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.

Peace is possible

Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy reveals something extraordinary from 1997:

A few days before the failed assassination attempt on Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Jordan in 1997, King Hussein conveyed an offer from the Hamas leadership to reach an understanding on a cease-fire for 30 years. That offer, intended for then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and conveyed by a Mossad representative, reached Netanyahu only after the botched hit.

21 comments ↪
  • orang

    We don't want to hear this.
    They are terrorists, want to drive us into the sea, they are terrorists………….

  • captain

    One of the things that is clearly illustrated is that moderate Arab leaders like the late Hussein were too afraid to reveal the full extent of their relationship with Israel and Jewish leaders. This is in contrast to the chest beating that happens at the Arab summits for the consumption of the masses. Conversely everyone in Israel knew that there were increasing economic and especially health connections with Jordan. I know of no one who would not applaud this.

  • orang

    "…..and especially health connections with Jordan.."
    Oh yeah, King Hussein realized it was healthy for him to be buddy buddy with Israel?

    Clap Clap

  • Chris

    He realized that relationships with Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were unhealthy.

  • edward squire

    captain Mar 31st, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    One of the things that is clearly illustrated is that moderate Arab leaders like the late Hussein were too afraid to reveal the full extent of their relationship with Israel and Jewish leaders. This is in contrast to the chest beating that happens at the Arab summits for the consumption of the masses.

    First "they" say one thing in English to the media, then "they" say another thing in Arabic to "the masses", then "they" say another thing in god-knows-what to the Israeli government. Lord, they really have learnt how to be Westernised politicians, haven't they?

  • Chris

    No, 'they' are what 'they' have always been. It certainly no reflection on the west.

  • Addamo

    This is in contrast to the chest beating that happens at the Arab summits for the consumption of the masses.

    Al last Captain, you are gettgin the picture. So it's safe to suggest that this talk about the desctructino of Israel falls into such a catergory, don't you agree?

    Do Israeli politicians not say one thing to the international community in English and another thing to the Isaeli population in Hebrew?

  • edward squire

    Addamo Apr 1st, 2006 at 12:43 am

    Do Israeli politicians not say one thing to the international community in English and another thing to the Isaeli population in Hebrew?

    How anti-semitic of you Addamo to suggest that Israeli politicians are, well, just like ordinary politicians.

  • Chris

    This week, there were two historic political events in the Middle East. In one, Israeli voters chose a number of political parties for the next Knesset, with the ruling Kadima party earning the most votes. Kadema's agenda, as articulated by acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is to seek negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that rejects violence. If no such leadership can be found, Israel will unilaterally set its own borders.

    In the other development, the terrorist organization Hamas formally assumed control of the Palestinian Authority legislature. Due to Hamas' unwavering support for terror and the destruction of Israel, the United States and Canada immediately cut off funding to the PA.

    Christiane Amanpour has penned a column with the title "From terrorism to trash collection." She implies that merely by winning the Palestinian elections, Hamas has moved on from terrorism to concern itself solely with municipal functions.

    The only problem with her theory is that there has been no evidence that Hamas has indeed changed its views on terrorism. According to the new PA Interior Minister, Said Siam, "We will not put our sons in prison for political membership or resisting occupation… resistance is a legitimate right."

    Amanpour feels that the real reason the Palestinians voted for Hamas was that:

    During this year's election, Palestinians fed up with the rampant corruption and lawlessness of the late Yasser Arafat's government turned to the only alternative, Hamas.

    So when people ask: "Why did the Palestinian people elect a terrorist group?" The answer is because they see them as a lifeline.

    Yet, as Robert Satlof of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy points out in the Weekly Standard:

    The problem with this view is that it has little basis in fact. Other parties on the ballot offered alternatives to Fatah, including the good-government Third Way, but Hamas won 74 seats and the squeaky-clean liberals just 2. Indeed, it is an uncomfortable truth that an absolute majority of Palestinians voted for parties publicly committed to the destruction of Israel–Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. To suggest that Palestinians were oblivious to the political meaning of their votes is, as President Bush has argued in a different context, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

    It is disturbing to see a such a senior CNN correspondent making excuses for the Hamas terror group, even resorting to baseless claims that conflict with all indications.

    E-mail CNN at: http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/

    The New York Times On Israel's New Government

    In an editorial, the Times argues that Olmert's plan is doomed to failure because:

    Whatever borders Israel fixes are not likely to get international recognition, particularly if those borders leave Palestinians cut in half — in the West Bank and Gaza — and unable to get from one part of their country to another without going through Israel.

    However, there have already been numerous proposals agreed upon in which Gaza would be connected to the West Bank with some kind of link that does not necessitate either Israelis or Palestinians crossing through each other's lands. The same type of links could be worked out in other places to ensure contiguity for both peoples.

