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.

Oz media wimps out on Middle East balance

The following article appears in today’s edition of Crikey:

Antony Loewenstein, blogger, journalist and author of the forthcoming My Israel Question (MUP), writes:

There is one foreign affairs issue that remains virtually taboo in public debate. The close relationship between Israel and the US is almost universally avoided in the mainstream, Western press. When attempts are made to analyse one of Washington’s key strategic relationships (see my recent Australian article about this debate), allegations of anti-Semitism are never far away. It should not be so.

The partial cause of this silence is the pro-Israel Lobby, a loose affiliation of journalists, politicians and lobbyists who believe that the only language understood by Arabs and Palestinians is force. In Australia, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) is the prime instigator of slander and intimidation against anyone who dares challenge the hawkish Zionist agenda in the US, Australia or Israel.

Although the lobby is not solely responsible for this unbalanced equation – Western sympathy for Israel’s fight against Islamic “terror” is also central, especially since September 11 – our media outlets are failing to present the Arab world in all its diversity.

Why, for example, has no Australian broadsheet published a leading article by a Palestinian since the Hamas win in the Palestinian territories in late January? While the group’s past actions warrant close scrutiny, Hamas took power in a democratic process allegedly supported by George W Bush’s push for democratisation across the Middle East. Instead, we suffer innumerable Western, pro-Israeli commentators pontificating against “terrorist” Hamas versus “peace-loving” Israel.

Furthermore, as the war in Iraq moves towards its inevitable conclusion – US defeat and withdrawal – the absence of Iraqi voices in our media is striking. Ever since the “Coalition” invasion in early 2003, the Australian mainstream has routinely avoided presenting Iraqis voices either for or against the war. The British and European media regularly publish Iraqi bloggers and academics discussing life in war-torn Iraq. Our media prefer to present the conflict through Western eyes and interests.

US academic Tony Judt writes in the New York Times that the close US relationship with Israel is drawing to a close, “thus it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state.” It is therefore imperative that our media fearlessly engages with the complexities and shifting grounds in the Middle East, and not be swayed by lobby pressure or ideological diversions.

22 comments ↪
  • John Ryan

    What would you expect from the Newspapers who are controled by one Murdock whoes backing of anything Bush does is total,as for the media TV,apart from 2 and SBS if its not a fad diet or shonky salesman its not worth covering.
    And people wonder why Australians are not very interested in things outside their house, look at the quality of the Media they get,it is aimed at 10 yr olds,and one of the worst offenders is talkback radio,or radio for the braindead,just for the info of all I,m an ex construction worker so I think I fall out side the usual smear aganist those who dispair of this country and the fools that inhabit it.

  • peter tuck

    Fair call Anthony, the great silence on the Harvard academics analysis of US-Israeli bias is palpable and on par with the hypocrisy of denouncing a democratically elected Hamas coming to terms with – political high stakes – life under Israeli occupation. I don't blame them for refusing Western demands on recognition – at this stage. Israel under Ohlmert must be recognising that they have an equal of sorts to deal with – and they must deal. Lets hope both sides don't overplay their hand.

  • Comical_Ali

    In Australia, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) is the prime instigator of slander and intimidation against anyone who dares challenge the hawkish Zionist agenda in the US, Australia or Israel.

    Curiously you have never gone out of your way to explain what that sort of "intimidation" and "slander" entails. Until you do (if ever), Rubenstein is right on target when he points to the following little irony –

    Loewenstein cites critiques of views such as his own and claims they amount to censorship but is actually attempting to claim special privileges for these views – one cannot criticise them or you are "suppressing" them

    Thats just one minor example of the obvious flaws and contradictions found in your arguments (and believe me the list is never ending). Of course in your ever so typical fashion, I would expect you to completley ignore the above point & continue to prattle empty rhetoric like an energizer bunny.

