman gave the impression of being a mannerless ranter due to his constant talking over the top of both A.L. and Safran. (I’d hate to say Gutman was living the stereotype of a dogmatic apologist for the occupation, but I think I just did.) Loewenstein, on the other hand, came across as fairly polite and reasonable. Of course, weaker minds who are not across the issues, think yelling over the top of people constitutes civilised debate, and mistake dissembling apologetics for solid arguments, are bound to be impressed by Gutman.”

It never ceases to amaze me that many vocal supporters of Israel are incapable of arguing with anything other than venom, and as my profile increases (and the release of my forthcoming book, speaking engagements and the like), so does the personal abuse. Perhaps it’s because they realise that Zionism’s sheen has been rightly blackened in the last two decades. Or maybe it’s due to the fact that Israeli supporters would rather a brutal occupation remains hidden to the world. Either way, it’s a damning indictment on the desperation of a people long known for suffering degradation and isolation.

Ami Eden, national editor of the leading Jewish publication Forward, challenged this Jewish establishment view in the New York Times in early 2005. “It is time Jews recognise that the old strategies no longer work”, he wrote. “Jewish organisation and advocates fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised. Rather, they are seen as the global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying.”

It is still far too politically and morally convenient for Zionists to portray Israel as “disenfranchised” rather than a global power.

I am a Jew who believes in the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. And as a Jew, I believe it is my responsibility to speak out when abuse occurs, especially when perpetrated by fellow Jews.

89 comments ↪
  • orang

    Easycure said… "You're a fucking idiot. "Oooh so butch

  • Wombat

    Orang, Another wonderful moment of entertainment. Easycure appears to be a fudgemonckey who found his way up to some kind of online insults dictionnary.

  • Ibrahamav

    No. He just seems like a newby who saw the addamo on the wall and responded accordingly.

  • John Faber

    Once again rage is overtaking reason in the discussion. As I stated earlier, from a relatively neutral standpoint, it is Antony who is making his arguments in the most reasoned manner [whether you agree with his arguments or not]. Most of the respondents here who disagree seem to undermine their points and credibility by being abusive. However generally, people seem to agree that Austen Tayshus was not a 'grounded' opponent. But then neither are a lot of people commenting here.So my suggestion is: find somebody who can debate the zionist point of view without losing their rag. In the end, this will be the person the casual reader can relate to and believe.John

  • Ibrahamav

    That he makes it by lying and using addamo in a reasoned manner seems to be all that is important to you.That the facts are undermined by abusive writing is not a reality based way of thinking.I wish you joy as you march to your grave, led by an arab who speaks to you reasonably as he sharpens the knife with which he cuts your throat.

  • neoleftychick

    JohnThe word "Zionist" would have to be the most abused word outside "racism." I wonder if you have any idea what you mean when you use it.

  • Wombat

    What's you poitn Neo? Do you have some secret definitioh of Zionism that hasn't been repeatedly defined and easily accessibel by a Google search by those unfamiliar with the term.Theodor Herzl is hardly a biblical figure.

  • John Faber

    Ibrahamav,I take it your tone there was intended to be patronising. I've come to this forum without making any inflammatory remark. As stated, I do not support or object to Antony's point of view, I merely intend to learn about the topic by reading a variety of views.Please point me in the direction of somebody who can debate the issue from your perspective in a non-aggressive manner.I mean this sincerely, I am open to all perspectives.John

  • John Faber

    Neoleftychick,Many comments by yourself in earlier threads have struck me as un-constructive at best. I state once again: I am a neutral here, hoping to learn something.My posts are not directed at you.John

  • Wombat

    John,Don't take this personaly mate. As you have noticed, the topic get's people's blood pressur up and those uncinditionally defending Israel's record are quick to indentify other's an an enemy.

  • leftvegdrunk

    John. I have already tried that. I find it best to read Loewensteins views, follow the links, and largely ignore the comments threads. Good luck.

