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.

The De-Zionization of Israel

A wonderfully informative interview with Israeli historian, Illan Pappe.  He also sheds some interesting insight into historian Benny Morris.

13 comments ↪
  • Marilyn

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/850307.html

    Here is another intersting tale from zion.

    To put this into perspective.

    The people who were killed in the Lebanese demolition are not victims of terrorism, they are victims of Olmert's deranged pre-planned war where he thought the Lebanese would not fight back.

    1330 Lebanese have died as a result and Dateline shows that many are still displaced which is what Olmert planned.

    82 people in Beit Hanoun were slaughtered by the IDF in 6 days in November last year alone, 500 during the 5 months after Shilat was "taken", dozens since.

    683 Palestinians killed by the IDF last year in terrorist attacks in the middle of the night.Bombs from the air, land mines on the beaches, bullets in the heads of children at play – by the brave IDF.

    Ilan Pappe's book is disturbing but finally the truth of the so-called Palestinian brutality is finally revealed.

    I find it extraordinary that the Jews focus on these few people killed and suck up to the Germans who slaughtered 6 million people in organised genocide.

    It's bizarre to say the least but at last we have the facts of the so-called massacres of Israeli's exposed for the world to see.

    Less people have been killed in Israel by arabs in over 100 years than were murdered by the Israeli's since 2000.

  • viva peace

    Marilyn

    I thought of you earlier as I was re-reading Pappe's latest travesty of historiography. I am just gobsmacked how you could claim

    Well the new information that Pappe had was not available to Morris when he wrote his book and said the cleansing was an accident.

    Pappe got the details and maps and photos when the Israeli archives for 1948 were opened in 1998.

    Nowhere does Pappe say this. If I missed it, could you post the page number/s please?

    Gee, I wish you’d told me this before I read Benny Morris’ “The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited” published in 2004.

    Also, you would do well to know that Plan Dalet had absolutely nothing to do with ethnic cleansing or the Irgun and Stern Gang. And it has been publicly available in English since at least the 1960s.

    Plan D was a Hagganah military contingency plan developed in March 1948 only after four months of Muslim terrorist and regular army attempts to oust the Jews. Military plans like this are a dime a dozen in any military on the planet since the dawn of time.

    Its purpose was to deal with possible military developments in the upcoming invasions promised by the Muslims.

    One of the major, major ethical and scholarly failings of Pappe and to a lesser extent Morris, is the near total silence on military plans, meetings, and strategies of all the various Muslim players. I have read a hell of a lot of this stuff. If you are only reading Morris and Pappe, you are not even getting 50% of the truth. With Pappe alone, you are getting less than 10%

    On Pappe versus Morris, you are much better off with Morris. Morris is the key expert on Israel IDF, Hagganah archives. Of Pappe’s work on the archives, Morris had this to say:

    Ilan Pappes book is appalling…..most of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication

    Many other historians have also revealed Pappe changes quotes and even makes them up. His most egregious fabrications were about David Ben-Gurion. But Pappe is not alone in this. Morris himself doctored Ben-Gurion’s writings. However, Morris has admitted his errors. Pappe has not.

    In fact, Pappe no longer works as an historian. He quite openly confesses:

    My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the `truth’ when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous.

    Introduction to “A History of Modern Palestine: One Land Two People”

    Pappe is little more than a Communist propagandist. But his methodology is very screwed up as he uses (very badly) aspects of postmodernist gobbledegook to twist reality to paint the Arabs as basically having nothing to do with the war, which of course is just hysterical”

    Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts, Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers.

    Marilyn, I get the picture you are not an educated historian. if you were, you would not be seeking to understand this conflict through Pappe.

  • viva peace

    Andre

    Yet again you prove just what low-life you people. At least Marilyn has read this books. All you rely on are fifth-hand commentaries!

  • viva peace

    Marilyn

    Ilan Pappe’s book is disturbing but finally the truth of the so-called Palestinian brutality is finally revealed.

