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.

Eggs Fail To Recognize Omelette’s Right To Exist

Zionist hardliners have typically denied the very existence of Palestine after the creation of Israel. Indeed, it’s likely that many Jews are unaware of the true history of the basis upon which Israel was first created.

I suggested that she and her husband were perhaps confused about the non-existence of Palestine and Palestinians and they should look up the actual text of Resolution 181 which speaks of the “future Government of Palestine” and the creation of “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.” I reiterated that this resolution which called for Jewish and Arab states was proposed for existence WITHIN Palestine. Get it? The resolution was about the future government of PALESTINE. It did not say there is to be NO Palestine, nor did it deny the existence of Palestine. And when Ben-Gurion declared the creation of the Jewish state WITHIN Palestine, he used these exact words, “We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine to be called the State of Israel.”

The great paradox about Israeli hardliners is their insistence that the world recognise Israel’s right to exist. On the face of it, this appears irrelevant seeing as Israel’s existence was internationally recognised by the International community more than half a century ago, but perhaps there is another explanation for why this matter is so frequently laboured.

Israel’s right to exist” is code for a very specific demand. It isn’t asking the Palestinians to recognize that the state of Israel exists and has the right to security within mutually agreed borders (which is essentially what the PLO has accepted). And it doesn’t mean that the Palestinians must recognize an Israeli state where Jewish and non-Jewish citizens alike enjoy full rights of citizenship (as proposed in the partition resolution of 1947, in which “Jewish Palestine” was essentially a binational state). When Israel and its supporters demand that Palestinians must “recognize Israel’s right to exist” they specifically mean that Palestinians must acknowledge Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish state on the lands of former Mandate Palestine.

More specifically:

When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the “right” of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too think Zionism is worth all this “collateral damage”. You are asking them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement. You are asking them to internalize the fact that they have less right to live freely on their own ancestral lands where they have lived in unbroken continuity for millenia, than an immigrant to the Middle East who, by an accident of birth, happens to have been born into a “preferred” religion.

So there you have it. A definition of “Israel’s right to exist” that you won’t find in any phrase book or encyclopedia.

20 comments ↪
  • Ray Bergmann

    Anthony, can you please give the source of the quote: 'When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the “right” of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too think Zionism is worth all this “collateral damage”….' The blog is referenced to 'Andre' in Israel but I don't know where to find this or how to acknowledge it.

    This topic particularly interests me. It was because of the specification "We believe that Israel’s right to exist must be recognized" that I elected not to sign the Independent Jewish Voices Australia petition.

    In the 2 February 2007 edition of The Christian Science Monitor “What 'Israel's right to exist' means to Palestinians” http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.ht… John V. Whitbeck wrote a concise and valuable commentary on this 'excuse for not talking with any Palestinian leaders who still stood up for the rights of their people':

    'Yasser Arafat…, in his famous 1988 statement in Stockholm, …accepted "Israel's right to exist in peace and security." This language, significantly, addresses the conditions of existence of a state which, as a

    matter of fact, exists. It does not address the existential question of the "rightness" of the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian people from their homeland to make way for another people coming from abroad…

    Those who recognize the critical importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace and truly seek a decent future for both peoples must recognize that the demand that Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" is unreasonable, immoral, and

    impossible to meet. Then, they must insist that this roadblock to peace be removed, the economic siege of the Palestinian territories be lifted, and the pursuit of peace with some measure of justice be resumed with the

    urgency it deserves.'

    Ray Bergmann,

    Palestinian and Jewish Unity, Queensland

  • our right to self determination is a right that mirrors that of the palestinians.. it does not justify everything that has happened.. atrocities on both sides are explained through many consequential acts that have ensued.. these are separate debates and clustering them into one is nothing more than rhetoric..

    the simplicity of this post is mind boggling and has evoked a sentiment in me that mirrors the one expressed by you in your following post..

    if it were me i would draft the title of this post "eggs calling eachother bacon"

  • Andre

    Ray,

    That quote was from this link, which was included in my post:
    http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2007/03/e

  • ej

    The simplicity of Lirun's post is mind boggling but predictable. Lirun encapsulates the cretinism into which Zionists have been socialised.

    'our right'. WHose right? Palestine was a multi-ethnic multi-religious region into which a bunch of crackpot marauders poured.

    'atrocities on both sides' is the usual canard that obliterates the fundamental assymetry of the colonising and ethnic cleansing project.

    Plenty of room for self-determination in Caulfield, Brooklyn, Montreal, LA, Berlin, Baghad (before the Zionists cleaned it out), etc., etc.

    Unfortunately for Lirun an ethnically homogeneous Israel is now a pipedream. WHy not cut short the fantasy and reduce the continuing bloodshed?

