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.

Family feud

The following letters appear in this week’s Australian Jewish News:

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

I was under no illusions that Antony Loewenstein’s book would turn out to be fair, or indeed accurate, after hosting him in Israel when he did his “research”.

I place the word in inverted commas, since it was all too apparent that Loewenstein was interested in hearing only what motivated his personal agenda.

A typical example was when he returned after a day out and announced that the people he spoke to had told him that Israelis made life very difficult. When I asked him who gave him this information, he told me that the people were “Arabs in East Jerusalem”.

On another occasion, when I asked him if he had seen a certain newspaper article, he told me that he “didn’t read the Jerusalem Post because it was too right-wing”!

I would have expected a “journalist” to at least look at differing opinions.

It was not just intellectual dishonesty that struck me, but an abysmal lack of knowledge about the history of the area. I was astounded that someone with so little knowledge about his subject would have the temerity to write a book, and even more so that a publisher would agree to lend its name to the finished work.

If the world needs another anti-Israel/anti-American diatribe replete with Jewish conspiracy theories, they have it in Loewenstein’s book. This particular book is even less accurate than the others.

It is not, of course, surprising that Robert Fisk endorsed Loewenstein’s book, but it does tell us what to expect of an author who hitches his star to the likes of Fisk and John Pilger. Perhaps that is the greatest service the book does: it thoroughly discredits the author from the word go.

Ronald Green
Ramat Hasharon, Israel

TRY MEIN KAMPF

If Steve Brook considers Antony Loewenstein’s book his “kind of book”, because Jeremy Jones described it as having evil intent, being covertly antisemitic and so on (AJN 11/8), I suggest Steve have a look at some other gems such as Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Henry Herzog
Elwood, Vic

These letters represent the level of “debate” within the Jewish community about the issue of Israeli occupation and my book. Herzog’s rant is beyond parody. Green, on the other hand, is my cousin (which he doesn’t disclose in the letter). It’s an odd forum – in the Australian Jewish News of all places – to engage in a family slanging match, but perhaps it’s not surprising. I portray Green and his family in the book as anti-Palestinian, racist, anti-German and anti-Arab. It was painful to see one’s family, however distant, display such traits. Frankly, I suspect he hasn’t even read the book (and is a failed novelist himself.)

I quote Israeli writer Tom Segev, who wrote on the sixtieth anniversary of Auschwitz:

The hatred of Arabs has become legitimate. A state in which so many of its citizens survived the Holocaust is supposed to be strict in its observance of democracy and human rights…Ironically, the oppression in the territories is encouraging anti-Semitism, and in various places in the world it is even endangering the safety of Jews.

Ronnie Green is beset with this sickness. Within Israel, his attitude is sadly not uncommon. His recollections of my time with his family are woefully inaccurate, but then, he does accuse my book of containing “Jewish conspiracy theories.”

I’ll add this label to the long list.

48 comments ↪
  • Glenn Condell

    It's sad, but you must have been prepared for these sorts of reactions. They're so tired and predictable you could almost have scripted them yourself. Green's revealing omission of an essential fact is emblematic of Likudnik discourse on any subject. Herzog's robotically Pavlovian reply could have been autogenerated by the Zionist Noise Machine.

    It must feel like being flogged with wet noodles, but whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

  • Roonaldo

    As Glenn said above, you have to be prepared for these kinds of reactions – even from people who are extended family members. It's all part of the deep psychological trauma that comes with supporting a State that routinely abuses human rights and can only function through repressive military or police action against its neighbours or fellow citizens. Same abuse was suffered by those who lived in the southern US and supported the civil rights movement and those who lived in South Africa and opposed apartheid.

  • Having read about Ant's background in My Israel Question, I feel that I understand his journey (sorry to use that word!) and I can understand some of my Jewish friends a bit better too. I wish they would change, but I don't hold out much hope (though I will mention My Israel Question sometime!). Most recently it's been a case of "Don't mention the war!". Whilst their politics can be progressive on every other issue, with Israel the blinkers are on. It's a bit like trying to have a rational debate with a fanatical Christian about Christianity – it's an article of faith and faith can't be discussed in this way. In the book I was touched by the fact that Ant's parents have been so supportive and I find it pretty dismal that his cousin Ronald could be so harsh.

