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.

Delusions and determination

The full CBS 60 Minutes interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

Interviewer Mike Wallace plays an effective Bush administration spokesman.

Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, slams Israel, defends his country’s right to develop nuclear energy and completely confounds a Western audience.

42 comments ↪
  • Addamo_01

    What is so utterly pathrtic is hearing right wing chickenhawks malabst Wallace for daring to bring this intervewi to US audiences, on the ground the "we are at war". They seem to afraid that they may be forced to accep that Ahmadinejad is not the demonic fanatic they have painted in their minds and that this realisarino may soften the hatred they have for Iran.

  • smiths

    i wrote to him on his blog the other day,

    heres my letter,

    mr ahmadinejad,
    as you well know you are fighting a public relations war as much as anything,
    a lot of people in the west deplore american imperialism and see very clearly through the us propaganda,
    and many could support your struggle morally but,
    maybe i am a victim of bad translations because it seems to me like you are encouraging a quite anti-jewish position which most intelligent humanitarian westerners just cant accept.
    i myself think the state of israel is an aggressor and certainly wants to have a go at iran which is unacceptable,
    but merging that idea with anti-jewish ideas is plain wrong.
    so tell your nation clearly, anti-jewish sentiment is unacceptable and counter productive,
    focus on the us hypocrisy and israeli aggression and many more across the world will support you
    peace be with you

  • G'day/Shalom/Salam.

    Ahmedinejad is a nutcase. Here's my assessment of him (in the NZ Herald) …

    _____________________

    Return to the policies of old

    02.11.05

    Recent comments made by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for Israel to be "wiped off the map" included a condemnation of Muslim nations which choose to recognise Israel.

    The Iranian leader’s claims have been made in the context of supporting the struggle for a Palestinian state and for the restoration of Palestinian rights.

    He described the Palestinian struggle as being part of a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".

    Mr Ahmadinejad’s calls represent a return to Iran’s old policy of drumming up popular hysteria with a view to exporting its "Revolutionary Islam" to different parts of the world. But how real are these sentiments on the ground? Is Israel the enemy of Islam itself? And what right does the Iranian President have to speak for Islam?

    Iran is a majority Shia country. Shi’ism is one of three major sects of Islam. The other two are the mainstream Sunni and the more modern Wahhabi sect.

    Shia Muslims make up some 10 per cent of the Muslim world with majorities existing in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and some Gulf states. There are also substantial Shia groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

    Sunnis make up at least 85 per cent of the Muslim world. The comments of the Iranian leader do not bind Sunni Muslims, and Ahmadinejad’s standing as a Shia scholar is not strong enough for his views to bind Shia Muslims.

    Apart from theological considerations, the Iranian leader’s comments on Israel do little to progress the Palestinian cause. Since Arafat and Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn, Palestinian leadership has consistently rejected the idea that Palestinian statehood necessarily involves the destruction of the Jewish state.

    Turkey’s more conservative Islamist Government sees no reason to reverse its stance of continuing friendly relations with Israel. In recent times, Turkey’s Islamists have sponsored talks between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan.

    Many Muslim voices seeking the destruction of Israel use historical figures such as the Kurdish general Salahuddin Ayyubi (known in Europe as Saladdin) who defeated the Crusaders and liberated Jerusalem.

    Yet even Saladdin recognised the Crusader kingdoms and sent emissaries and ambassadors to them. Perhaps if Saladdin were alive today, he would have recognised Israel even if engaged in military conflict with the Jewish state.

    The brilliance of Saladdin’s campaign against the Crusaders lay not just in his military tactics. Saladdin was an excellent negotiator with moderate views who sought to avoid war at all costs.

    Saladdin made regular overtures to his enemies, and insisted his troops obey the rules as outlined in the customary international law of the region at that time.

    Saladdin is not the most popular figure in Shia circles. Before attacking the Crusader kingdoms, Saladdin single-handedly destroyed the Fatimid Empire in Egypt.

    The Fatimids were the most powerful Shia empire of the time, and were accused by Saladdin of providing assistance and intelligence to the Crusader kingdoms.

