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.

Taking them at their word

Hamas’s new prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, Washington Post, February 26:

“We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody.”

Read the whole interview. It’s a fascinating insight into current Hamas thinking. It is impossible to know if he is telling the truth, but it’s important to begin negotiations based on his comments that Hamas is willing to establish an independent Palestinian state if Israel withdraws to 1967 borders.  Another Hamas victor in recent elections discusses his ideas about Danish cartoons, Israel’s occupation and Palestinian statehood.

Meanwhile, former Israeli military heads are facing charges of war crimes in the US. The Israeli ambassador to the US claims that both men were merely enforcing Israel’s war against terror and bear no personal responsibility for actions that killed innocent Palestinians. Sounds like a familiar defence.

  • Chris

    My understanding is that Israel will refuse the offer. It intends to keep Jerusalem and most of the settlements.

  • Addamo

    Well I hope that Captain can take off his bixing gloves and at least aknowledge that this is a step in the right direction.

    And let’s also aknowledge that Israel does have a choice in this matter.

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Of course israel will refuse the offer. They used to talk about keeping all the territories. Then Gaza appeared. And, soon enough, Jerusalem will be split and the West Bank will be returned.

  • Chris

    Israel has, in the past, offered part of Jerusalem and most of the West Bank. They will again offer part of Jerusalem and most of the West bank, just less than the last offer.

    As for War Crimes, the Palestinians have more to fear from suits brought against them.

  • captain

    so it should be no problem for them to a) say the same thing in Arabic to their voters and b) change their charter. Two presumably easy steps that would make their comments credible. Until that time, I will look at all of the hamas statements in toto and tell you they are obviously irreconsilable.

  • Addamo

    War crimes usually require proof and/or evidence to be provided, so balanced, fair and accurate goes without saying.

    Those numbers can easily be chekced and no doubt B’Tselem can verify their accuracy. If inideed hese reports are accurate, woudl you join the rest of humanity on condeming them?

    Yes Captain, I agree that a litmus test of the honesty from Hamas would be their making those statements of peace in Arabic, but what’s to say their original comments were not made in Arabic and subesequently translated?

    Speaking of native languages. What do you have to say about the revelations made by Dov Wiesglass, that Sharon has no intentinos of a peaceful settelment, but intends to put negotiations in formaldehyde?

    And according to Shlomo Ben Ami, Sharon has been creating settlements in order to torpedo a future agreement, whereas Rabin drew a distinction between what he called — I agree, it was an internal Israeli game — but he drew the distinction between political settlements, that is, settlements that were created in order to derail the possibility.

    Do you agree that Sharon’s doctrine should be recanted and that Israel needs to come clean and do what it says, rather than playing some diplomatic sleigh of hand while they continue to expand settlements?

  • edward squire

    “All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody.”

    Whether he’s telling the truth or not, the answer is – and will remain – the same: no, we’ve taken it, so go die in a ditch.

  • Addamo

    Exactly Edward. Fatah were never goingt be taken seriously and Hamas are too extreme. There wil always be a reaosn for not finding the perfect partner for peace. And besides, Israel is not prepared to pay the price that Hamas and Saudi Arabia are asking.

  • orang

    For the moment Hamas’ inexperience in world politics will be their biggest asset. They don’t really give a shit about world opinion and in maintaining their mythlike image. Consequently they won’t be pressured into making concessions and deals which would weaken their position in the long term. They have no ties to the traditional money supply that kept Fatah quiet and sleek, so nothing to lose.

  • captain

    yes, it is very rational to believe in the protocols of zion and to strap bombs to your body in the belief that you are going to be rewarded with 72 virgins.

    They have no ties to traditional money supply: you are right, Iran is not traditional.

  • orang

    "Palestinians have more to fear from suits brought against them"….?

    I haven't heard of any suits for war crimes brought against the Plestinians. But if you are right, then true they would be fearful and shamed at the idea of facing accusations of War Crimes.

    As for Israel, since they don't give a fuck about facing War Crimes allegations-note , this is a WEEKLY report.

    Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

    Weekly Report: On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

    No. 05/2006

    02-08 Feb. 2006
    Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Escalate Attacks on Palestinian Civilians and Property in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)
    · 11 Palestinians were extra-judicially killed by IOF.
    · 27 Palestinian civilians, including 17 children, were wounded by IOF.
    · IOF conducted 40 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank.
    · Houses were raided and 78 Palestinian civilians, including 12 children, were arrested by IOF.
    · A house was transformed by IOF into a military site.
    · IOF have continued to impose a total siege on the OPT, especially in the West Bank; IOF arrested 9 Palestinian civilians, including 6 children, at checkpoints in the West Bank.
    · IOF have continued to construct the Annexation Wall in the West Bank; IOF razed areas of Palestinian land near "Ariel" settlement; IOF seized 280 dunums[1] of agricultural land in the northern West Bank and 129 dunums in Beit Hanina village near Jerusalem; IOF uprooted 120 olives trees in Hebron; 6 demonstrators were injured by IOF in Bal'ein village near Ramallah; and IOF arrested 3 Palestinian children near the Wall.
    · Israeli settlers have continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property in the OPT; 8 Palestinian civilians were injured in 3 attacks by Israeli settlers in Hebron; and 5 under-construction houses were demolished by IOF."

  • captain

    Now, would the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights be a balanced, fair and accurate organisation?

  • Addamo

    And Captin,

    Seeing as you’re such a stickler for what people say, perhaps you would join us in condemmming the coments from another ISraeli hero:

    “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

  • edward squire

    Hamas' "problem" in the past was that they were rational. They judged Sharon and every other Israeli Prime Minister by their "revealled preferences" – i.e. by their deeds, not their words; by the facts on the ground: uninterrupted occupation, occupation, occupation, occupation … for 30 years straight. Only a total moron would say, "Hmmm – I see no pattern here. Maybe the Israelis really do want to leave, but they just haven't gotten around to it yet." What does a rational person do in such a situation – when talk doesn't work, when appealing to the international community doesn't work, when the US heedlessly continues to supply the means of occupation, when your 'representatives' steal money meant for welfare and offers nothing but the apparent futility of fruitless 'negotiations' for ever and ever? You go to the only option left – fighting back however you can.

    That was then. Now Hamas is in the driver's seat. They have returned to the irrationality of hope; they offer the obvious solution: end the occupation and thereby end the result of that occupation – fighting back.

  • Chris

    Condemning the comments? It appears that The First Prime Minister Of Israel was merely giving what he believed was the summation of the Arab point of view.

    Not the right point of view, and not neccessarilly the totally wrong point of view. Just the arab point of view. He was not stating their view was legitimate.

    “They see one thing” Are you thinking that comment is racist in stating it is all any arab sees? I’m sure he didn’t mean all. After all, it was a time before PC was of concern.

    While this is far better than your ficticious quote comparing Palestinians to two legged beasts (Begin never said the palestinians were beasts walking on 2 legs, at least not within earshot of anyone recording such a conversation), it is still taken out of context.

  • Addamo

    Speaking of who shoud or shoudl nto be fearful of being found guilty, here is an intem that cmae up today:

    The IDF commander of the Gaza division, Brigadier General Aviv Kochavi, has cancelled plans to study in the U.K. after warnings from the military that he could be arrested for war crimes.,7340,L-3221333,00.html

  • Addamo


    You are just being petulant with you uncinstructive post.

    Is it that you don't believ eHamas is capable of peacefully negtating a settlement, or is it that you're afraid they may prove you wrong?

  • rhross

    Chris you said:

    Palestinians have more to fear from War Crimes brought against them.

    I take it this means you accept that Israelis also have things to fear about War Crimes charges, therefore, in essence, admitting to a case. Good on you.

    As a matter of principle War Crimes charges should be levelled where they are deserved and that means both sides of the Israeli/palestinian conflict.

    One suspects however, any court of law would have to take into account the mitigating circumstances of those operating to free themselves from a brutal occupation.

    Would you also like to post links to Palestinian equivalents of Sabra and Shatila and Jenin? On a day to day basis Israel has killed far more Palestinian civilians than vice-versa and therefore has more stacked up in the War Crimes files.

    In addition, I suspect a court of law would also regard war crimes carried out by a State (as was the case with Nazi Germany) as far more severe than those carried out by any resistance.

    That's probably why the French and Dutch resistance were not charged with war crimes for some of their excesses and the Germans were.

    That's why Israel has a lot to fear, as does America and its allies, and the Palestinians little.