    B/thw, if you want to learn about the consequences of real dissent – i.e real intimidation – than I suggest you approach Ayin Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan. Ask them how many cops are assigned to protect them as a consequence of their dissent and than compare that to the amount that are assinged to you for your own protection from the dreaded & infamous intimidation of the all powerful Jew-lobby. Perhaps, it would serve as a real eye opener as to how silly you look when you claim such martyer status for yourself in your fight against the Jew-lobby. Don Quixote and his windmills is the first thing that comes to my mind.

  • Don Wigan

    Well, Comical, trying to deny Ashrawi a platform here by your mates went pretty close to intimidation and censorship.

  • Comical_Ali

    And what does that sort of "intimidation" & "cesnsorship" entail? Or are we confusing this with the right to express oppossition & raise questions – all healthy in a democratic society?

    Which leads us to another question – are we wittenessing another classic case of moral blackmail committed by a classic accuser of moral blackmail and his supporters?

    it's a strange irony when Antony singles out the "Jewish lobby" for what he terms "intimidation" and "censorship," when one considers that he is a poster boy for propaganda on behalf of certain groups & organisations who usually intimidate and censor others with the sword or the barrel of a gun.

  • Don Wigan

    You know as well as anyone, Comical, pressuring the University and the Mayor to deny her a venue amounted to an attempt to deny her a platform – ie to restrict her access to an audience.

    Criticism of her views is quite a different thing from trying to suppress them.

  • Addamo

    Comical,

    You seem to be doing the Captin thing and confusing fredeom of speech with the right to supress the exporession of others.

  • viva peace

    Are you people for real? Not one of you has grasped the cruel irony that the only media in Australia that deigned to discuss this travesty of "scholarship" has been the Murdoch press care of our fearless blog host!

    I despair for the Palestinians when I read blogs like this. Most of you seem to have no idea what is going on right under your noses. All these squeals about "dissent" from a bunch of pampered privileged bourgeois sooks is just too funny; and tragic.

  • smiths

    so often the case,

    viva peace, maybe i have a confused understanding of the words in your name,

    you speak so arrogently, condescendingly and nastily,

    cruel ironies indeed

  • Addamo

    Yes Viva,

    We are humbled before your eternal wisdom.

    I imagine that you yourself have spent far too much time among the chardonay sipping set, who consider their own travails as life experinces as having been truly life threatenign and character building.

    That you hold such contempt for the Palestinians and are so dismissive of their plight is probably more revealing about you than you even realise.

  • Comical_Ali

    It wasn't a case of "pressuring the University and the Mayor to deny her a venue" or "suppressing her views" but rather oppossition to and questioning the elgibility of her recieving a peace prize. Two very different things. I'm sure such a move would have been oppossed just as vigoursly if not more so by Arab/Islamic organisations, if the Sydney Peace Prize were to have gone to an Ehud Barak or Shimon Peres instead.

    If you want to find a classic case of "pressuring the University" (or anyone else for that matter) to deny someone a venue, than an incident at Berkley University where Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to cancel his lecture because the police could not guarantee his saftey from Arab & Islamist groups, comes to mind. Thats just one case out of a hundred. Yet, I don't ever recall a Palestinian or Pro-Palestinian speaker ever being forced to cancel his or her speech because the police could not guarentee their saftey.

    Which leads me back to the question – what does “intimidation” and “slander” from the Jewish lobby, that Antony speaks so much about, entail?

    Which leads to more questions – are we confusing this with the right to express objections and ask questions? if there is a confusion, isn't Antony the one who is suppressing and censoring the views of others?

    And why should "Jewish-lobbying" be so unique from the lobbying efforts of other groups? Are Jewish groups really so intimidating that people are forced to go into hiding with 24/7 police protection, just like they do from Arab/Islamist lobby groups? If the answer is in the negative, than we all know how silly Antony looks when he tries to make a martyr out of himself whilst in the same breath peddle the propaganda of groups & organisations who actually force people into hiding.

  • JohD

    Seems that the good folks at Wikipedia are fingering you, Anthony Lowenstein, for allegedly being the originator of ‘misinformation’ regarding the Atlantic Monthly rejecting the study by American Foreign Policy Hawks Walt & Mearshimer on the Israeli Lobby.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy#atlantic_monthly

  • Addamo

    It wasn’t a case of “pressuring the University and the Mayor to deny her a venue” or “suppressing her views” but rather oppossition to and questioning the elgibility of her recieving a peace prize.