  • viva peace

    Newsflash. When Haj Amin declared an independent Arab Palestinian state in Gaza in 1948, the whole world rejected it. They all sndiely laughed at the vile idea of a "Mufti-State." Egypt then took it over and subject them to brutal military occupation renaming the area the Gaza Strip.

    Similarly, Jordan illegally invaded then annexed Judea and Samaria in 1948 renaming the area the West Bank later on. This had been planned for years. Jordan expelled all Jews from this region. Then in 1967 Jordan attacked Israel from the very region it had illegally annexed (an annexation recognized only by two countries on the planet by the way).

    Note that nowhere in this history did anyone support an independent Arab Palestinian state. Not the UN, not the Arab states, not even the refugees themselves.

    There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term made up by the Zionists. Our country was for centuries part of Greater Syria. Palestine is alien to us.

    Arab political leader to British Peel Commission, 1937

    There is no such thing as Palestine in history. Absolutely not.

    Professor Phillip Hitti, Arab historian in 1946 at Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry

    It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.

    1956 Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the UNSecurity Council.

  • viva peace

    The "Palestinians" do not have ANY "right" to a state, and especially not any right equal to Israel's. Israel needs to complete the Wall and just ignore the Pals and leave them to their bombs and auto-genocide.

  • ej

    have you ever heard of faradis.. a huge muslim town on the israeli coast.. right next to zichron yaakov.. they didnt run in 1948 and they didnt attack us.. so we didnt attack them either.. do you know that there are still many muslims in yaffo and haifa and lod and ramle and towns all over israel.. well over a 1,000,000 in fact live here.. if we wanted to ethnically cleanse dont you think we would have done it ages ago?

    do you know that there is a huge muslim town that jews established right next to keysaria.. we actually brought in many non jews to assist with infrastructure projects because there was a shortage of labour many decades ago – sponsored by baron de rothschild.. their muslim brothers and sisters boycotted them and alienated them but they were most welcome to stay.. and live amongst us.. they were given lands and homes for free out of property stock purchased with jewish funds..

    i think you're from another planet..

    come live here and learn the reality and then speak.. rather than ingesting hyperreality to the power of N and presenting it as brilliant wit on some blog..

    so lame..

  • Andre

    The “Palestinians” do not have ANY “right” to a state, and especially not any right equal to Israel’s. Israel needs to complete the Wall and just ignore the Pals and leave them to their bombs and auto-genocide.

    It's always interesting to here Israel's hard line supporters reject criticism of Israel on the grounds that the matter is a complicated one, and then turn around and make a statement like this.

  • Andre

    lirun,

    Perhaps you should take the matter up with Moshe Dayan and ask him what he meant by his infamous remark:

    Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.

    Incidentally, while your post mentions the treatment of Arab Israelis, which while humane, still relegates them to 4th class citizens. You didn't address the matter of an independent Palestinian State. Are you in favour of such a creation or opposed to it?

  • ej

    Here is Menahem Begin in 1969, answering a question regarding ‘recognition of the existence of a Palestinian people’ at Ein Haroresh, a Mapam (left Zionist) Kibbutz.

    'My friend, take care. When you recognize the concept of ‘Palestine’, you demolish your right to live in Ein Hahoresh. If this is Palestine and not the Land of Israel, then you are conquerors and not tillers of the land. You are invaders. If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who lived here before you came. Only if it is the Land of Israel do you have a right to live in Ein Hahoresh and in Deganiyah B. If it is not your country, your fatherland, the country of your ancestors and of your sons, then what are you doing here? You came to another people’s homeland, as they claim, you expelled them and you have taken their land …'

    THose at the centre of the action know the point. We serve up the terra nullius soup, pureed by linguistic legerdemain, for consumption and reproduction by the lobotomised faithful down the pecking order. I see no Palestinians!

    I like Lirun's take on bad darkies and good darkies. Do they serve up this swill in school? We only killed or expropriated the bad darkies. And lo and behold we got some good darkies to do the shit work because the utopia of blood and soil turned out to be a load of cock and bull. We might be racist supremacists but we're considerate racist supremacists. If only those good darkies didn't have so many fucking children!

  • viva peace

    It is a reassuring to see the Usual Suspects ignoring the very words of Arabs themselves; typical left-wing anti-Semites shtick.

  • viva peace

    Andre

    Since I have been a member of this blog, you have posted that same quote about 20 times. I have never understood what point you think it proves.

    Will you be storming the barricades demanding the Arabs rename the "West Bank" Judea and Samaria as they were known before Jordan illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed these regions in 1948?

  • Andre

    Viva,

    If the West bank was "illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed these regions in 1948", then how would you describe it now, "legally invaded, occupied, and annexed"?