    I have Pappe's book opened in fron of me. Could you please point exactly WHERE he has "finally revealed" anything?

  • viva peace

    I have just bought Carter's book as well. I just cannot believe how bad it is! And the outright lies he tells is Beyond Chutzpah. But of course he knows the ideologues and anti-Semites do not care about the truth and facts.

  • viva peace

    What I want to know is WHO is going to be brave enough to finally tell the "Palestinians" they do have any "right" to return to Israel and never have.

    And then they need to be told that Israel has never been required to retreat behind the mythical "Green Line."

    More splodies I expect.

  • Andre

    Viva,

    One thing is for sure. The closer to the truth the posts are, the more hysterical your responses.

    Cutting and pasting from your prior posts is well and good, but merely exposes you as a one trick pony.

    At least Marilyn has read this books. All you rely on are fifth-hand commentaries!

    While I admit I have only just acquired a copy of Pappe’s book, I have listened to every lecture and transcript of from Pappe since his book was published, so it’s definitely not fifth hand, but keep trying.

    Also, you would do well to know that Plan Dalet had absolutely nothing to do with ethnic cleansing or the Irgun and Stern Gang. And it has been publicly available in English since at least the 1960s.

    According to Wikipedia:

    Yitzhak Levi, head of the Jerusalem Shai (Hagannah intelligence service) did not include operation Nachshon in his account of the implementation of Plan D in his book, Nine Measures (in Hebrew, Tish’a Kabin). MidEast Web

    Now you have made this argument more than once.

    One of the major, major ethical and scholarly failings of Pappe and to a lesser extent Morris, is the near total silence on military plans, meetings, and strategies of all the various Muslim players.

    Please elaborate as to what relevance does this have to the 1948 ethnic cleansing?

    Also what Morris has to say:

    In an article titled “Israel revisited”, published by the Washington Post Foreign Service on 11 March, 2007, Morris argues remorsefully that “had the war ended more definitely and logically demographically, every one would have been better for it. Not only Israel and the Palestinians, but all of the Middle East.”

    It is not difficult to translate Morris’s ghoulish words into simple language. In plain English, he says that in 1948, Israel should have expelled and/or massacred the entire Palestinian people between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. In other words, he wishes Israel had “completed the job” employing whatever means necessary, including, conceivably, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
    “In fact, Pappe no longer works as an historian. He quite openly confesses:

    And Morris has admitted that: he is more committed to the state of Israel that to his work as a historian

    He also says this:

    Ben Gurion should have expelled more Palestinians during the 1948 war to leave a stronger Jewish majority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

    how charming. No wonder you think so highly of him.

    Marilyn, I get the picture you are not an educated historian. if you were, you would not be seeking to understand this conflict through Pappe.

    It’s a mystery how someone who has openly expressed such islamophobia can pretend to have any objectivity with regard to he history of Israel. Perhaps you should give up trying to give advice to others and just be honest about your bias?

    And the outright lies he tells is Beyond Chutzpah. But of course he knows the ideologues and anti-Semites do not care about the truth and facts.

    That’s funny. When Carter gave his speech at Brandies University, he admitted to a poorly phrased passage and not only apologized, but stated that he had ordered it to be reprinted. Allan Dershowitzs, who followed him on stage to rebut Carter’s arguments stated that following this acknowledgment from Carter, he was largely in agreement with Carter’s presentation.

    The fact is that most of Carter’s book was in accord with mainstream Israeli news publications and reports from B’Tselem. I take it you regard Haaretz and B’Tselem as discredited too?

    What I want to know is WHO is going to be brave enough to finally tell the “Palestinians” they do have any “right” to return to Israel and never have.

    What is the right of return for Israel other than law Israeli Jews passed after they carried out the ethnic cleansing? The law juts proves that a system of discrimination in Israel has been legitimised by the Israeli government. All your argument amounts to is the idea of winner takes all.