    Comical, you can sugar coat and politically correct that statement al you like, it WAS most definitely a case of pressuring the University and Mayor. If it looks like it, smells like it, tastes like it and walks like it….well you know the rest. If the Mayor and University had any of their own concerns about the event, they probably would never have considered it.

    I’m sure such a move would have been oppossed just as vigoursly if not more so by Arab/Islamic organisations, if the Sydney Peace Prize were to have gone to an Ehud Barak or Shimon Peres instead.

    Opposed perhaps, but I very much doubt the proptests would have been nearly as successful.

    Yet, I don’t ever recall a Palestinian or Pro-Palestinian speaker ever being forced to cancel his or her speech because the police could not guarentee their saftey.

    Actually, you would probably find that the Palestinian or Pro-Palestinian speaker never made it through immigration or are rarely allowed into the country in the first place. Look at what happened to Robert Fisk last year.

    U.S. BARS ROBERT FISK FROM ENTERING COUNTRY http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemI

    When was the last time an Israeli or pro Israeli speaker was denied entry to the US? How many Islamic speakers or academics have been denied?

    Which leads me back to the question – what does “intimidation” and “slander” from the Jewish lobby, that Antony speaks so much about, entail?

    See above.

    Which leads to more questions – are we confusing this with the right to express objections and ask questions?

    You appear to be confusing “the right to express objections and ask question” with the right to deny other the right to be heard. Certainly, the Zionist lobbied are sophisticated enough to make sure their activates remain in the background, but juts as was the case with the Rachel Corrie play being “postponed” in new York, they are effective enough to maintain a degree of deniability.

    And why should “Jewish-lobbying” be so unique from the lobbying efforts of other groups?

    They are unique in the power they exert and their ability to shut down debate. Maybe they are not the most vocal, but most certainly the most effective

    Are Jewish groups really so intimidating that people are forced to go into hiding with 24/7 police protection, just like they do from Arab/Islamist lobby groups?

    Intimidating that someone like Abe Foxman can postpone a meeting g tithe Secretary of State in the Us on three occasions and still get away with it. They are effective enough that people like the Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, can stand in front of an audience with hand on heart and say “I choose Israel”.

    They are intimidating enough that any politician or main stream journalists knows that criticism Israel is akin to career suicide.

    They are intimidating enough that, as Uri Avnery writes, the Lobby is not only prepared to punish any politician that dares criticize Israel. But make a public example of them, as they did with Cynthia McKinney.

    Clearly the answer is in the affirmative…BIG TIME.

  • Comical_Ali

    As always, Antony's ever loyal sancho panza comes out to answer on his behalf. But what good is this loyal minion if he comes out with constant misinformation and down right lies? Do you, (not to mention Loewenstein) really need to manipulate the truth in such a sinister manner, in order to get all your points accross?

    The fact that the "barring" of Fisk from the US has nothing to do with the "Jewish lobby", is beside the point. Here is a close associate of Fisk's –

    A Message from Jeff Blankfort (pro-Palestinian human rights activist)

    Dear Readers,

    Robert Fisk was not barred from entering the US because he is who he is, but because he did not have the latest British biometric passport which evaluates eye-scans and that is now required of all British subjects entering the US. I spoke to him while he was at the Toronto airport and he did not want to make a big deal of it. When he returns later to the US in November he will have the new passport. Unfortunately, the incident was mentioned at a speech he gave over TV in Arizona, according to Fisk, and was misinterpreted. The story appeared in the New Mexican and thanks to the internet it has achieved a life of its own. Fisk says it is not a story and shouldn't be made out to be one.

    The rest of your post is really not worth bothering with, as one can expect much the same. Better still your not worth bothering with.

    Sure, Loewenstein go right ahead and express your oppossition to Israel & your precieved disgust toward Australia's Jewish community – but must you do this with lies & sinister misinformation & allow the lies & misinformation of others to appear on your blog without comment?