  • Wombat

    Good advice Left.

  • Antony Loewenstein

    John,Please stick around.This subject certainly gets people all worked up but alternative readings of the conflict are essential, in my view, to move forward.

  • John Faber

    Thanks guys,I'm not taking it personally. It's just remarkable that presumably educated adults cannot conduct a reasonable discussion. So I throw out a challenge to you: recommend to me some sources to read who defend the Zionist, pro-Israel perspective. Even if you don't agree with them.As you say, Antony, alternative readings are essential. That's why I've arrived here, but would also like to see what the 'other side' are up to.John

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Sure thing.Check out Alan Dershowitz's 'Case for Israel' and 'Case for Peace'. I strongly disagree with both, but they are admired and liked by many Zionists. Once finished, check out Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah, a demolition job on Derhshowitz.

  • Jono

    Zionist adversaries will talk about everything other than Israel's illegal behaviour and human rights record: Aborigines, Native Americans, Rwanda, life on Mars even. It is a telling tactic. Israel's behaviour is so indefensible that even in a debate about the Middle East, Zionists prefer to talk about other matters.Actually this point does show a lot about where you come from. The left is still insanely obsessed with one tiny democratic nation, whilst in other places, there are real atrocities, racism and aggression that go unmentioned by ultra-leftists such as yourself.Rather than put forward moderate debate where the actions of Israel are placed in perspective, you continue to harp on as if it were the most destructive force on the planet. Oh yeah, and the phenomenon of palestinian terrorist groups and suicide bombings is not worth discussing either.Even us Zionists who support Israel's right to exist will all have varied criticisms of Israeli policy.

  • Wombat

    Jono,Do you seriosuy believe that only Zionists "who support Israel's right to exist"? Does criticisin g China over Tibet imply that China's right to exist is in any doubt?Is criticism of Israel inextricably linked to the need to see Israel destroyed, or even bring Israel's legitimacy into question? That is what we mean by framing the debate. It is not the let that is insanely obsessed with Israel. It's most of the Western world. The US is obsessed with Israel. US oliticians trip over each other fawning over Israel. 100 Congressmen last year visitied Israel. Name another country that had anywhere near the same number fo visits from US officials.The conflict has a high profile also becasue of the fact that it has spanned many decades. There is undoubtedly a romanticism involved also, becasue of the plight of Israeli Jews.The mere fact that discussions abtou Israel and Palestine polarise peopel so strongly disproves your assertion that only the left are obsessed with Israel.

  • Smeggix

    Having just watched last Monday's Speaking in Tongues I'd say Antony advanced the anti-Zionist cause by a couple of points while Austen advanced it by about 50 points.I suspect John Safran's sympathy towards the Palestinians caused him to invite Austen and show Zionists in the worst possible light, boy was he successful.

  • John Faber

    Surely as this is Antony's blog, it's his choice what he wishes to post about. If he doesn't cover the whole spectrum of news, perhaps there are other blogs out there to fulfill your needs.Surely if you feel Antony's reporting is too narrow, it is incumbent upon you to start a more balanced blog yourself?The whole point of blogging is that it's opinion, and not law. You don't need to read it if you don't like it.John

  • Ibrahamav

    Jon, check out Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah, and don't forget that its publication was delayed while the Publisher forced Fink to remove some lies.Dershowitz's "Case for Israel" and "Case for Peace" are well reasoned and fairly outline the failings of both sides.Antisemites and self-hating Jews can't stand it.

  • orang

    John Faber said…"……I'm not taking it personally. It's just remarkable that presumably educated adults cannot conduct a reasonable discussion. ……"John welcome to the House of Loon ( = lunatics, Looowinstein…)You're either with us or against us here. There is no "reason".There is no such thing as being "anti-zionist". You are either pro-zion or anti-semitic. Good luck.