    What you have failed to answer repeatedly, is that given that 700,000 Arabs lived in Israel before 1948, whther they left of their own volition or not is irrelevant. Under international law, they should have been allowed to return once the war was over and they were not. Since the, the only argument Israel has ever made against their return is that is would change the status quo of Israel being the Jewish majority inside Israel.

    This has to be the single most blatant admission that the purging of Arabs in 1948 served an fulfilled an ideological purpose.
    Given that even the former Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, admits that the ethnic cleasing of 1948 was pre-planned, all you have done in confirm the legitimacy of Pappe’s work.

    Well done.

  • Marilyn

    And Reinhart's, Uri Avnery's, Gideon Levy's, Amira Hass's and so on.

    Actually viva, I have been a vast consumer of history and historical books since I was 12 years old, that is more years ago now than I care to name but suffice to say our involvement in Vietnam has just about started.

    Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" relied heavily on archives and Israeli human rights reports, hard to find which bits he might have made up. "the Holocaust Industry" is largely born out by Israel's own disgusting treatment of genuine survivors of that horror as they cut their pensions and health care back.

    "The Accidental Empire" by Gershom Gorenberg shows plainly that Israel attacked the arabs in 1967 and the recently opened US senate reports from that time make it clear that they blew up all the arab airforces on 5 June 1967 and then attacked them on the ground pretending they had been attacked. Sort of their own Tonkin Bay.

    They were told within days of the end of the war to give the land back as it was illegal to keep it, they were told that they could not build anything on Palestinian land and they ignored it.

    As for Pappe, his speeches make it clear that he had archival material available to him that Morris did not have and I find Morris's attitude echoes in Israel today among those who only learnt the revised Israeli history.

    Thank you for proving my point – a pollie friend who was just in Palestine is writing a report and says that Pappe's book is born out by everything she saw and heard first hand in January.

  • viva peace

    Andre

    Dude, you are really going to have to address your chronic plagiarism, but first to your post.

    Cutting and pasting from your prior posts is well and good, but merely exposes you as a one trick pony.

    At least the posts I copy and paste from are MINE, unlike you who copies and pastes from nobody bloggers and try to pass the words off as your own!

    Amyway I was posting for Marilyn.

    While I admit I have only just acquired a copy of Pappe’s book, I have listened to every lecture and transcript of from Pappe since his book was published, so it’s definitely not fifth hand, but keep trying.

    You have been banging on about Pappe since the very beginning of this blog. Long before this book was published. You have not read any of the books you constantly talk about. You merely copy and paste quotes from anti-Semitic hate sites. Often you even copy and paste whole paragraphs of mere opinion written on anti-Semitic blogs.

    Andre, I will let you in a little secret. Plagiarism is not a good look. You would have more credibility if you dropped the plagiarism and gave us your OWN views. Or at least tell us you are quoting the personal prejudices and hates of nobody bloggers.

    And if you think it is sufficient to spew anti-Israel filth 24/7 based merely on agitprop from lectures and magazine interviews, without ever questioning the content, then you are no more than a bigot who suffers from both selection and conformation bias. This is what a bigot does, pure and simple.

    According to Wikipedia:

    Yitzhak Levi, head of the Jerusalem Shai (Hagannah intelligence service) did not include operation Nachshon in his account of the implementation of Plan D in his book, Nine Measures (in Hebrew, Tish’a Kabin). MidEast Web

    ROFL. You really have kicked an own-goal here, haven’t you? The quote confirms my point exactly.

    Please elaborate as to what relevance does this have to the 1948 ethnic cleansing?

    First of all there was no "ethnic cleansing." And it is not only relevant, it is crucial. Without this information there is no way you can attribute everything to Israel. There were many actors involved during the 1947 – 49 period.