    Saladdin did not see the task of liberating Jerusalem in purely Muslim terms. It was not a battle against all Jews or all Christians. Indeed, Saladdin appointed the prominent Spanish Jewish physician and rabbinical scholar Shaykh Musa bin Maymun al-Qurtubi (Moses Maimonides) as the chief medical officer of his army.

    Saladdin’s good sense and moderation yielded results. He was able to liberate Jerusalem within his lifetime, and showed magnanimity to his defeated opponents.

    Christian and Muslim historians have recorded that when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they entered the main Mosque and Synagogue with civilian blood up to their knees. When Saladdin achieved victory, there were few civilian casualties.

    The Iranian President’s comments are more reminiscent of Crusader barbarism and ignorance than the moderation and tolerance of the great Saladdin. If Muslim nations follow the Iranian formula in their dealings with Israel, they will go down the same path of destruction as the medieval Frankish hordes that invaded the Holy Land.

  • Leo Buddha

    Dear "Smiths"

    Do you think that appeals like yours will really be successful? Ahmadinejad is NOT a fool.

    You wrote that

    i myself think the state of israel is an aggressor and certainly wants to have a go at iran which is unacceptable,

    Do you really think that Iran is NOT an aggressor, or at least behaving very aggressively? Chicken and egg kinda question.

    Fighting ideologies is neither simple nor easy. Fighting (bad) ideologies ethically is rarely successful. Can you give us sucessful examples?

    Bad ideologies often (unfortunately) simply eventually just self-destruct. Until that happens, all we can really do is muddle along, minimising the harm they do.

    We live in a very imperfect world.

    Also I really do not understand why Addamo_01 seems to want to believe that Ahmadinejad is not a demonic fanatic and zealot. Ahmadinejad is NOT a fool.

  • smiths

    priorities

    independent
    Israeli military chief draws fire for selling shares after soldiers' kidnap
    By Donald Macintyre in Metulla, Israel
    Published: 16 August 2006

    The chief of staff of Israel's military was under pressure yesterday after a disclosure that he sold about £14,500 of stocks within three hours of the Hizbollah border raid that triggered the Lebanon conflict.

    Dan Halutz, head of the Israel Defence Force (IDF), was reported by the Israeli newspaper, Maariv, to have instructed his investment manager on 12 July to sell his personal portfolio, just as senior military and political figures were discussing the military response to the raid, in which two soldiers were abducted.

    There is no suggestion General Halutz did anything illegal and the newspaper quoted him responding to what he called the "malicious and tendentious" report that the sale could not be linked to the war. He said he had made the decision because of previous losses and added: "At the time I did not expect or think that there would be a war."

    these guys are the most moral army in the world, ha ha ha ha ha
    yeah, of course

  • smiths

    leo,
    i think that iran is a country that was on the right path,
    as robert fisk said a long while back, iran has the most pro western youth of any country in the arab world,
    serious reform was being made and things could have been helped along carefully to make iran an ally,
    the stupid fuckers in the west who want pertual war pushed iran in the other direction,
    we did not have to have Ahmadinejad,
    he sees his role as protecting his country and region from the number one regional aggressor, israel,
    its not chicken and the egg stuff,
    its meddling and blowback stuff, cause and effect, quite different

  • Leo Buddha

    Smiths

    Read what Irf wrote. A breath of real fresh air in this place. You

    think that iran is a country that was on the right path,

    Yeah. Back to the zealous past. CRAP!

    as robert fisk said a long while back, iran has the most pro western youth of any country in the arab world,

    Even Fisk gets some of it really right sometimes if he looks past his blinkers and hate.

    What are the Koran-bashing zealots doing to and for those wonderful people? Jihad? Thought police?

    the number one regional aggressor, israel,

    Saddam's Iraq was number two? Crap!

    Yeah. You want to go back the future?

    Besides. How did/does/will Israel

    really threaten Iran

    !

  • Suze

    Fighting ideologies is neither simple nor easy. Fighting (bad) ideologies ethically is rarely successful.

    Fighting Islamic ideology has never and will never be successful. All you can hope for is that it moves out of what we consider to be the domain best served by a secular approach and becomes separated again from matters of state. War is clearly a really good way of entrenching fundamentalist ideology even further and if you don't believe that go look at Iraq.