    No, it doesn't make Palestinian violence right it just makes it more justifiable. Most people in the world do believe that people who live under occupation have a right to free themselves even if you do not. Most courts of law would argue justification on that count alone.

  • Addamo


    Fictitious quotes? Wow, your conspiracy hat really comes out when Israel is made to look bad doesn't it? First it was that Rachel Corrie committed suicide due to a sever bout of pre-natal depression, not to mention how she used tele kinisis to swithc the tractor gearbox into reverse to make sure the suicide was succesfful. Now fictitious quotes.

    Yes, your mother was right when she warned you there were anti-Semited under your bed.

    What evidence do you have the Begin's quote was fictitious? And what evidene do you have that Ben Guiron did not mean what he said? After all he is 100% right.

    Perhaps we should apply the same standards to the inflamatory statements from Hamas, arguing that they were taken out of context, just a bunch of men high on tertosterone and not mean to be takes seriously?

    Where would you and Captain be without your beloved double standards?

  • Chris

    Yes, Israeli have little to fear about being found guilty, just about the bother of having to prove their innocence.

    I believe war crimes have occurred. I believe they were individual actions that would be found repugnant by their superiors. Those actually being sought are not those people.

    On the other hand, I believe the palestinian leadership is due for a rude awakening once they are tried. I do not suspect that an objective judge will give a damn about the circumstance that any palestinian will use to justify those war crimes.

    The French and Dutch were on the winning side. The Palestinians are not. The legal control of the disputed territories by the Israelis is in no way comparable to the Nazi German occupation of Holland and France, even though it seems France willingly gave Germany control.

    Actually, there is nothing that justifies Palestinian violence. Their war criminals will serve many years in jail

  • Addamo

    You make one valid point Chris,

    It is the winners that ultimately get to write history. And those at the top never face responsibility for their crimes. After all, Israel defended Sharon agsint being charged with international crimes by areguing that as a head of state, he derserved immunity.

    Only last year, there was conceren about a trip of an Israeli general to the Uk becasue of outstanding charges of war crimes against him. Charges against Sharon as stil being debated.

    Paelstinians killed people and so did Israelis, except that ISrael have killed many many more. That's not to mention the ten thousand homes that were bulldozed as an act of colective punishment (against the Geneva Conventions).

    No Chris, RhRoss is right. OPnt he basis of numbers alone, Israel do have much more to fear that Palestinians. An objective judge will apply the letter of the law and under international law, resistance ot occupation is recognised as legitimate.

    Even if you ignore the illegality and vilence of the Israeli occupation, the vilence on Israel's part (which started with the Irgun and continuued ever since) is justification enough for Paelstinian retaliation.

  • Antony said:

    "Israel used to talk about keeping all the territories. Then Gaza appeared. And, soon enough, Jerusalem will be split and the West Bank will be returned."

    That seems optimistic to me. Yes, Sharon finally realised that it was pointless to try to hang onto Gaza, and also the main population centres of the West Bank. But the current plan seem to be to seize the whole of Jerusalem, about 50% of the West Bank, the Jordan River bank, and the water supplies. Who is going to stop them? The Palestinians, led by Hamas, will resist, but will that be enough? Only the world community, and the US, could ever put enough pressure on Israel to accept a two-state '67 solution, and that is not happening.

  • Chris

    Under International law, nothing excuses palestinian war crimes. Numbers do not tell any story. Palestinian incompetence in war does not get them any sympathy from an objective judge. A judge will find that Palestinian war crimes were, by design, meant to kill the max number of civillians in a way to instill terror in civillians while israeli acts of war were designed to instill the max amount of fear in Palestinian terrorists.

    There is no reason for the US to pressure Israel to accept pre-67 berders. It is no longer just to the Israelis.

  • Addamo

    Under the UN charter, people have a right ot resist occupation. This will liekly be considered by any judge or panel of judges.

    the numbers do tell the story entreily. The fact that Israel is armed to the teeth with state f the arm weaponry is not due to Palestinian incompetence.

    Once again Chris, you put your physic voodoo to the test by predictinbg what an "umbiased" judge wil conclude. Do you do tarrot cards as well?

    A judge may likely come to the same conclusions that human rights groups have come to, that Israel is systematicalyl trying to isoltae and squeeze out the Paelstinians population. If in doign so they kill Paelstnians, all the better.