  • Addamo

    Sancho Panza?

    Never been called that before but I am not surprised that having an opinion on this forum that contradicts yours must mean I have a warped agenda.

    It matters not tat you don’t consider me worth bothering with. I'll take that as an admission that you are unable to counter the “other” points I raised, which you clearly managed to sidestep.

    You repeatedly exhibit an inability to discern the difference between freedom for protest and denying someone a right to speak. You know very well you cannot dispute this so you choose to ignore it by getting on some moral podium and declaring the matters beneath you.

    I am not blaming Jews for Frisk’s denial of entry, but he is very much a critic of US foreign policy and Israel.

    You cannot not deny that when the Jewish lobby protests an issue, it usually gets it's way.

    Nor can you deny the arrogance and disproportionate influence that a slime ball like Foxman wields when he is able to postpone a meeting with the second most powerful political leader in the US on 3 occasions.

    Nor can you deny that the Zionist lobby does routinely intimidate politicians, and does so brazenly, to those who dare to speak out against Israel, such as Cynthia McKinney.

    You cannot deny that Arab scholars and academics re routinely denied entry to the US, while this has NEVER happened to an Israeli scholar or politician.

  • The items below, in italics, are just a few of the items which the Australian Jewish News (aka Israeli Zionist Times) wouldn't publish.

    What is censorship? How do you get your views across if you are denied a platform for your voice to be heard?

    It is all very well to sit on one's high horse and state grandly that people are entitled to their views and this is how to make arguments and discussions, but if you have very few media options to put your points of view, and the media censor those views by not printing or publishing them, then there isn't much of a forum left.

    My own answer has been my own blog, but that is not widely read, so in effect it is merely a means of getting things off my chest.

    The Rubenstein issue is one already of long standing and is a disgrace to the Jewish communities of Australia. Organisations which rail against us because we are gay or even worse, if possible, because we are anti-zionist, do NOT represent ALL Jews in Australia.

    The following letter was sent to the Australian Jewish News on 1 July 2004 in response to attacks made by Colin Rubenstein against Margo Kingston and Antony Loewenstein because he dared to write an article for the book on the Hanan Ashrawi affair and she dared to publish it in her book, "NOT HAPPY, JOHN".

    Mannie De Saxe PO Box 1675 Preston South Vic 3072 Phone:(03) 9471 4878 email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au web: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken

    Dr Colin Rubenstein is quoted in an article in the AJN (25 June 2004), criticisizing Margo Kingston and Antony Lowenstein because they “—-utterly fail to dent in any way the factual case made by AIJAC, the AJN and all mainstream Jewish bodies that Hanan Ashrawi was an inappropriate recipient for a peace prize ——”.

    There are approximately 100,000 Jews in Australia. Not all are zionists, not all accept the “facts” as presented to them by self-styled, so-called representatives of the “mainstream” Jewish/zionist organisations.

    Strangely enough, there are still large numbers of Jews in Australia who interpret the “facts” differently, and come to different conclusions, and I and many others are sick and tired of having “their facts” quoted at us as being the mainstream, and the only acceptable answers to the Israel/Palestine problem.

    After Rubenstein and others of his ilk have registered to have votes cast for these bodies by the Australian Electoral Commission and ensured that 100% of the Australian Jewish population have cast their votes should he dare to make his presumptuous assumptions, and draw his equally presumptuous – and outrageously arrogant – conclusions.

    1 AUGUST 2004

    The following letter was sent to the Australian Jewish News and has not been published. Fortunately Antony Loewenstein has published it on the web blog Not Happy John, so it will get an airing in a different forum.

    Mannie De Saxe PO Box 1675 Preston South Vic 3072 Phone:(03)9471 4878

    email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au web: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken

    1 August 2004

    The last three editions of the AJN have six letters attacking Antony Loewenstein for his article in the AJN (9 July 2004) and his chapter in Margo Kingston's book, "Not Happy, John". One wrote that Loewenstein's sole defender in the AJN is his girl friend! No letters in the AJN have been published supporting the Loewenstein arguments. All the attacking letters have Australian addresses. Israel is desperately attempting to get Diaspora Jews to "fight the good fight" there, especially from France because of the rise in anti-Semitism.