    What makes you think that any of this has to do with ideology any way- do you really believe that Bush would go into Iran in order to fight a holy war? Ideology is just what gets everone whipped into a frenzy of enthusiasm over conflicts that are about power spheres of influence and resources.

  • smiths

    great assessment irf, shame about the factual accuracy,

    Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].

    Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

    The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

    According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]

    The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

    [T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]

    On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [10][11][12]

    now you might think this is semantics, but i dont,
    saying you think a regime is illigitimate and should be gone from the page of time is very different to saying you want to wipe israel off the map,

    and leo, yes, saddam was number two, and now he's gone

  • Suze

    Even Fisk gets some of it really right sometimes if he looks past his blinkers and hate.

    What are the Koran-bashing zealots doing to and for those wonderful people? Jihad? Thought police?

    Firstly- who do you think Fisk Hates?? It is quite bizarre that you hould make that allegation and then follow up with "the Koran-bashing zealots". I would say that your own prejudices are on show here. You automatically equate Islam with extremism. This is not the case at all and you do no service to the moderates amongst the arab and islamic peoples when you characterize them in this way. I think Ahmadinejad is guilty of oppressing his people- academics who advocate nonviolence as a path to democracy are summarily locked up he is undoubtedly a danger- most of all to his own people. BUT he can use the undoubted fact of Israel's continuing brutalisation of the Palestinians and its crimes against the Lebanese people to garner support for himself and his ideologies. This war against Lebanon has accentuated this reality- Hezballah has NEVER been more popular than it is now, even amongst Christians. By continuing to arrogantly assume that, with the support of the US it can act in the region in whatever manner it deems fit, Israel has put itelf into even more danger.

  • Suze

    As a follow up and to highlight the real dangers of Ahmadinejad- link here to the questions Mike Wallace Should have asked

  • G'day,

    My point was that the Iranians and others who refuse to recognise Israel's existence are being plain-stupid. If they really cared about Palestinian rights, the first thing they would do is recognise Israel.

    The rejectionism of Muslim-majority states toward Israel makes little religious, political or strategic sense.

    The fact is that Israel itself has a substantial Muslim population. Further, not all forms of Zionism should be seen as inherently offensive to Muslims.

    Perhaps people have lied about what Ahmedinejad really said. It isn't the first time people have lied about that. And if you don't believe me, check out this …

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=

    Sorry to keep blowing my own trumpet.

    Regards

    Irfan

  • Addamo_01

    If they really cared about Palestinian rights, the first thing they would do is recognise Israel.

    While recgonising Israel would be a good gesture, the Palestinains and the PLO themselevs found out the hard way that it leads to nothing. Israel makes all kinds of demands that it insists are necessary before a comprimise can be reaches, the other being the existence fo a partner for peace, but when those demands are met, NADA.

    It's just a stalling tactic.

    Leo,

    Do you really think that Iran is NOT an aggressor, or at least behaving very aggressively? Chicken and egg kinda question.

    Name one country that Iran has attacked or invaded in the last century.

  • Leo Buddha

    Addamo wrote:

    Name one country that Iran has attacked or invaded in the last century

    Iran's back-to-the-future, current regime is relatively new. They had no choice but to fight Soddom. I do not see that as aggressive. It seems to me that they are not behaving unaggressively now in Iraq, Lebanon, and in HOW they support extremists in Gaza, and (most probably) building an A-bombs.

    The Iranian people I know here are among some of the most urbane and civilised people I've ever met. I am sad that their once flourishing civilisation may regress under the rule of Iran's back-to-the-future, current regime.

    I know that Shah was not nice or good man. Unfortunately, I think that on balance even he was better for his people than the current Koran-bashing and Koran-toting thugs who now rule them.

  • Addamo

    Leo,

    You are fightfulyl misinfoirmed. US Generals have repeatedly stted that Iran is not fuelling violence in Iraq, and in fact, is the key to stabilizing it.

    That Iranm supplies Hezbollah with weapons and finance does nto mean they are pullign the strings any ore than when the US suppliues Israel with far more weapons and finacial support.

    Hezbollah answeres to nobody.

    In Gaza, the ones fuellign the extremists and the IDF, with their murderous rampage. In the last month, they killed ovber a hundred Palestinians – but you refuse to believe that in itself woudl result in any hatred.

    and (most probably) building an A-bombs.