    Israel has shown repeatedly that it does not target terrorists, but prefers to inflcit collective punichment on the Paelstinians, hence the 10 thousand homes that have been demolished.

    I agree that the US will not pressure Israel to accept pre 7 borders, but that is meaningless in itself.

  • Chris

    Keep your petty insults at home. An objective judge will dismiss the concerns of most HR groups as political rather than factual. An objective judge will see that the palestinian goals have nothing to do with occupation as they were in this business before 1967.

    An objective judge will recognize the enormous restraint exercised by the Israeli government.

  • Sometimes when the conversation comes around to war crimes, it is instructive to refer back to the Geneva conventions (much of which was brought in to formally criminalise the actions of the Nazis in WW2). Check out (a little piece by Jews for Justice etc).

  • Chris

    Since Israel is adamant that it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. It seems to me that any ruling otherwise will be the same as a previous ruling that doesn't apply; the Judges refused to consider any evidence supplied by the opposition.

    So referring to a convention that does not apply is not instructive.

  • Addamo

    You ramblings are making less sense with time Chris,

    If a judge is to make an informed descision, he wil consider evindece of human rights violations and in that regard, Israel has an appalling record.

    An obvjectove jusge will decide what he decides, but you r insistence that palestinian goals have nothing to do with occupation as they were in this business before 1967, just exposes you as a mind controlled biggot.

    Anyway, what better evidence can we have of Israeli war crimes when people like Brigadier General Aviv Kochavi, are forced to cancel trips to the United Kingdom for fear that he would be arrested on charges of war crimes? It's the second time in the last few months that aan Israeli officer has foundhimself in this position. I woinder just how many warrants there are for such arrests.

    not looking good for Israel Chris.

    Your last statemtn is completely self contradictory. You imply that Israel decides what international laws apply to it (therfore decisinfg what is and what is not relevant) , while staing earlier that it is not up to the defendant to make this descision.

  • Chris

    Keep your petty insults at home. If you have no desire to learn the history of the region, including palestinian terrorist attacks before Israel came to control all of what was post-1922 British madate Palestine, that is your choice.

    Pending trial, Israel has the right to defy any International opinion poll regarding what International laws apply. There is no contradiction.

    Not wanting to bother with spending an additional 24 hrs of wasted time in England is no proof of war crimes.

    You seem to have confused certain individuals with certain nations. They are not the same.

  • Addamo

    Keep your kissy attitude at home.

    I am familiar with the history of the region post 1922 and the Hebron massacre Chris and I do take your point. That does not mean there is no dispute about the occupied territories. And if indeed the land does legally belong to Israel, tehn the Irgun would have had no reason to murder British forces personel would they?

    I agree that the jurisdiction over Israel's war crimes may yet to be decided, but Israel cnnnot invalidate a descison made just by refusing to recognise it.

    Kochavi cancelled his trip entirely to avoid being nabbed. Nothign to do with him wating time, unles of course, you consider time spent in a jail cell wated time.

    I agree thta nations and individuals are seperate entities. Israel itself would never be tried. Wqar crimes after all, are perpetrated by individuals.

  • Chris

    Keep your petty insults at home. But I am flattered at your attempt to imitate me.

    The Hebron massacre is not what I was referring to, rather the history of palestinian terror attacks 1949 through 1956 coming from Gaza, as well as the sporadic attacks up until the 1967 war.

    Israel can certainly declare an opinion poll to have no meaning other than an opinion.

    Kochavi would not be in jail, merely spending time in an office as the Lawyers proved the charges to be worthless.

    You are still confusing nations with individuals.

  • Addamo

    Leave your hissy attitude at home.

    The attacks 1949 through 1956, while not to be condoned, were understandable. No one botherd to consult the Palestinians about having a Jewish state on land they regarded as theirs.

    I am impressed yet again by your psychic abilities to know that Kochavi would have been found inoocent, in which case, should he not have gone anyway and gotten the orderal over with? Woud it not clear his name and allow him more freedom to travel?

    You are so predicatable Chris.

    I am not confusing anything. The Nuremberg trials were not abtou trying Germany were they?

  • Chris

    Keep your petty insults at home. But I am flattered at your attempt to imitate me.

    There is no justification of Arab terrorism.

    Why bother subjecting yourself in worthless efforts? The radicals care less how many times they lose. It costs them nothing.

    Again, you confuse nations and individuals.