    You seem to think that the entire Middle East was just sitting around minding its own business and then one day, Israel picked up all the Arabs and dumped them somewhere else. And this took everybody by surprise. This is not only incredibly boneheaded; it is racist and orientalist. You are basically arguing that Arabs were not capable of thinking or acting politically.

    Also what Morris has to say:

    In an article titled “Israel revisited”, published by the Washington Post Foreign Service on 11 March, 2007, Morris argues remorsefully that “had the war ended more definitely and logically demographically, every one would have been better for it. Not only Israel and the Palestinians, but all of the Middle East.”

    It is not difficult to translate Morris’s ghoulish words into simple language. In plain English, he says that in 1948, Israel should have expelled and/or massacred the entire Palestinian people between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. In other words, he wishes Israel had “completed the job” employing whatever means necessary, including, conceivably, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

    Now rather than relying on a moronic anti-Semitic blog, you are so lacking in integrity that you have not even read the Washington Post article!!!

    He [Morris] also says this:

    Ben Gurion should have expelled more Palestinians during the 1948 war to leave a stronger Jewish majority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

    how charming. No wonder you think so highly of him.

    First of all I have NEVER said anything like I think so highly of him. In fact the first time I mentioned him to you was provoked by your constant invoking of him as one of your set, anti-Xionist and one the same team as Pappe. I had to point out to you that he in fact has always been a Zionist. This was well over a year ago.

    You went quiet on him after that. But now you return taking the opposite tack. The reason why you keep making a fool of yourself is that you do not read the books of the people you quote.

    I have made it crystal clear that I am merely lukewarm towards Morris. He is a far better historian than Pappe, for sure In fact, why don’t we read my very own words from a few posts above.

    One of the major, major ethical and scholarly failings of Pappe and to a lesser extent Morris, is the near total silence on military plans, meetings, and strategies of all the various Muslim players. I have read a hell of a lot of this stuff. If you are only reading Morris and Pappe, you are not even getting 50% of the truth. With Pappe alone, you are getting less than 10%

    On Pappe versus Morris, you are much better off with Morris. Morris is the key expert on Israel IDF, Hagganah archives. Of Pappe’s work on the archives,

    Many other historians have also revealed Pappe changes quotes and even makes them up. His most egregious fabrications were about David Ben-Gurion. But Pappe is not alone in this. Morris himself doctored Ben-Gurion’s writings. However, Morris has admitted his errors. Pappe has not.

    Even the blog you are plagiarizing from includes what Morris actually said, which was

    If the man was already driving out people, maybe he should have gone the whole hog…Perhaps in the end population exchanges and transfers, although they may have caused great suffering at the time, may in the long run have been better for everyone concerned.

    You are more than entitled to your personal views on Benny Morris hardened political views following the second Intifada, but they are bloody irrelevant to the 1948 war!

  • viva peace

    I am glad you enjoy reading History as it is fascinating. My point is that from what you have written on this blog, you gravitate towards books and historians who merely confirm your own prejudices, rather than reading more broadly so you are exposed to books that might challenge those prejudices, thus greatly improving your understanding. This is a pity.

    Finkelstein’s “Beyond Chutzpah” relied heavily on archives and Israeli human rights reports, hard to find which bits he might have made up.

    Nonsense. “Beyond Chutzpah” is largely taken up of pages and pages of tedious comparisons of slabs of Dershowitz’s book against other sources such as Joan Peters. The rest is mostly quotes from a myriad of NGOs. The problem is he never once analyses the NGO reports critically. He just quotes from them as though it is gospel. This reveals several failings in Finkelstein as an aspiring scholar.

    Firstly, his hypocrisy. While nearly half the book focuses on alternative interpretations of one of Dershowitz’s book (Dershowitz has written over a dozen, by the way) and checking footnotes, not once does he check any of the claims made by the NGOs. Everybody knows that most NGOs are extremely political and ideological. It is very telling that you fall for the same trap by describing them as “human rights organizations.”