    The quote was for the benefit of Lirun, but FYI, I have cited Dayan's quote once, maybe twice before. I recall the last time I did, it was in response to your denial of the existence of an Arab community in Palestine prior to 1948.

  • Jim

    The Dayan and Begin quotes are all very well and poignant, but it's worth looking a bit further back… to 1929, to be exact.

    Hans Kohn joined the Bar Kochba students' circle, a Zionist group, in Prague in 1909, along with Shmuel H. Bergman, Robert Weltsch, Frans Kafka and others, settled in Palestine in 1925 and became one of the directors of Keren Hayesod. Kohn resigned from his directorship, from Keren Hayesod, and from the Zionist movement in 1929. He detailed his reasons in a letter to Dr. Berthold Feiwel, a fellow Keren Hayesod director, in words which seem to me eerily prescient 78 years later:

    You know that for years I have been fighting the battle for those ideas which to me had been the very meaning of Zionism. Eventually these ideas gained focus in the so-called Arab question. For me this question became the [moral] touchstone of Zionism. … I was not concerned with the Arabs but with the Jews, their Jewishness, and the confirmation of their humane [values]. It has, alas, become increasingly clear to me that in this respect the Zionist Organization has failed utterly. The decisive experience was the Arab national uprising of August 1929. Such events are eye-openers and call for decisions… In the midst of this crisis, it was still possible to turn over a new leaf and to adopt a fresh attitude after the [initial] shock: to reappraise the moral and spiritual foundations of Zionism and to attempt a new solution [to the Arab question]. This opportunity has been missed. The overwhelming majority of Zionists feel justified in pursuing a course which I cannot follow. For the few who think like me, the need for an honest and clear decision has arrived.

    … I cannot concur with [official Zionist] policy when the Arab national movement is being portrayed as the wanton agitation of a few big landowners. I know all too well that frequently the most reactionary imperialist press in England and France portrays the national movements in India, Egypt and China in similar fashion — in short, whenever the national movements of oppressed peoples threaten the interests of the colonial power. I know how false and hypocritical this portrayal is. ….[T]he future of a movement, the Zionist movement, which I can only envisage if it is built on ethical foundations, is at stake. The means determine the goal. If lies and violence are the means, the results cannot be good.

    We pretend to be innocent victims. Of course the Arabs attacked us in August [1929]. Since they have no armies, they could not obey the rules of war. They perpetrated all the barbaric acts that are characteristic of a colonial revolt. But we are obliged to look into the deeper cause of this revolt. We have been in Palestine for twelve years [i.e. since the establishment of the Mandate] without having even once made a serious attempt at seeking through negotiations the consent of the indigenous pepple. … We have set ourselves goals which by their very nature had to lead to conflict with the Arabs. We ought to have recognized that these goals would be the cause, the just cause, of a national uprising against us. … Having come to this country [as immigrants], we were duty bound to come up with constitutional proposals which, without doing serious harm to Arab rights and liberty, would have also allowed for our free cultural and social development. But for twelve years we pretended that the Arabs did not exist and were glad when we were not reminded of their existence. …

    …[J]ust like the powers of the [First] World War, we have declared that we would gladly make peace if only wer were strong enough. That means we are seeking a victorious peace just as they were — a peace whereby the opponent does what we want. …

    Each delay in the signing of a peace treaty renders peace more difficult by widening the gap between the two peoples. The Arab national movement is growing and will continue to grow. In a short time it will be much more difficult for us to reach an agreement than it is today. Increasing our numbers by tens of thousands will not make it any easier. I believe that it will be possible for us to hold Palestine and continue to grow for a long time. That will be done first with British aid and then later with the help of our own bayonets — shamefully called _Haganah_ — clearly because we have no faith in our own policy. But by that time we will not be able to do without the bayonets. The means will have determined the goal….

    My resignation from Keren Hayesod closes an era of my life. Twenty years spent exclusively in Zionist activity, ten of them in Keren Ha-Yesod, is no small part of a human life. One is accountable both to himself and to his friends for such a period.

    [Paul R. Mendes-Flohr, ed. _A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs_ (Oxford Univ. Press 1983, 1984 paperback edition), pp. 97-100; bracketed interpolations supplied by editor.]

    So there we have it: someone who was there, spending 20 years of his life deeply immersed in Zionist activity, calling it quits because he found the policies and practices of his movement morally unacceptable. We Zionists — and I count myself as a Zionist — ignore his words and his concerns very much at our own peril.