    Sure, why not throw that in, facts be damned.

    I am sad that their once flourishing civilisation may regress under the rule of Iran’s back-to-the-future, current regime.

    Are you sad that their democraticlaly elected leader, Mossadegh, who was progressive and pro Western, was overthrown by the US for wanting to ntioalise Irans resources? Are you sad that for 25 years, Iran was ruled by a tyrant, who sold out the country?

    Are you sad that the US backed Iraq in the war that led to half a million dead Iranians?

    Are you sad that the US shot fown an Iranian arline and killed 290 peopel in 1986?

    Are you sad that in 2003, the Bush administration rejected an offer to normalise relations with the US, from the Iranians, which included an offer to regcognise Israel, scal back it's nuclear program and wash it's hands of Hamas and Hezbollah?

    I think that on balance even he was better for his people than the current Koran-bashing and Koran-toting thugs who now rule them.

    Of course you woudl think that. He was pro Israel. But history disagrees with you. The Iranians were sick of his trynay and booted him out of the position.

    Ideally, had Mossadegh been left in charge, Iran would likely be a progressive, moderate, Western friedly country right now. But as always, the West was seduced by short sightedness, preoccupied with greed.

    As you sow, so you shall reap.

  • Leo Buddha

    Addamo.

    I wrote that

    Shah was … on balance … better for his people than the current Koran-bashing and Koran-toting thugs who now rule them.

    I agree with what you wrote about Iran except I think, based upon what I see that Iran

    1) Iran is a destabilisng force in both the region and the the world, and

    2) Iran is building an A-bomb.

    I hope I am wrong, on both counts

  • Addamo

    The prblem with your thinking Leo is this.

    Anythign that happens in Latin america is regarded as interest to the US, undertsandably. The Us often get;s involved for the sake of it's own interests and no one bats an eye.

    Yet, there is civil war over it's border and a shorter one has taken place in teh region and yet, the West accuses Iran of being a destabilisng for darin got get involved. Israel has been begging the Us to whack Iran for years. It atacks Lebanon. It holds onto land belonging to Syria and who calls Israel a destabilising force? No one.

    Ad for Iran builfing a bomb, there is zero evidence of it, with all experts agreeing it;s at leat 5-10 years away even if it was trying.

  • Leo Buddha

    Yes Addamo.

    The existance of Israel is a destabilising force in the region and has been since …

  • Addamo

    The existance of Israel is a destabilising force in the region and has been since …

    1948 I believe? The 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel was held recently wasn't it?

    Anyway, no need to take my word for it. get it from teh horse's mouth:

    If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a PRETEXT for war now, we would have created one in the coming year to 18 months.

    Major General Chaim Herzog
    Suring the 2nd of the Six day war 1967

  • Leo Buddha

    Addamo

    So then are you saying that _the_ destabilising force in the ME is the existance of Israel?

  • Suze

    No you said that. Its not Irael's existence but her actions that destabilizes.

  • Suze

    Briefing paper on Iran war scenario

  • Leo Buddha

    Suze,

    I think that Addamo can speak for himself, and did. I simply asked him an open question. And unlike Addamo, I was not baiting him nor was I being smug. Nor do I pretend to occupy the moral high ground.

    And yes, war has horrendous consequences. And those who play with fire sometimes get burned themsleves.

  • Suze

    I think you are getting "open question" and "loaded question" mixed up.

    You really should read that briefing paper.

  • smiths

    the region was destabilised when ousiders realised it was floating on a sea of oil,
    and smart men realised oil would be the power source and lubricant of the 20th century,
    the creation of israel was undoubtedly one of the more destabilising events, in a long series of them, and its actions now are definately destabilising in an ongoing way,
    but the clock has moved so far forward that questioning israels existence is pointless,
    it does exist and should continue to do so,

    but its a smoke screen,
    it masks the bigger question left over from the events,
    where is palestine now, where will the people in camps live into the future,
    who will give them their dignity and humanity back

  • Ian

    2) Iran is building an A-bomb.

    And this disturbs you because you believe that as soon as they have 1, 10, 100, 1000 they are going to launch them against Israel or America knowing full well that 15-60 minutes later there'll be enough imcoming to turn all of Iran into a solid sheet of glass?