    There are over 1,000 of them active in the West Bank and Gaza alone. Finkelstein devotes page after page to comments from HWR, Amnesty, Oxfam, etc. He quotes them as if they were judge and jury. Of course these organizations are extremely political, and contrary to what Finkelstein thinks, they are irrelevant to international law and Arab-Israeli agreements. Remember their lies about Jenin?

    Secondly, Finkelstein simply lies about international law, UN Security Resolutions, and Arab-Israeli peace agreements. He constantly lies that Israel must withdraw to the “Green Line.” Which, of course is a gross mis-statement of the law. But he knows his market is mainly anti-Semitic zealots, so he gives them what they want to hear. He lies about the “right of return,” UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, and countless other issues.

    “the Holocaust Industry” is largely born out by Israel’s own disgusting treatment of genuine survivors of that horror as they cut their pensions and health care back.

    Actually “The Holocaust Industry” tells us all we really need to know about this truly disgusting man. Most of the book relies on the work of a real scholar, Peter Novick’s, book “The Holocaust in Amwerican Life.” Here is what Novick said about “The Holocaust Industry” and Finkelstein.

    “The Accidental Empire” by Gershom Gorenberg shows plainly that Israel attacked the arabs in 1967 and the recently opened US senate reports from that time make it clear that they blew up all the arab airforces on 5 June 1967 and then attacked them on the ground pretending they had been attacked. Sort of their own Tonkin Bay.

    You talk about “the Arabs.” So Israel “blew up” the airforces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria? If you think Gorenberg “shows plainly that Israel attacked the arabs in 1967,” then you are even more gullible than you seem. Curiously, you have chosen to ignore the fact that Egypt broke its ceasefire agreement with Israel, and indeed international law, by moving its airforce into the demilitarised Sinai. Egypt then blocked Israel from using the Gulf of Aqaba. The last straw was Egypt expelling UN peace-keepers.

    After Israel’s spectacular master-stroke of taking out the illegally-positioned Egyptian airforce, Israel warned Jordan (in the United Nations) not to attack. Jordan ignored the warning and launched attacks on Israel. But here is the REAL “beyond chutzpah” fact. Jordan did it from land it had illegally invaded, occupied and annexed; the West Bank! Only two countries in the entire world recognized Jordan’s illegal occupation of the West Bank. And they had the gall to use stolen land to start a war!

    They were told within days of the end of the war to give the land back as it was illegal to keep it, they were told that they could not build anything on Palestinian land and they ignored it.

    “they were told!!???” Who by? Their Aunt Sybil? First of all, it was not “Palestinian” land. For starters, the Arabs did not even consider them, let alone call themselves “Palestinians” in 1967. You must remember that even during the British Mandate, the Muslims never thought or described themselves as “Palestinians.” They considered themselves to be Arabs, Muslims, and part of “Greater Syria.” During that time when anybody in the entire world talked about “Palestinians” they were talking about the Jews!

    As for Pappe, his speeches make it clear that he had archival material available to him that Morris did not have and I find Morris’s attitude echoes in Israel today among those who only learnt the revised Israeli history.

    Actually, Marilyn, all this makes clear is that you are being lied to. As I said, Benny Morris wrote “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited” in 2004, using the archives declassified in 1998. Aren’t you angry you are being lied to? I suspect not, as truth is irrelevant to bigots.

    Thank you for proving my point – a pollie friend who was just in Palestine is writing a report and says that Pappe’s book is born out by everything she saw and heard first hand in January.

    If you are accurately recounting your “pollie friend” then both of you are clearly disturbed. Pappe’s book was written about events from 1947 to 1949. How could events she saw on her holidays in 2007 “bear out” events from sixty years ago?

  • Andre

    Viva

    Dude, you are really going to have to address your chronic plagiarism, but first to your post.

    Apparently, our resident scholar doesn’t even know that the word plagiarism means. I make my quotations very obvious, though if you’re referring to my not providing hyperlinks on every occasion, you too are guilty of that. Hypocrisy, they name is Viva.

