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.

Zionist position explained

David Knoll is the President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. In the current edition of online magazine New Matilda, he accuses me of anti-Semitism and not understanding Israel’s precarious security situation. I’ve included the full article below:

Jewish Self-Determination
By: David Knoll
Wednesday 8 March 2006

Regular columnist for New Matilda Antony Loewenstein describes himself on his personal blog as ‘a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish State,’ which he calls ‘a fundamentally undemocratic and colonialist idea from a bygone era.’ All this, under the title: ‘Jews against Jews.’

I cannot help wondering whether Loewenstein is against self-determination for all peoples, or only against self-determination for Jews. Singling out one people to not have a collective right that other peoples have is racist. The term to describe racism against Jews is anti-Semitism.

Self-determination is of course a reaction to colonialism. It is a right in international law designed to enable once colonised people to stand up and be counted in the family of nations. Israel is the Jewish reaction to colonisation. It is not colonialism, but rather the human response to it.

Israel is the embodiment of the Jewish people’s right to stand up — without the shackles of the preceding British and Turkish colonisers — in the Jewish ancestral homeland and to be counted in the family of nations.

My cousin is in the Israeli army now. He has to be, because, although Israel has offered peace to all of her neighbours every decade of her existence, so far only Egypt and Jordan have entered into peace treaties with her. Israel’s closest neighbour, the Palestinian Authority, is now ruled by HAMAS, an organisation committed to Israel’s destruction. HAMAS continues to promote homicide bombings and the murder of civilians who are targeted because they are Jewish and because they wish to sustain the Jewish right of self-determination.

History now recognises that the Jewish people, even before Israel was born, accepted and have reiterated their willingness to live in peace alongside their Arab neighbours, including the Palestinians, on the condition that each extends to the other the right of peace and security. Israelis know that peace requires compromise, often painful compromise, and they have more than once proven their willingness to give up territory for the sake of peace.

The Jewish people, however, know that compromise must be reciprocal and it must be genuine. In 1948, Jewish lives were lost resisting an attempt by five Arab armies to abort Israel’s birth. Israel’s Arab neighbours made further attempts to destroy her in 1967 and 1973.

This century Israeli civilians continue to face calculated streams of homicide bombings by groups such as HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, all of whom hate Jews more than they love their own children. Israel responds attacking the men who arm and despatch the homicide bombers. Because they shelter themselves in civilian areas, far too many innocent lives are lost in the reprisals, adding to the unnecessary casualties caused by the homicide bombers in the first place.

So rather than have to spend every day and night fighting a war against opponents who do not respect law or life, Israel has built a barrier in an endeavour to keep the homicide bombers out. This is not a wall (less than 10 per cent actually is a wall) designed to keep innocents imprisoned. It does not encircle the Palestinians who have borders with Arab nations that are unfenced.

It is a fence Israelis also do not want, but faced with a choice of living in daily fear of the ruthless murder of civilians or an ugly and undesirable fence, they overwhelmingly prefer the fence.

One must remember the doll’s house size of this conflict. Downtown Tel Aviv is only 30 kilometres from the fence. It was the Israeli Labour Party, under the leadership of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, that first proposed the fence as a defensive physical obstacle to terrorism. Separation is now seen as so important that a majority of Israelis even favour doing it unilaterally, if need be. In the wake of the Second Intifada, much of the population has lost faith in negotiated solutions.

Quite simply, the security barrier is being built to prevent Israelis from being systematically murdered. Part of the barrier — a little under a tenth of its length in two places along the Trans-Israel Highway — is a wall. It has electronics on either side to prevent infiltrators. It is a wall in those two sections because Palestinian gunmen had been shooting from Palestinian territory onto the highway and killing innocent Israelis.

In Australia and in other Western countries, barrier walls are built along freeways to shield against noise. In Israel, barrier walls are built along freeways to prevent passengers from being killed by bullets.

The barrier is being erected to protect many of the survivors of the Shoah and their descendants, and the Jews who were persecuted and expelled from Arab countries in the 1950s and their descendants. The Jewish victims this time have the capacity to try to stop the purveyors of death, an option that the Jews of Nazi Europe or those in Arab countries did not have.

There is no doubt that the barrier causes great hardship, but it also saves lives. If there were no more terror attacks upon Israel, the construction of the barrier could cease, and the negotiated demolition of the built section could commence.

It is a barrier the Palestinians do not want, but one must remember that the so-called Road Map to Peace (the plan put together by the US, EU, Russia and the UN) called for the Palestinians to ‘immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence.’ The deadline for that was May 2003. It has yet to happen.

The fence is needed also because Palestinian schools continue to present the homicide bomber as a moral example.

To Australians, celebrating the murder of innocents reflects a fundamental and persistent disregard for the right to life. It reflects values we simply do not share, and which we find difficult to understand. After all, if you teach that life has value for all human beings regardless of race, religion or other differences, then those who destroy life will be cast out rather than celebrated.