  • Leo Buddha

    Andrew wrote

    It’s a bit like trying to have a rational debate with a fanatical Christian about Christianity

    Does that not also apply to Isalmofascists, PEACE activists, and many who strut their stuff here including the paternalistic platitudes in the other comments?

  • Addamo_01

    The smugness of these two is all too familiar. Behind the facade of intellectual and moral superiority resides their own deep seated rascism and extremism, that they keep well guarded, but which usually slips out inadvvertently with time.

  • Addamo_01

    Does that not also apply to Isalmofascists, PEACE activists, and many who strut their stuff here including the paternalistic platitudes in the other comments?

    Not is does not. Simply put, Isalmofascists are an impercepptible minority and margoinalised by a every society, insluding those in the Middle East.

    Peace activists don't require paternal platitudes, becasue their message is simple. Stop killing people, stop treting people like shit, and stop stealing from them.

    Zionsist have major internal conflicts and shame to deal with, because they are forced to defend the indefensible in the name of their religion and identity.

    Israel's right to defend itself always includes the destruction and invasion of other countries. There are only so many ways this derangedment can be defended, and those that do suffer from denial, the way an acoholic pretends he hasn't got a drinking problem.

  • Roonaldo

    The blogger's handle seems to be a good guide to their mentality. We have Viva Peace who thinks that the dead children (and others) in Qana lived by the sword and therefore deserved to die by the sword. Now we have someone with the word Buddha in their handle who is so upset by the word peace that he has to shout it.

  • Addamo_01

    Roonaldo

    You noticed that too hah? What do you think is the thinking behind Captain's handle? Speaking of which, he and Viva have been noticeably quiet. Comical has disappeared entirely.

  • Aaron Lane

    How does being a failed novelist, whatever that means, reduce the legitimacy of a person's views? Also, when someone says that a book described as 'anti-semitic' is his kind of book on the basis of characteristic, I think people have a right to take offence–not at the book,which I have not read, and do not know the merits or demerits of, but at the person who made the remarks.

  • Suze

    I rather think he was being ironic and the phrase was actually "covertly antisemitic" which is the new code for "critical of Israel" I believe. If you are not actually uttering antisemitic statements they can at least suggest you are covertly antisemitic. This is the ultraparanoia of a system of thought that as addamo and andrew mentioned above, relies on denial to cope with indefensible actions.

  • Addamo_01

    Actually Suze,

    There is also another trick I have come across – the charges of soft anti-Semitism and unconscious anti-Semtism.

    First, there is the suggestion that anti-Seimitism can be so covert that the anti-Semite is not even aware of it.

    Then there is the brand of anti-Semitism that suggests one's anti-Semitic beliefs have been subtely indoctrinated into them and that society has allowed it to prevail, becasue society itself is largely anti-Semitic.

    Finally, there is the Clayton's anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitism that isn't quite anti-Semitic, but comes very close.

    It's interesting to note that people like Foxman at the ADL, as well as others, refuse to give a strict definition of anti-Semitism, preferring to keep it a vague and broad as possible, while at the same time insisting that they and they alone are able to idenntify it. It's very effective, because it allows guys ike Foxman to slander those he is threatened by.

  • Roonaldo

    Addamo – Captain is perhaps the handle of someone who has absolutely no authority at all. Yes, he and his mates have been very quiet. Won't take them long to start sniping at each other as they try and lay the blame for what is turning out to have been a disastrous campaign. If it's not accusations of insider share dealing in the days leading up to the start of the conflict it's instead accusations of sexual harassment at a party to "celebrate" the start of the war. They are rotten to the core.

  • Ian

    A typical example was when he returned after a day out and announced that the people he spoke to had told him that Israelis made life very difficult. When I asked him who gave him this information, he told me that the people were “Arabs in East Jerusalem”.