    You have been banging on about Pappe since the very beginning of this blog. Long before this book was published.

    I was not posting to this blog from the beginning, so there’s another conflation.

    You merely copy and paste quotes from anti-Semitic hate sites. Often you even copy and paste whole paragraphs of mere opinion written on anti-Semitic blogs.

    Hyperbole isn’t going to help you Viva. The act is that you are unable to refuse what I posted, in which case you have reached for the safety switch of anti-Semitic accusations. Flinging mud at Israel critics is so out of fashion Viva.

    Or at least tell us you are quoting the personal prejudices and hates of nobody bloggers.

    Are quotations and the indented paragraphs not obvious enough for you?

    And what makes you believe I have not questioned content? Like I asked you repeatedly, even without any knowledged of the 1948 ethnic cleansing, common sense and logic undermines the spin you are trying so desperately to fabricate.

    ROFL. You really have kicked an own-goal here, haven’t you? The quote confirms my point exactly.

    On the contrary. You claimed that the Plaen D was available in English, yet failed to mention that operation Nachshon was omitted from Levi’s account.

    There were many actors involved during the 1947 – 49 period.

    700,000 of them?

    You are basically arguing that Arabs were not capable of thinking or acting politically.

    So in the end, your argument is an admission that the 1948 “removal” of Palestinians was not an ethnic cleansing per se, but an massive act of collective punishment.

    Talk about scoring a massive own goal – or is that three?

    Now rather than relying on a moronic anti-Semitic blog, you are so lacking in integrity that you have not even read the Washington Post article!!!

    So what part of the article did I miss that illustrates Morris’ enormous egalitarian side?

    You went quiet on him after that. But now you return taking the opposite tack.

    That’s a pathetic argument Viva. Your suggesting that just because Morris now agrees with Pappe, I should think highly of him?

    He is a far better historian than Pappe, for sure In fact, why don’t we read my very own words from a few posts above.

    And what makes him a far better historian? Surely you don’t expect anyone on this forum to take your word for it?

    One of the major, major ethical and scholarly failings of Pappe and to a lesser extent Morris, is the near total silence on military plans, meetings, and strategies of all the various Muslim players.

    Again, this is pure conflation on your part, because on one hand you deny that the ethnic cleansing took place, while trying to argue that the ethnic cleansing was justified because of the “military plans, meetings, and strategies of all the various Muslim players”.

    Perhaps in the end population exchanges and transfers, although they may have caused great suffering at the time, may in the long run have been better for everyone concerned.

    Never mind that “population exchanges and transfers”, which is a nice way of describing ethnic cleansing, is a crime against humanity. That’s like saying that in the end, the Holocaust was beneficial because it returned Israel to the Jews.

    There is no question that the only people that benefited from the 1948 ethnic cleansing were the Israeli Jews. For the Palestinians, it has been catastrophic.

    My point is that from what you have written on this blog, you gravitate towards books and historians who merely confirm your own prejudices, rather than reading more broadly so you are exposed to books that might challenge those prejudices, thus greatly improving your understanding.

    Another piece of blatant hypocrisy. Firstly, your argument is based on the assumption that only you have read book opposing your own point of view. You make the seemingly logic argument that reading a book opposing your point of view makes you an authority on the subject.

    By that standard, Finklelstein is better informed than Dershowitz. The fact is that there are those who read contradictory views to establish a balanced perspective and those who do so with the sole aim of cementing their own position.

    Take Carter’s book for example. While there may be errors in the book, critics like yourself never acknowledge that the main aspects of it are common knowledge derived from Israeli media sources and B’TSelem.

    Nonsense. “Beyond Chutzpah” is largely taken up of pages and pages of tedious comparisons of slabs of Dershowitz’s book against other sources such as Joan Peters.