  • Ibrahamav

    You certainly can be a zionist and still find fault in the Israeli government. You can be neutral towards zionism and find fault with the Israeli government.But most antizionists are also antisemitic. And seeing that Zionism is an integral part of Judaism, it is not hard to see the connection.

  • smiths

    jon, i myself am saddened and disgusted by much of what is written here by various regular posters and have even asked antony to ban some of them which he fairly rejects as a strategy, buttheres also lots of gems in amongst the posts and some great regular posters who discuss calmy and eloquently and actually use factual information to back up their claimsin fact if you want to stop a degenerating thread historical facts and history are a great way, just yesterday, in response to bullshit about palestinians i posted the month and year that arafat accepted the right of israel to exist and i got two responses, one that said there was no source, (it was historical fact so i figured easily checkable) and a second that said it was false but failed to explain how or offer any alternative historyon sources of pro zionism dershowitz is widely admired and quoted although noam chomsky has regularly made him look like a amateurish moron and michael neumanns book the 'the case against israel' totally demolishes dershowitz's book, impeccably researched, 26 pages of references including a list of 28 important works, 188 endnotes. Neumann focuses on reality-based analysis — historical facts, formal logic, ethics, behavioral rationality, philosophy, morality, and politics (Neumann is a professor of moral and political philosophy at Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada).

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Thanks smiths,The banning strategy is a tough one. I've reccently introduced a 'comments' policy – you can read that under my profile on the home page – but outright banning seems problematic for me, despite the ongoing abuse. In probably proves my points on this subject, no? The only way many of these people are able to argue is through aggression. And they wonder why more and more people question Zionism?

  • smiths

    actually meant to finish by saying, hang around jon,we need the reasonable posters

  • smiths

    i dont have a copy of the torah so i cannot authenticate thisOur Torah, in Tractate Ksubos, folio 111, specifies that the Creator, blessed be He, swore the Jews not to occupy the Holy Land by force, even if it appears that they have the force to do so; and not rebel against the Nations.can someone tell me if this is incorrect, if it is not can someone explain zionism to me

  • lewisinnyc

    smiths – tractate ksubos/ketubot is not part of the Torah, but the Mishna. The Torah clearly contains positive commandment regarding the conquest and settlement of Israel. For example: "You shall possess the Land and settle in it, for to you I gave the Land to possess it" (Numbers 33:53); "Go up and possess as G-d spoke to you" (Deuteronomy 1:21). The Ramban considered the obligation to conquer and inhabit the Land of Israel to be a positive commandment for all time (mitzvat aseh). Numerous rabbis over the years (esp. Rashbash) have considered the apparent contradiction between these commandments and ketubot 111a. The usual conclusion is that the prohibition on conquest (but NOT settlement) only applies during the time of exile, which is no longer the case.

  • Wombat

    Ibrahamav said…"and don't forget that its publication was delayed while the Publisher forced Fink to remove some lies."Is that true? I thought the changes were made under threats of a lawsuit for defamation. Anyway, some lies is not so bad in a book dedictaed entirely to pointing ourt lies and discrepancies in Dershowitz's book."Antisemites and self-hating Jews can't stand it."As with most works based on fraud.

  • Edward Mariyani-Squi

    lewisinnyc said… "The usual conclusion is that the prohibition on conquest (but NOT settlement) only applies during the time of exile, which is no longer the case."That's quite interesting lewisinnyc. So that's to say there is no longer a prohibiton on conquest (and settlement has been allowed all along)?Can you tell me what the dominant position is regarding the conditions (if any) for the end of the excilic period?

  • Clumsy Birds

    …I throw out a challenge to you: recommend to me some sources to read who defend the Zionist, pro-Israel perspective. Even if you don't agree with them.John, I'd recommend Honest Reporting– its a pro-Zionist site which usually proves most of Antony's links false, or at least points out the media's double standards. I'm guessing to him and his fans its an extremist what-not, but hell, so is Playschool for not showing gay parents.I'd also recommend The Other War for some more analysis on Israel in the media.