  • Addamo

    No there is not justification for any violence, Arab or Israeli.

    How am I confusign nations with individuals. Did I not just conform this or are you not even reading what I'm writing. You seem to start all your posts with the same sentence. Is that some custom I shoudl be aware of?

  • Chris

    There appears to be ample justification for israel retaliation in defense of its citizens. You seem confused over the difference between a nation and an individual's right to refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of a court. Your numerous examples were all incorrect.

    Nations do go on trial for War crimes. Nations pay reparations for such crimes. Obvioulsy the Palestinian Political entity has no money and seems will never have any money so it is useless to charge the PA with war crimes. Based on evidence, it seems they hardly care.

  • Addamo

    "There appears to be ample justification for israel retaliation in defense of its citizens. "

    In which case there is ample justification for Paelstinains doing the same.

    You seem to be struiggling with an inability to read what i wriote. I stated a few posts ago that Nations do go on trial for War crimes. Why the need to repeat what I said? Even if Israel were found guilty of war crimes, it woudl the the Us taxpayer (as always) who wold ned up footing the bill.

    Israel care even less abto uwar crimes. their contempt for international law and human rights is well reognised.

    Liek I said earlier, it is the victor that get;s to write history.

  • Chris

    The cases are not similar so no justification exists for the constant palestinian terror attacks. They are defending nothing and no one.

    While I may have read this wrong, this quote of yours appears to make an assumption that Nations are not charged with war crimes:

    "I agree thta nations and individuals are seperate entities. Israel itself would never be tried. Wqar crimes after all, are perpetrated by individuals."

    So I do not believe I was repeating anything you had previously stated, just correcting what I thought was a mistaken belief.

  • Addamo

    Of course they are the same. Israel strikes at Paletinians who strike back an din turn israel strike back again. That;s what conflicts of such a nature are about.

    as much as you want to believe it, Israel is not just doing the defending and Palestiniasn are justdoing the fighting. it takes 2 to tango.

  • Chris

    No one is concerned with the tango. It takes only one to kill another. Israel is defending. One need not wait for the blow to fall to defend ones self.

    The Palesinians are defending nothing and no one with suicide bombings.

  • Addamo

    "One need not wait for the blow to fall to defend ones self."

    of course not. perhaps thats waht the Palestinians are doing. pre-empting their own genocide.

    Your arguments are a mass of hot ari and snake oil logic. People kille dwith bulldozers and missiles are just as dead as those killed by suicide missions.

  • Chris

    Doesn't appear that the palestinians are defending themselves at all. It appears that the palestinians are attempting to sow as much fear as possible among innocent people.

    I wonder how many have grabbed a suicide bomber and dared him to blow himself up? I wonder how many have stupidly stood in fron of a bulldozer and allowed themselves to be run over, unless they were attempting suicide and to scared to pull the trigger on themselves.

  • Addamo

    Yeah those caorards. Nothing like those brave IDF hero's who sit in comfy conckpits of F16 fighters and Apache helicopters and file missiles or drop bombs. That takes real courage.

  • Chris

    I don't know what a caorard is. And I don't know what bravery has to do with right and wrong, or of defending civilians vs terrorizing civilians.

    Seems that a brave Palestinian blowing himself up with a group of teenage girls entering a disco is the same bravery exhibited by a bankrobber who goes in, kills the guard, and steals the towns money.

  • orang

    Well boys, we're making progress.

    Chris said (and I believe he means it):
    "..If you have no desire to learn the history of the region, including palestinian terrorist attacks before Israel came to control all of what was post-1922 British madate Palestine."

    Ok, so we now, finally have an admission that;
    a) there was a Palestine before 1948,
    b) There were Palestinians.

    Very good Chris.

  • Chris

    There was a Britsh Mandate Palestine, there was not a stand alone nation of Palestine. Most of who were referred to as Palestinians were Jews. In fact all of the Jews who were in the land before the re-establishment of Israel could have been considered Palestinians.

    It seems, based on UN definitions, that all of the people, Jews, Christians, and Islamics living in the region before 1946 are palestinians.

    But I do not recall having denied anything regarding Palestine, palestinians, or existance.

  • Addamo

    Your main argument seems to be that paesltine is not reciognised as a state and therefore nto deserving of equal stading in determinign territorial rights. Am I wrong?

  • Chris

    I have not made that argument.