    The book's primary aim, was to point to the myriads of plagiarisms and fraud on the part of Dershotwitz, was it not? Had he not been so thorough, people like yourself would have criticized it as being “poor scholarship”

    The rest is mostly quotes from a myriad of NGOs.

    You mean like Human Rights Watch, B’tselem, Amensty international, the UN? You don’t even list them by name because you know it would undermine your argument.

    The problem is he never once analyses the NGO reports critically. He just quotes from them as though it is gospel. This reveals several failings in Finkelstein as an aspiring scholar.

    Rubbish. In fact, Finkelstein more often than not, points to more than one source in reference to any particular event in to prove his point. That’s why Finkelstein infuriated people like yourself, because the only comeback tou have against his arguments are ad hominems and straw men.

    Everybody knows that most NGOs are extremely political and ideological. It is very telling that you fall for the same trap by describing them as “human rights organizations.”

    That may be so, but your theory therefore rests upon the thesis that these NGO’s are conspiring together to fabricate their evidence. You yourself contradicted your own position by failing to recognize that Dershowitzs sources are so easily debunked. If the arguments that Dershowitz is making are so strong, why has he relied on such flimsy and discredited sources and why has he made such weak arguments to begin with?

    Most telling of all is the fact that when confronted about his arguments, Dershowitz has passed the buck and admitted that he failed to question his own sources.

    There are over 1,000 of them active in the West Bank and Gaza alone. Finkelstein devotes page after page to comments from HWR, Amnesty, Oxfam, etc.

    Which only makes your argument all the more spurious, With that many NGOs concentrated in that small area, where is the compilation of contradictory reports that undermine Finkelstein’s allegations? Why has Dershowitz invested so much time trying to block the publication on Finkelstein’s book and so little time compiling this evidence?

    You really need to think your arguments through Viva. All you are dong is digging a hole for yourself and making it deeper by investing your entire thesis on the grounds that NGOs are political, which is their raison d’etre, but failing to prove that they are providing false information.

    Secondly, Finkelstein simply lies about international law, UN Security Resolutions, and Arab-Israeli peace agreements. He constantly lies that Israel must withdraw to the “Green Line.”

    This is where you are wrong. He quotes findings from the international courts, UN resolutions and Arab-Israeli peace agreements. Demanding that Israel must withdraw to the “Green Line” is not a lie, but a highly contentious issue, which even Israel has failed to argue with any clarity. After all, you yourself have based the status quo on the belief that Israel won the territory fair and square, even though international law does not recognize such a notion.

    But he knows his market is mainly anti-Semitic zealots, so he gives them what they want to hear. He lies about the “right of return,” UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, and countless other issues

    .

    Another ad hominem. Finkelstein has made it clear he is prepared to debate anyone at any time over these issues, yet few of his opponents has ever taken him up on his offer. On the few occasions that they have tried, he has decimated their arguments.

    Curiously, you have chosen to ignore the fact that Egypt broke its ceasefire agreement with Israel, and indeed international law, by moving its airforce into the demilitarised Sinai. Egypt then blocked Israel from using the Gulf of Aqaba. The last straw was Egypt expelling UN peace-keepers.

    Which of these actions constitute an act of war? The US was blockading Japan prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, but nowhere will you find that the US had committed an act of war against Japan.

    After Israel’s spectacular master-stroke of taking out the illegally-positioned Egyptian airforce, Israel warned Jordan (in the United Nations) not to attack.

    Poor Viva. You really do pine for the glory days of the IDF, when they were a real military outfit, as opposed to the Gestapo they are today.

    Your account of the 1948 war is pure conflation. It is clear that your argument comes down to the thesis that because Arab countries attacked Israel, all Arabs, whether they be from Jordan, Egypt or Palestine, are responsible and deserving of punishment.

    You amaze me Viva. If that is not an endorsement of Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, nothing is.

    Who Only two countries in the entire world recognized Jordan’s illegal occupation of the West Bank. And they had the gall to use stolen land to start a war!