  • Ibrahamav

    , i myself am saddened and disgusted by much of what is written here by various regular posters and have even asked antony to ban some of them which he fairly rejects as a strategy, buttheres also lots of gems in amongst the posts and some great regular posters who discuss calmy and eloquently and actually use factual information to back up their claimsin fact if you want to stop a degenerating thread historical facts and history are a great way, just yesterday, in response to bullshit about palestinians i posted the month and year that arafat accepted the right of israel to exist and i got two responses, one that said there was no source, (it was historical fact so i figured easily checkable) and a second that said it was false but failed to explain how or offer any alternative historyHere is the truth regarding Arafat's recognition of Israel.More than 11 years ago now, on September 13, 1993, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, shook the hand of a reluctant Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as the Declaration of Principles was signed on the White House lawn. A culmination of the negotiations in Oslo, the Declaration called for putting an end to “decades of confrontation and conflict” and stated that the parties would “strive to live in peaceful coexistence.”Within 24 hours Arafat had gone on Jordan TV and explained his position (in Arabic) with remarkable candor:http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2005/sepoct/dept/letters.html“Since we cannot defeat Israel in war; we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel,” he said.Which is why most of us are sick of antisemites posting addamo about Arafat accepting Israel.

  • lewisinnyc

    Edward – A useful discussion on this question can be found at the following link: <a href="http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/religious-zionism-debate-iv.htmlhttp://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/religious-zi… />In short, the exilic period will have ended once Jews are able to immigrate again to Israel en masse.As for settlement of Israel, this has been a religious individual (but oddly not communal) obligation for Jews since the laws were laid down. That is, they were not merely permitted to settle in Israel, but obligated to do so (as individuals), if practicable. For most of the past two millennia, it was not practicable to do so.Anyone who thinks that Zionism is a new fad has probably never heard "l'shana haba'ah biyerushalayim" (next year in Jerusalem), which Jews all round the world have sung at Passover for many centuries.Slightly OT – Why do antisemites have such an obsession with Neturei Karta???

  • Ibrahamav

    Antisemites love them because they can parade them around as the only 'real' Jews. That's why so many Arab Muslims love them too.As long as they are useful.

  • Edward Mariyani-Squi

    lewisinnyc,Thanks for that link."Zionism is a new fad has probably never heard "l'shana haba'ah biyerushalayim" (next year in Jerusalem)" Have people taken that literally for centuries? The English poem (and hymn), Jerusalem, has the evocative line, "Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land!" The hymn has been sung by millions over the last couple of hundred years, but I don't think a single person seriously considered taking it literally."Why do antisemites have such an obsession with Neturei Karta"Presumably because "my enemy's enemy is my friend" [at last temporarily].Not being an anti-Semite, I can' be certain of this, but that seems to be a pretty obvious reason. I find these guys to be mildly interesting (as I find all religious groups interesting) because they seem to be pretty darn quirky – a curiosum, if you will. My personal favourite curiosum however, is the Batak religion of North Sumatra in Indonesia.

  • Ibrahamav

    Clearly what you think, and what is, are two separate items. And the fact that you are uncertain does not change the fact that you are an antisemite.

  • Edward Mariyani-Squi

    Ibrahamav, you are possibly Israel's worst enemy. That's why you are OBVIOUSLY an anti-Semite hell-bent on making Zionists look like religiously bigoted, racist, fascistic sociopaths.

  • Ibrahamav

    Since you've been made into a laughingstock here, your opinion in that regard is hardly worth caring about.At the moment, you're an antisemite who happens to be a an object of ridicule.

  • Edward Mariyani-Squi

    Why don't you just crawl back into your cave with Usama, Hitler, Stalin and Satan, Ibrahamav? Your rabies-infested brain contributes nothing whatsoever to this blogsite – apart from your veciferous attempts to paint Zionism as utterly Demonic. Neo-Nazis love you, and you know it.

  • Ibrahamav

    Are you talking to yourself again?