    How do people like Rubenstein and Danby know how many of the 100,000 Jews in Australia are zionists? They do not speak for all of us.

    If the AJN was truly the Australian Jewish News, it would give those Jews who are Jewish and not self-hating – as some zionists call us – space in its letters columns to agree with Antony Loewenstein and express our views on Israel/Palestine, anti- Semitism and the Ashrawi affair. Otherwise censorship and apartheid are alive and well.

    Mannie De Saxe, Jews Against Oppression and Occupation

    31 AUGUST 2004

    This letter was sent to the Australian Jewish News in Melbourne and Sydney, but was, of course, not published!

    Mannie De Saxe PO Box 1675 Preston South Vic 3072

    Phone:(03)9471 4878 email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au web: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken

    31 August 2004

    It's time for an analysis of the Sydney and Melbourne editions of the AJN and what they each publish and what constituencies they represent.

    Starting with the 23 July editions: in Outlook page 19 of the Sydney edition 5 of the six letters printed were from Melbourne, one of which was from the federal ALP member for Melbourne Ports/Israel. On the equivalent page 15 of the Melbourne edition there were seven letters, 5 from Sydney, one from the ACT and one from Melbourne and no letter from the ALP Member for Melbourne Ports/Israel.

    Now to the 6 August editions: in Outlook page 15 of the Sydney edition there were 12 letters, 6 from Melbourne, one of which was from the federal ALP member for Melbourne Ports/Israel, 5 from Sydney and one from Queensland. In the Melbourne Outlook page 15, of the 8 letters, 2 were from Sydney, 4 were from Melbourne and one each from New Zealand and the USA.

    The next part of the analysis shows that the two letters from the ALP Member for Melbourne Ports/Israel in the Sydney edition are almost identical, one printed two weeks after the other, and both attacking Antony Loewenstein (and others), in which Michael Danby, who has obviously done some considerable analysis of the 100,000 Jews in the Australian population claims that Loewenstein is a non-entity who represents a telephone-box group of Jewish Australians.

    This is quite a dramatic claim for a member of the Federal Parliament to make without any substantiation.

    Then in the 6 August Sydney edition is a letter responding to a previous letter of mine which was published in the Melbourne edition, but I didn't see the Marsha Foxman letter of reply because it was not in the Melbourne edition.

    What perturbs me most in the above analysis is that people such as members of parliament are given space in your columns for vicious and outrageous attacks and then letter writers who refute these statements are denied right of reply.

    I interpret this as censorship equivalent to some of the worst I experienced in my 50 years of living in South Africa, half of them under the apartheid regime.

    What is the Australian Jewish News afraid of? Or is it the fact that ownership of the paper dictates policy and direction and there is no editorial independence, just as there is no editorial independence in the Murdoch, Packer and Fairfax media.

    Are we being muzzled, and if so, why? Homophobia and zionism rule the roost and no unpleasant contradictory views are to be permitted. If this isn't censorship, what is it?

    Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne, and Jews Against Oppression and Occupation.

  • Comical_Ali

    You cannot deny that Arab scholars and academics re routinely denied entry to the US, while this has NEVER happened to an Israeli scholar or politician….

    name them.

    Never been called that before but I am not surprised that having an opinion on this forum that contradicts yours must mean I have a warped agenda.

    I just exposed the only example you had as a downright lie. Its the same with all your other postings. I apologise if the facts get in the way of a good yarn.

  • Paul Walter

    Well done, Mannie de Saxe.

    I recall the debate over Hanan Ashrawi conducted in Margo Kingston's "Web Diary" and recall the ugly vitriol released against Loewenstein, Kingston and Ashrawi for daring to offer a forum to discuss the issue by way of an orchestrated campaign, the like of which De Saxe alludes to above.

    I recall a gentleman called Sol Salbe writing in to bell the cat as to a group of abusive bloggers using phony names, the meanings of which were translated by Salbe for the benefit of genuine readers of that disrupted forum. No attempt to debate, just disrupt, from those souls.