    Can someone who's been there clarify just how much awareness the average Israeli has of what life is actually like for Palestinians, both in Israel and in the Occupied territories.

  • M.Mayes

    How does being a failed novelist, whatever that means, reduce the legitimacy of a person’s views?

    It doesnt but it may go to suggest that the reason for Ronald to have a go at the publisher for wanting to publish such a book when a book he considered much more "acceptable" ie. his own, was not published.

  • Captain

    Ant, could you explain please if you took notes during these conversations you had with your hosts/relatives? Did they know they were fodder for your book? Why should we accept your version of what transpired?

    Oh, and quiet? Its because Ant censors most of my posts. Simple as that. He does not tolerate dissent.

  • Aaron Lane

    I doubt being rejected by a published would engender such outrage in someone that they would feel compelled to criticise any books that publishing houses did agree to take on, M. Mayes.

    By the way, Antony, I would take a look at the quality of my own prose before deriding others as literary failures. You write "Herzog’s rant is beyond parody. Green, on the other hand, is my cousin…" Why 'on the other hand'? Is being beyond parody somehow the opposite of being someone's cousin? You might as well write "Jane is thinking about going down to the shop. England, on the other hand, won the Football World Cup in 1966." It's a trite phrase anyway–you might as well use it sensically.

  • JohD

    Can someone explain what would happen if the Lebanese in the South embark on their own Intifada? The contemplation of an image of the mighty IDF tanks galloping towards the border, closely pursued by a bunch of angry, stone hurling, pre-pubescents, is delicious.

    What are they going to do? Fire on children with the Hezbollah warriors glaring down on them in the Kill Zone through the sights of their anti-Tank weapons?

  • Nell Fenwick

    Antony, you haven't been censoring dissenting comment, have you? Say it ain't so.

  • Captain

    Come on Ant, you can answer a few questions can't you? Surely this goes to your character and addresses the issue of duplicity. You want your readers to trust you when your own family cant.

  • edwin

    Captain Oh, and quiet? Its because Ant censors most of my posts. Simple as that. He does not tolerate dissent.

    I'm afraid that you do not understand what censorship is. Antony is not required to have a never ending debate on what his opponents want. He is actually allowed to discuss his ideas and expand on them as he sees fit. He has a world view and is allowed to explore it. As for censorship – it depends on whether you have the same abilities to say what you want. You do, just not at his site.

    LGF also has the right to discuss how they see the world, without being constantly forced to argue the premises from which they view it. They are not required to continually argue why whey are fascists. They are allowed to discuss their world view without constantly arguing the position that they come from.

    If you were unable to present your view in a meaningful way on the internet then you could argue censorship. That you are unable to force Antony to discuss Zionism on your terms indicates that your attempt at directing his site has failed. He obviously wishes to discuss different things than you wish to discuss. That is his right. To force Antony to discuss Zionism on your terms would paradoxically be censorship. Go somewhere else or get your own site if you are not happy with how and what Antony chooses to discuss.

  • Suze

    Strange that he would leave uncensored the post that accuses him of censorship?

  • JohD

    Strange that he would leave uncensored the post that accuses him of censorship?

    Ah, but he is a Jew, Isn't he? What would a Jew do without his conspiracies? He deliberately leaves in the post complaining about his censorship to confuse the rabble.

    Really, Captian and his crew have effectively been blown out the water – probably by the latest Iranian supplied 'Noor' missile. Now they are dodging the grenades dropped amongst the ranks.

    Captian and his ilk will be back in full-throat once they consider that people have forgotten the humiliation of their legionaries in Lebanon – say when a 500lb bunker buster is dropped on a fully laden Palestinian apartment complex. Then they will explain the profit of war, and how it is legitimate to keep the spoils of it.

  • JohD

    Apparently [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags do not work on this blog, and there is no preview function. The first para should be enclosed in [sracsm] tags.

  • Fooey

    Andrew Worssam Aug 19th, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    It’s a bit like trying to have a rational debate with a fanatical Christian about Christianity – it’s an article of faith and faith can’t be discussed in this way.