    The only reason America and Israel fear a nuclear armed Iran is because it effectively prevents them launching a low cost war against it. If I was running Iran I'd want nukes too, as I suspect you would in the same position.

    Nukes, unless your the dominant super power, are useless as offensive weapons, but they do make great defensive ones, just ask the Americans and Russians.

    In the unlikely event I ever achieve my dream of world domination I'm going to insist every country has 100 of them, not one more, not one less, because then war becomes too risky to contemplate.

  • Leo Buddha

    Suze,

    If you know Addamo (and I don't) then my question may well seem to you to be loaded or even just rhetorical.

    And yes I did read the briefing paper.

  • Suze

    No I don't know him and I wasn't speaking for him I was just commenting on the strategy of putting words in others mouths. There seems to be an attitude by those who have a problem with this site, that the only possible explaination for criticism of Israel is the secret wish that it did not exist etc etc etc. Its very tedious. Most people can separate act from essence, and citizen from government. Its not anti-Israel to object to the treatment meted out to the Palestinians or the destruction of Lebanon, its only human to react agaisnt clear injustices.

  • Addamo_01

    Leo,

    I thought I made it perfectly clear. I mentiuoned the bombing of the King David Hotel not being commemorated, but celebrated and the quote from the Israeli general who said that Israel woudl have created a pretext for war with Egypt had Nasser not given them one.

    Clearly Israel's actions and policies are what have led to the instalbility.

    Israel is a state addicted to militarism. The IDF is a giverment within a government and calls the shots, pretty much like we are used to seeing in Idonesia, where the military is a law and government unto itself.

  • Addamo_01

    Suze,

    There seems to be an attitude by those who have a problem with this site, that the only possible explaination for criticism of Israel is the secret wish that it did not exist etc etc etc.

    You are absolutely right. I have noticed this talking point among Israel's amen corner – the effort to conflate criticism of Israel with advocating Israel's destuction. It's a pathetic straw man argument (similarly to bringing up holocasut denial out of nowhere) designed to marginalise Israel's critics as extreminsts.

  • Leo Buddha

    Suze wrote

    Its not anti-Israel to object to the treatment meted out to the Palestinians or the destruction of Lebanon, its only human to react agaisnt clear injustices.

    Yes to all. For that is motherhood. Nor are any such things if considered alone and consitently in their full context antisemitic. For that too is obvious motherhood. I also think I understand what drives "The Ant".

    I really am trying to understand what drives some his supporters. It seems to me that most simply fan the flames of the conflict rather than work constructivly towards a viable solution.

    Whether we like ethnically-based states or not, they will be with us for a while yet, depite some of our ideals.

  • Suze

    I really am trying to understand what drives some his supporters. It seems to me that most simply fan the flames of the conflict rather than work constructivly towards a viable solution.

    I wonder what you think is the route to this solution? Apart from offering support to Gush Shalom or others like them? Is there anyone seriously trying for a solution at present? To read the MSM at now one would think that nothing that Irael does in relation to its neighbours is at all reprehensible- I even heard of a Fox commentator suggesting that Israel did not in fact bomb buildings in Lebanon- they were just falling down due to poor construction!

    When you are faced with such appalling perversions of the truth, it tends to have a polarising effect on people's opinions. And how do you solve a problem which does not even exist in the consciousness of a large proportion of people- including the so called Jewish Lobby in Australia who just keep mouthing the "evils of Islam" stuff ad infinitum?

  • Addamo

    Leo,

    I really am trying to understand what drives some his supporters.

    What is the mystery here Leo? There are 64 UN resolutions against Israel. Could it be that there is something to be considered?

    It seems to me that most simply fan the flames of the conflict rather than work constructivly towards a viable solution.

    You seem to be on the wrong planet Leo. But the degree to which Israel’s amen corner is able to erase current events and history in general is truly remarkable.

    Fanning the flames of the conflict? Are you serious? Israel just smoked half of Lebanon, along with 1000 people (forget what took place in Gaza over the same period of time) and you are accusing Ant's supporters of fanning the flames of conflict? You yourself recognise that this conflict had nothing to do with 2 IDF soldiers being nabbed, but was the unfolding of a planed long in the making.