For Israel and her Arab neighbours to have real peace, it must last for generations, and for that to happen the children must learn peace and not war. Arab children must not be promised paradise for the murder of their neighbours. This can only lead to psychological trauma in the upcoming generations of Palestinians.

Two peoples traumatised in fear of each other will find peace near impossible to conceive let alone deliver.

Once Palestinian children learn that that the ‘other’ is human and deserves a future, then the barrier will come down both physically and psychologically.

Knoll’s position is grossly selective. The elephant in the room, the Israeli occupation, is ignored. He paints the Jewish state as an angelic entity, constantly striving for peace. I truly wonder how much Knoll knows about the current situation in the occupied territories. My response will be published next week.

61 comments ↪
  • Progressive_Atheist

    Of course there is a Jewish race. It comprises anyone who is descended from Judah, son of Jacob. The Israelis keep Judah's DNA on file for comparison with anyone claiming to be Jewish and who wishes to migrate to Israel under the Law of Return.

  • captain

    Progressive Atheist in attempting humour shows himself as someone who doesn't appreciate that not all Jews came from the tribe of Judah. Including me.

    I have nothing at all in common with white supremacists. They are vile. I have no desire to see the world any particular colour.

    Edward is expressing the view that Jews are thieves, Jews are liars, Jews are manipulative and Jews are duplicitous. All of these sentiments can be seen in his many postings. He merely tries to dress up these views in urbane anti-Israel rationalisations. These views have been around much longer than either Edward or Israel. They are prototypical antisemitism.

    Whilst he craps on about how "concerned" he is about various groups, typical of this genre of antisemite, he merely focusses all of his concerns on Jewish behaviour. You see when Arabs are killing Arabs or blacks killing blacks, this is paid very little attention. This means that he is not concerned about the victimhood or the perpetrator, unless they are Jews.

    And of course, anyone who is killing Jews does so because of the Jews own behaviour. Hearing goose-stepping anyone?

  • Progressive_Atheist

    Edward is expressing the view that Jews are thieves, Jews are liars, Jews are manipulative and Jews are duplicitous.

    No he isn't. You have made this up so that you can label him an anti-Semite.

    All of these sentiments can be seen in his many postings. He merely tries to dress up these views in urbane anti-Israel rationalisations. These views have been around much longer than either Edward or Israel. They are prototypical antisemitism.

    There you go.

  • edward squire

    captain Mar 13th, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    Edward is expressing the view that Jews are thieves, Jews are liars, Jews are manipulative and Jews are duplicitous.

    A single quote – give one or confess yourself to G-d as a liar.

  • Addamo

    Oh Edward,

    You know better than to as to ask Chris ir Captin to produce evidence. Do you really expect to see any?

  • Chris

    Leave your petty insults at home. I have provided proof often enough, especially the proof require to show your posts is inaccurate and incorrect.

    If you wish to attack cap, then do so. Leave me out of those.

  • captain

    No Edward, you go back and read your own apalling contributions. And confess your own Jew hatred. You will feel better if you do this.

  • edward squire

    captain Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:51 am

    No Edward, you go back and read your own apalling contributions. And confess your own Jew hatred.

    A single quote – give one or confess yourself to G-d as a liar.

  • Chris

    I would assume that Squire's constant referral to Nazi Germany, which seemingly leading supporting members of the Arab Socialist nationalist movement of this blog rightfully stated that such reference was proof that the comentator had already lost the game, could be seen as a justification of cap's pronouncement.

    I, myself, don't see it in the quotes as directly accusing Jews of anything, but as the Government of Israel is the only government controlled by Jews, some might see Squires comments skirting the boundary between honest criticism and antisemitism.

    edward squire

    Mar 6th, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    Chris Mar 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Israel has every right, [a] legally, [b] politically and [c] morally to continue building their “Separation Fence” on the land that is under their control.

    I assume [a] is justified by the fact that it does not contradict Israeli law. Assuming the Wall and its location does conform to Israeli law, this does not constitute a genuine legal justification. If that were a justification, then you would be compelled to argue (assuming you are consistent), that the Nazi government had every legal right to engage in genocide because this was in conformity with German law at the time. Do you accept this is the case?

    I assume [b] is justified by the mere fact that the Israeli state can do it and is in conformity with the rules of Israeli democracy (the party instituting it was duly elected). If that is so, then you would have to argue (assuming you are consistent), that Hitler’s vicious anti-Semitism was politically justified because the Nazi party came to power in accordance with the rules of German democracy at the time.

    I can’t see any obvious justification for the most important point – i.e. [c] – moral right. You refer to it being in the “best interest” of Israelis, but that in itself has never been considered a moral justification of anything by any moral philosopher. Could you please elaborate on the moral justification for the building of the Wall beyond, say, the pre-67 borders? Thanks.

  • Pingback: Israel’s hidden shame » | Antony Loewenstein()

  • Pingback: What a nice, little war » | Antony Loewenstein()