    It's like the ultra-orthodox Jews say: the Israelis have replaced G-d with Nationalism; they now worship the nation-state above all else.

  • Fooey

    Captain Aug 19th, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    Why should we accept your version of what transpired?

    Why not?

    It's because Ant censors most of my posts.

    He only censors posts that call for genocide. Have you had some posts censored? Examples? Maybe you should hesitate before you answer.

    He does not tolerate dissent.

    You're posting here, you retard. Are you saying you don't dissent from Ant's views?

  • Addamo_01

    Oh, and quiet? Its because Ant censors most of my posts. Simple as that. He does not tolerate dissent.

    Why woud tha tbe Captain? Probably because your posts are so laden with filth and venom that they cross the line?

  • Captain

    nice evasion of my questions yet again

  • Suze

    Captain, if they were genuine questions you would have emailed him.

  • Captain

    Eddy, nice rationalisation of the chief censor. It has been completely contrary to his stated rules. In fact in typical marxist rhetorical you manage to absurdly conclude that discussion is censorship!

  • Captain

    Polly Suze, thank you, but you are not the arbitrator of what is a serious question. They are serious questions. I just can't get my head around abusing someone's hospitality, let alone relations. I just want to know if Ant adhered to jounrnalistic ethics in taking notes and informing his victims cousins of his nefarious activities.

  • Suze

    So since you questions are to him- email him and stop wasting our time.

  • Addamo_01

    I just can’t get my head around abusing someone’s hospitality, let alone relations.

    Really Captain? Woudl you prefer that Ant invited imself (like the IDF have done in Gaza and Lebanon) and abuse the residents (a la IDF practice)? Would that have meaured up to your standards of ethtics?

  • Addamo_01

    Actually let me be more specific.

    Ant should have turned up unnanounced, forced his way into the home, taken the occupants hostage, bulldozed the building and surrounding structures, erected a razor wire fence along the perimeter and then totured the prisoners to extract a statement from them.

    That's the Israeli way rigth Captain?

  • Captain

    no no no, you guys have it all wrong. Ant was hanging out his dirty laundry and this leads to some serious questions. He has made some pretty outrageous statements in his book about his family and he owes it to his wider readership to answer the accusation that he exploited these people for profit.

    Because Ant believes in transparency and freedom of speech and is no stranger to ad hominem attacks, it would be welcome for him at answer questions fundamental to his ethics.

  • Addamo_01

    Ant has indeed been transparent by publishing the very critical comments made about him from these people.

    By all means, please list the "outrageous statements" you are referring to. Your assertion that they are outrageous, suggests you have evidence to the contrary, so by all means, provide that as well.

  • edward squire

    Captain Aug 20th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    he owes it to his wider readership to answer the accusation that he exploited these people for profit.

    Why? Are you a communist now?

  • Captain

    I am not a communist, I just find it difficult to imagine that whilst Ant was a guest with his relatives in Israel, he was recording their conversations only to later exploit this for financial gain. There is nothing wrong with doing this if all parties are consenting to the process. And that is something that needs to be clarrified. Ant has made this an issue and as such he should resolve it.

    And the ignoramus that said Ant only censors posts that call for genocide is demonstrably wrong. There are numerous examples floating around the net that contradict that.

    So Ant, lets see the notes you took whilst staying at the Greens.

  • JohD

    I am not a communist, I just find it difficult to imagine that whilst Ant was a guest with his relatives in Israel, he was recording their conversations only to later exploit this for financial gain.

    Don't be stupid, the converstaion was being recorded by his relative, or didn't you notice? It was his relative that reported on the conversation, not Anthony. The relative does not appear in the book at all. Stop with these ridiculous moronic arguments!

  • M.Mayes

    Oh, and quiet? Its because Ant censors most of my posts. Simple as that. He does not tolerate dissent

    'And why should we believe your version of events'

    Your bitching about cencorship is dissent itself, as someone said before why would ant delete your posts (unless they went against the comment rules) and not delete the ones claiming he deleted them.

    nice evasion of my questions yet again

    ok we have now evaded 1 of your questions, 200 more and we should be even I reckon

    Did they know they were fodder for your book? Why should we accept your version of what transpired?