    Martin Buber, for his part, in an address to the Berlin chapter of the Brith Shalom Zionist group which he titled "The National Home and National Policy in Palestine," two months after the Arab attacks on Jews at Hebroh/al-Khalil and Safd/Tzefat, stated:

    Every responsible relationship between an individual and his fellow begins through the power of a genuine imagination, as if we were the residents of Palestine and the others were the immigrants who were coming into this country in increasing numbers, year by year, taking it away from us. How would we react to events? Only if we know this will it be possible to minimize the injustice we must do in order to survive and to live the life which we are not only entitled but obliged to live [in Palestine]. …

    …Our relations with the Arabs ought to be developed positively in every respect. Economically, by developing a practical community of interests and not, as we have done all the time, by giving assurances of an existing solidarity of interests. Everywhere and at all times when economic decisions have to be taken, the interest of the Arab people should be taken into account. This has not been done often enough. Everybody who knows the situation is aware of the many opportunities that have been missed. …

    …True national pride would logically bring us closer to the Arabs, for it is only on the basis of agreement with them that we can expand and ensure our enterprise — building up the land — whose guarantee is our national honor. What distances us from the Arabs is our national arrogance….

    We have not settled Palestine together with the Arabs but alongside them. Settlement 'alongside,' when two nations inhabit the same country, which fails to become settlement 'together with' must necessarily become a state of 'against.' This is bound to happen here — and there will be no return to a mere 'alongside.' But despite all the obstacles in our path, the way is still open for reaching a settlement 'together with.' And I do not know how much time is left to us. What I do know is that if we do not attain [such a relationship with the Arabs of Palestine], we will never realize the aims of Zionism.

    [Ibid., pp. 87-91; bracketed interpolations supplied by editor.]

    Needless to say, we Zionists did not follow the path suggested by Buber (and many others). Instead we not only denied the legitimacy of the Palestinian Arab national aspirations, for decades we _denied their very existence as a people_ — from well before Golda Meir's infamous 1969 "They did not exist" quote about the Palestinians (see, e.g., http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Golda_Meir) through that period into much more recent history (their "existence" widely denied in mainstream Jewish and Zionist writing well into the 1980s at least, arguably at least up until the first Intifada, and by many even today) — just as Buber and Kohn decried so many years ago, and with the results they predicted: protracted conflict and war. We pursued a policy of the ends justifying the means.

    Aharon Cohen, in his book _Israel and the Arab World_, documents numerous instances of insensitivity and arrogance on the part of both leadership and rank and file folks within the Zionist movement toward the Palestinian Arabs. He also documents several occurrences in which the Yishuv leadership ignored, dismissed, or even actively torpedoed peace initiatives from the Arab side as well as initiatives from groups within the Zionist movement itself such as Ihud, Brith Shalom, and the League for Jewish-Arab Rapprochement and Conciliation. It's pretty amazing stuff to learn when you've been raised with simplistic, self-serving and conscience-soothing slogans such as "We Have Always Stretched Forth Our Hand In Peace, But The Arabs Rejected It And Chose War," or Abba Eban's poisonous formulation (repeated often on this discussion board) that the Palestinians (or Arabs) "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Slogans such as these continue to be repeated, straight through Camp David 2000 (as false, or at least as misleading, in 2000 as they were in 1973, 1948, and before) and beyond.

    We seem almost incapable of considering the idea that some part of the Arab enmity toward Zionism could, just conceivably, have some roots in our own behavior rather than in unreasoning anti-Semitism or some other "primitive, racist" tendencies on the part of the Arabs. In that we are engaging in classic self-pity and victimology, with ourselves cast in the role as perennial victims — of the Arabs, of the world, etc. "We pretend to be innocent victims," Hans Kohn wrote in 1929. The same bizarre psychology, and propaganda, continues today.

  • Jim

    A clarification and a typo correction:

    1) It should be "Hebron," not "Hebroh"

    2) I originally composed this piece as a post on another discussion forum, hence my reference to Abba Eban's poisonous formulation of the Palestinians or Arabs "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" as something that had occurred "on this discussion board". I missed it in my edits to make it appropriate for responding to the comments here.

  • viva peace

    Andre

    Still choosing to ignore the views of actual Arabs? Shameless racist.

  • Andre

    Viva,

    It's an interesting paradox to be called a racist who refers to Arabs as "ragheads". Does being called a racist by a racist make one anti-racist????

    As you are aware, there are countless quotes from Israeli leaders testifying to the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people. I could also produce quotes from Orthodox Jews denying the right of Israel to exist.

    All it proves is that these individuals sais what they did, and presumably held those beliefs. Nothing more.

  • viva peace

    Andre

    Why do you consider the views of Jews superior to Palestinians and Arabs in general?

  • Jim

    Viva, I call bullshit on your quotes from "actual Arabs" (I count maybe two or three), unless and until you adequately source them (a name of that mythical "Arab political leader" would be nice, to cite but one example).

  • i love it when people intellectualise my reality showering profanities and personal insults.. like its more persuasive.. or (better) like they're making a difference..

    very nice..