    Watching Colin Rubenstein on the Geoffrey Robertson "Hypothetical" on channel 9; this Sunday morning, I was impressed as to this individual only by his rigid dogmatism and inflexibilty.

  • Addamo

    Comical

    I just exposed the only example you had as a downright lie. Its the same with all your other postings. I apologise if the facts get in the way of a good yarn.

    Name where I have posted outright lies?

    Actually this is a lie. I cited another example, Cythia McKinney, and the force that met her when she dared to criticise Israel.

    Anyway, an interestoing article by Iri Avnery. As always, Avenry is right on the money. Amazing hwo in the US, any mention of the Israeli lobby is condemned while in Israel it is celebrated.

    Who's the dog? Who's the tail?
    The influnece of the Israel lobby in the USA http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/uavnery155.ht

  • Addamo

    Oh almost forgot:

    Leading Muslim Scholar Tariq Ramadan Denied U.S. Visa to Teach at Notre Dame http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/

  • Comical_Ali

    Name where I have posted outright lies?

    This is just going round & round in circles. Fisk is a clue for the absolutey clueless.

    Actually this is a lie

    Abit of an understatement & never mind an apology for posting an outright lie (implicating that Jews were involved – that was after all the context in which it was being discussed.)

    Leading Muslim Scholar Tariq Ramadan Denied U.S. Visa to Teach at Notre Dame

    Lets go on rewind, just to remind everyone of the context of this discussion. Here is what was said:

    You said : Actually, you would probably find that the Palestinian or Pro-Palestinian speaker never made it through immigration or are rarely allowed into the country in the first place. Look at what happened to Robert Fisk last year.

    U.S. BARS ROBERT FISK FROM ENTERING COUNTRY
    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemI

    When was the last time an Israeli or pro Israeli speaker was denied entry to the US? How many Islamic speakers or academics have been denied?

    I said : Which leads me back to the question – what does “intimidation” and “slander” from the Jewish lobby, that Antony speaks so much about, entail?

    You said: See above.

    Ok, I'm looking at the above. First example was Robert Fisk. As said, the fact that it had nothing to do with the "Jewish lobbying" is beside the point – your example was just a complete lie.

    Next is Tariq Ramadan. Like the first, what on earth do the decisions of the US government & customs officials have to do with the "Jewish lobby?" Remember, I was asking for specific examples of "slander" & "intimidation" from the "Jewish lobby." And this is what you come up with? If you want a good example of slander than one can learn from your fine techniques on how to cynically manipulate & distort the facts as well as the context.

    Next is Cynthia Mckinney, who is a fine product of Islamist lobbying in the US, getting most of her funding and support from Islamic extremist organisations. Among her most ardent supporters is the racist Islamo-facist Louis Farrakhan.

    She lost her seat. Thats called democracy. get over it. Oh, I forgot, democracy is just another conspiracy cooked up by dem joos.

    No matter how much you twist, mainpulate and distort the facts & the context, you cant get around the simple fact that no Pro-Palestinian speaker has ever been forced to cancel a speech or denied a platform because of the "Jewish-lobby"(least of all because the police could not guarentee their saftey) whilst pro-Israeli speakers have in fact been denied a platform precisley because of voilent intimidation & slander.

    Nor the simple fact that politicians, writers & cartoonists who have gone on the bad side of Islamic governments & Islamist lobby groups in the West, are in permanent hiding. Whilst those who are on the bad-side of the Jewish lobby are not in hiding.

    Anyway, on your bike son (or well in your case its a donkey) & get ready for another day of joining your Master in batteling it out with the windmills.

  • viva peace

    Mannie

    I don't think you think you understand the Australian blogging scene. My understanding is that Margo Kingston was a passionate but very unhinged woman who finally had to flee blogging after several very unpleasant sprays of anti-semitic bile, for which she was ultimately sacked from Fairfax. Now that IS saying something given how constitutionally anti-Semitic Fairfax media have always been!