    Because there would be absolutely no point in Ant putting views against his own (ie. his uncles, or whoever it was) in his book, because the piece the relative wrote at the begining of this thread would suggest that his views were along those lines. Even if ant was to lie in the book about it, to what end? the other option being his relative actually agreed with him (which seems somewhat more benefitial than his dissent).

    also if you are so concerned about posts being deleted, copy them to a word doc beforehand so you can repost them later when your whinging about it, then maybe we can engage with the (no-doubt) meaningless drivel that you normally write.

  • Captain

    Ah the conversation was being recorded by his relative. Please make sure you bring this to ant's attention.

  • Addamo_01

    J.F. Beck is a right wing Tim Blair useful idiot (alog with posters from TB
    s blog) who is bound to distrot this story to be pro Israel. And maybe we should also use these standards to Mel Gibson's rant. After all, his rights were vilated were thery not when his comments were publicised. But in the case of antisemitism, there are no barriers to privacy are there.

    Here are some of the delightful opinions Ant's relatives had to share:

    Germany is the devil. I've never been there and never will. And my children, luckily, share the same view.

    You can't be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Israel. But you can be be Pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

    I've never read in the Israeli press any incitement or hatred of Arabs. Never.

    We should be harder on the Palestinians… Only force will make them understand.

    The world hates Jews and hates Israel.

    I don't care if the Palestinians are suffering. We must come first.

    The checkpoints, the wall and bypass roads are all necessary…

    I don't know of any Arab or Palestinian academic or protester or individual, except for a few, that don't hate Israel and Jews.

  • Ed Squire

    Captain Aug 20th, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    There is nothing wrong with doing this if all parties are consenting to the process. And that is something that needs to be clarrified.

    WQhy does it need to be clarified?

  • Addamo_01

    Why does it need to be clarified?

    Captain wil argue next that Ant's relatives should have had a lawyer present during all relevant discussions, otherwise their rights have been violated.

    Notice how none of this discussion has anyting to do with arguing the facts in the book? Who is surprised?

  • Captain

    no you are right it is establishing the fact before they can be argued. I mean why are the Green's representative of anyone at all? of what relevance are their views in a serious debate?

  • M.Mayes

    Ah the conversation was being recorded by his relative. Please make sure you bring this to ant’s attention.

    After reading the article, I really fail to see your point in posting it. It was exactly what Loewenstein posted here plus a little more at the end that didnt really back up any view I can imagine you holding captain.

    No doubt you havent read the book Captain, but it was in the section of Loewenstein's journey to Israel and Palestine, it is relavent as an experience of that journey.

    It was also quite relavent to show Ron's rather extreme view to show that some people do think like that even in Israel, right where it's all happening. It raises all sorts of questions and promotes discussion. Does Ron serious think with that attitude that peace is attainable? (short of squashing the palestinians), Does he think that the Palestinians are likely to stop bombing his country whilst he holds those opinions?

    Here's your chance to engage in some real discussion captain, Do you disagree with the statements Ron made?

  • Captain

    I hardly think his cousin's views are relevant to any serious academic exploration of these issues. This just highlights Ant's appalling methodology.

  • Captain

    Does he think that the Palestinians are likely to stop bombing his country whilst he holds those opinions?

    Oh no, they should continue to bomb Israel because of his opinions. Hmmm, bombing because of Ron Green's opinions, a new level of absurdity has been reached.

  • M.Mayes

    captain you narrow minded twit, that statement wasnt talking about the palestinians reasons for bombing, Ron would obviously like to see Israel stop being attacked, the point was, since you so blatently missed it, that his opinions are narrowminded and that he couldnt seriously expect to have peace aswell as those thoughts. They are incompatible.

    I hardly think his cousin’s views are relevant to any serious academic exploration of these issues. This just highlights Ant’s appalling methodology.

    Sounds kind of like the VAST majority of everything you ever post.