    Israel's message is that it demands recognition, and has communicated that this act would pave the way towards a solution. In 1993, the PLO recognised Israel and for hte following 7 years, Israel responded by expanding settlements in the West Bank.

    Whether we like ethnically-based states or not, they will be with us for a while yet, depite some of our ideals.

    That implies that the notion of ethnically-based states is in itself undesirable,. which in turn questions Israel's entire existence (in terms of it's identity). So are you suggesting that Israel's identity as a Jewish state is a temporary arrangement?

  • Addamo

    And how do you solve a problem which does not even exist in the consciousness of a large proportion of people- including the so called Jewish Lobby in Australia who just keep mouthing the “evils of Islam” stuff ad infinitum?

    Indeed Suze,

    There seems ot be a sense of normality among the right wing, and Zionists when it comes to the killing of Arabs, as though it were a unfortunate but necessary evil, like the ciullling of kangaroos.

    When Arabs are bombed to gdeath, its not murder, it's not even killing, its just the process of natural selection.

  • Leo Buddha

    Suze wrote

    how do you solve a problem which does not even exist in the consciousness of a large proportion of people

    If really I did then I would not be here. Then again… 🙂

    Some ideas:

    Step 1: Stop the blame game.

    Step 2: Stop playing the my pain is greater than your pain game.

    Step 3: Stop playing the my ideology is better than your ideology game.

    Step 4: Do NOT talk about JUSTICE and TRUTH and PERVERSIONS… Instead help to coax people towards viable live and let live paradigms and acknowledge that PAST INJUSTICES are just that. In the past. Mourn your losses and then leave them behind. Work on the present towards a more JUST (not necessarily REALLY JUST) future.

    And finally, execute all those who do not agree with me. 🙂

    Good night…

  • Addamo

    Leo,

    Yo have no idea what a hipocrite you are do you?

    Step 1: Stop the blame game.

    Answer: What about accountability and responsibility? Or do we just open up all the prison gates and let everyone out?

    Step 2: Stop playing the my pain is greater than your pain game.

    Answer: I presume that does not apply to the Holocuast right?

    Step 3: Stop playing the my ideology is better than your ideology game.

    Answer: So we can dro teh inslamofascist bullshit them? We can lose the westrn democratic exceptionalism bullshit too?

    Step 4: Do NOT talk about JUSTICE and TRUTH and PERVERSIONS…

    Answer: Oh i see. Bad prinicipals huh? So what do you propose?

    Might makes right?
    Posession is nine tenths fo the law?
    Finders keeprs?
    Life's a bitch?
    Meakness means weakness?
    Truth is relative?
    Justice is in the eye of the beholder?

    Mourn your losses and then leave them behind. Work on the present towards a more JUST (not necessarily REALLY JUST) future.

    When is the cut off date for past losses? Does it apply to the Holocaust? oes it apply to the ebreaved relatives of the 1000 dead in Lebanon?

  • Leo Buddha

    Addamo,

    Brief and only answer.

    It is better to be ALIVE AND WRONG then to be DEAD AND RIGHT.

  • orang

    "It is better to be ALIVE AND WRONG then to be DEAD AND RIGHT."

    Ignorance is bliss.

  • M.Mayes

    So Leo you are admitting that Israel is wrong in what its doing, but thats ok because they are still alive?

    what about being alive and right?

  • Leo Buddha

    Yes Orang. Ignorance is bliss.

    No M.Hayes. Is Israel is not always "right". Only those who are blinkered by blind faith are "always right"

  • M.Mayes

    Agreed, nobody is always right.

    But I didnt suggest that anyone was either, rather certain Pro-Israel posters on here (along with AIJAC and their followers) cannot accept that Israel nay bear some responsibility for the Palestinian suicide bombing, the subsequent actions by the IDF and the failure of peace agreements. If you can accept that Israel has responsibility aswell then I am sorry, that post should not have been targeted at you.

  • Leo Buddha

    M Mayes wrote

    certain Pro-Israel posters on here (along with AIJAC and their followers) cannot accept that Israel may bear some responsibility [jargon deleted] the failure of peace agreements.

    As written above I think that ALL Pro-Israel posters here would agree. Though that would not suit the simplistic and hairy-chested moral highground brigade.