    And today Israel has that unique mantle. So which is it Viva? Are Israel guilty of invading the West Bank and illegally occupying it, or aren’t they? Did Jordan win the West Bank fair and square or did they not?

    They were told within days of the end of the war to give the land back as it was illegal to keep it, they were told that they could not build anything on Palestinian land and they ignored it.

    Which is exactly what Israel have been doing for 60 years, yet you scoff at the notion of illegality or international law.

    Talk about hypocrisy of bigotry.

    First of all, it was not “Palestinian” land.

    The land was in Palestine and it had been occupied for centuries, By any standards, that make the inhabitants the rightful owners. Then again, one must remember that you are among those who believe that there was noting wrong with removing Australian aborigines and other indigenous people’s from their native land. Fair and square right Viva?

    For starters, the Arabs did not even consider them, let alone call themselves “Palestinians” in 1967. You must remember that even during the British Mandate, the Muslims never thought or described themselves as “Palestinians.”

    Need I include the quote from Moshe Dayan again?

    Apart from being entirely irrelevant, this proves nothing. The Palestinian Arabs had lived there for centuries, which by any standards, made them the owners of that land. After all, Israel has only occupied the West Bank for 60 years, yet there is no way they will ever admit the land does not belong to them or that they are not entitled to consider it their own.

    During that time when anybody in the entire world talked about “Palestinians” they were talking about the Jews!

    That’s remarkable when you consider that the Jews were outnumbered by more than 10:1 by the Arabs in that region.

    How could events she saw on her holidays in 2007 “bear out” events from sixty years ago?

    Is that a rhetorical question? How about the still empty homes of those expelled in 1948? How about the fact that there do exist 4-5 million refugees, who are internationally recognized as refugees? How about the existence of the wall, which encroaches 10 miles into Palestinian territory, or Israeli only roads that divide up the occupied territories?

    This post was a big effort from you Viva, but in spire of all the reading you have done and all your research. all you have demonstrated was how indefensible your position is. In the end, you keep coming back to denying that an ethnic cleansing took place in 1948, while insisting the Arabs deserved to be removed.

    There are quotes from as early as 1905 through 1948 from most leading Zionists and Israeli political leaders openly endorsing the “transfer” of Arabs. Israel Zangwill, Shabtai Levi (a land purchasing agent for Baron de Rothschild), David Ben-Gurion, Simha Flapan, Menahem Ussishkin, Maurice Hexter, Simha Flapan, Yosef Bankover, Aharon Zisling, Berl Katznelson, Golda Meyerson are all on the record as either endorsing the ethnic cleansing, or openly discussing the planning of it. Yet here you are, expecting us to believe the transfer of the Arabs was just some happy coincidence.

    Ultimately, your position is completely undermined by the Israeli government position that denying the refugees the right of return is not because the 1948 ethnic cleansing is disputed, but because it would be untenable as far as maintaining the Jewish identity of Israel. When a former Israeli foreign minister says there is no question that there was an ethnic cleansing and that it was a planned operation, your position is completely unsustainable.

  • viva peace

    ROFL. Poor Andre our resident "Plagiarizer In Chief." Still playing the "bait and switch" game. Suck it up loser. You ain't fooling anybody.

    Oh and here's a tip for free. Look up what "conflation" means. Here's a hint. It is not a conflation of construction and fabrication. 😉

    Back to trawling anti-Semitic hate sites to copy and paste for Ant's blog you go. Marilyn and Roslyn Ross wait with bated breath. 😉

  • Andre

    Viva,

    Thanks mate.

    I noticed that for the 5th time, you again failed to answer a very simple question.

    I will take your desperate response as an admission of defeat on your part. It must be awfully frustrating when your arguments are so easily picked apart.

    In law they say that when you don't have evidence on your side , argue the law and when you don't have the law on your side, argue the evidence. What a pity that this doesn't apply to history.