    Respond to the editorial: Letters@NYTimes.com

    The media should not expect Israel to take actions that jeopardize its own security. Instead the focus should be on explaining how Hamas has failed thus far to transform itself from the party of terror to the party of trash collection.

  • Addamo

    The media should not expect Israel to take actions that jeopardize its own security (i.e. territorial aspirations). Instead the focus should be on explaining how Hamas has failed thus far to transform itself from the party of terror (i.e. Israel's poodle) to the party of trash collection (i.e. the party that puts Palestinian interests first).

  • captain

    Oh yes, peace is possible when terrorists from Fatah murder only to have their behaviour condemned by the leader of Fataha and applauded by the PA government.

    Yes, Hamas will be a party of trash collection: this will be their primary task when Israel responds accodingly to encouraging terrorist acts.

  • orang

    As the rest of the world was being propagandized to believe that Sharon The Undead was a man of peace, if Begin and Shamir were men of peace and eventually learned to collect garbage, then why not Hamas. True, a few of their older and perhaps wiser former terrorists were actually assassinated by the glorious Israeli army – (the 4th most powerful in the world by their account-talk about breast beating, but in imminent danger of being driven into the sea by a couple of Kalashnikovs, a Molotov cocktail and three rocks, but I digress, ) Well I'm for give peace a chance with "centrist" Kadima (HAW HAW!!!) As they get the green light from bigW and the little fib embellishing Piano Player to do whatever the hell it wants, there's one thing for certain, it will be a 3rd rate pantomime with very bad acting- but it won't be for peace.

  • Addamo

    Captain,

    You adn Chris can continue with your trash talk all you like, bu tthe fact remains that
    Efraim Halevy, who headed Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service, aknowledges that Hamas offered Israel a 30-year truce in 1997 and Israel fucked it up.

    So much for the argument that Israel are the opnly ones serious about peace.

  • Chris

    The israeli government was already providing municipal services when the named gentlemen came into power.

    Hamas, a terrrorist organization, was in no position to offer anything. Israel would have thrown it out, after spitting on it.

  • Addamo

    Hamas, a terrrorist organization, was in no position to offer anything. Israel would have thrown it out, after spitting on it.

    That's pure conjecture. Efraim Halev, who is far better informaed and positined that you to decide the validity of the offer, obviously copnsidre it significant for him to write abotu it in his book.

    What this shows is that Israel has a pattern of udermining peace initiatives, because these would lead to events that would force them to giove up what they are not prepared to give up.

    You put it best when you said:

    Israel would have thrown it out, after spitting on it.

    Which sums up Israel's track record to any diplomacy.

  • edward squire

    Addamo, As I established earlier, even if HAMAS were as generous as is possible – offering all of the historical lands of Palestine to the Israeli government and destroying all their weapons, according to Chris, the Israeli government STILL wouldn't take it because they/Chris doesn't "recognise" HAMAS. Thus, you'll get no-where with Chris on the 30-year cease fire offer.

  • Addamo

    Yes I totally agree Edward,

    This deacedes long search for a partner in peace has been a joke from the beginning. After the 1991 Iraq war, the PLO were completely isolated. Israel had a choice to deal with either the Palestinian leadership or the PLO, and obviously chose to negotiate with the PLO because they knew they could have things their way.

    Nonetheless, Arafat stood his ground and the mtyh that came out of those negotiations was that the Palestininas were offerd a golden opportunity and turned it down. What bollocks!!

  • orang

    This perpetuation of bollocks and associated myths continues anabated. When have you ever heard any "news" about the Israeli elections and the so called centrist Kadima party without hearing the word peace? Pretty soon anyone who says the Kadima party are a bunch of thieving, land hungry cock-heads – just like any other party in Israel, you'll be asked to leave the room.

  • Chris

    You put it best when you said:

    Israel would have thrown it out, after spitting on it.

    Yes I did. It sums up Israel’s track record on deals with terrorists.

  • viva peace

    "Somethuing 'extraordinary'?" Oh dear. Me thinks somebody really needs to get out more.

    Why would anybody expect Israel to negotiate anything with Hamas in 1997? Hamas was merely a terrorist organization, with no formal political role. By your reasoning, the Palestinian Authority, headed by Yasser Arafat, had no legitimacy, and it was Hamas with whom Israel was obliged to negotiate.

    So are you arguing that the whole Oslo process, Camp David, Madrid, etc. are all null and void ab initio? Of course the implication becomes that the current PA, led by Hamas, is equally null and void.

  • Chris

    History appears to have proven that any Palestinian agreement is worthless shortly after it is signed.