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.

Bush back to talking up Al Qaeda

Bush’s poll numbers just keep getting worse, as does the news coming from Iraq. So what does the Commander in Chief do when all else fails? Blame it all on Al Qaeda of course.

“For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it’s whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11,” Bush said. “I strongly believe it’s in our national interest to stay in the fight.”

“The recent attacks are not the revenge killings that some have called a civil war,” Bush told the Associated General Contractors of America. “They are a systematic assault on the entire nation. Al-Qaida is public enemy No. 1 in Iraq.”

The problem in Iraq is not the sectarian violence or the civil war, but Al Qaeda. In spite of their plummeting popularity, the Bush administration remain confident enough of their clout to conflate whoever it is in Iraq that has bought into the Al Qaeda franchise, with those responsible for 9/11, and believe they will get away with it. After all, the media has never challenged Bush or Cheney when they’ve lied in the past, so why would they start now?

And of course, we should never forger that that Bush has never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 right?

16 comments ↪
  • BenZ

    And of course, we should never forger [sic] that that Bush has never said that Iraq was responsible for 911 right?

    Another day, another typo and tenuous argument…

    The original post has fallen off the bottom page, but some time ago, you challenged me to provide evidence that Antony censors comments here. Although, like many I was aware of the problem (and the associated massive hypocricy from one who claims to be the victim of censorship) at the time I wondered how I'd provide evidence of missing comments as you demanded.

    Fortunately, another blogger with more integrity (and visitors) has assisted.
    http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2007/05/censorship-never

    So Andre, what say you?

  • BenZ

    Why so quiet Andre? Too busy writing your next anti-Israel piece?

  • gottcha

    BenZ

    I'm surprised Antony and Andre publish your comments. You seem to contribute nothing but criticism. This is Antony's blog and he can choose what is published on it. And that choice is his right to exercise his own free speech. I don't agree with some things written here either. Perhaps if you stop complaining and contribute your perspective politely and without continual accusations then you might find the reception more hospitable.

  • Andre

    BenZ,

    Having just searched through all the comments posted since May 1st, I am here to tell you that no posts from Daniel Lewis appear anywhere in the archives. If the post was awaiting moderation, it would have been flagged as such. According to the records, the post was never submitted and given that it was far from offensive(if indeed J.F. Beck's post is to be believed), there is no reason as to why it would have been blocked to begin with. The only other explanation might be that Daniel Lewis may have been blocked permanently, in which case, I imagine it would not have even appeared. If Daniel Lewis believes he is being blocked, he could try the old fashioned route of e-mailing Ant and relaying his concerns.

    J.F. Beck's accusation is rather weak considering that neither he nor yourself evidently understand the difference between a screen grab (ie. proof) and hearsay (which is what he has provided on his blog). The entire reason for having a blog to begin with, is to encourage debate. As far as we are concerned, the more posters contribute, the merrier, especially when there is a diversity of opinion to be shared.

    In your case I have already offered to post any of your comments (or anyone else's) that may end up awaiting moderation. Beyond that, I don't know what more I can do to ally your paranoid delusions that Antony or I are enemies of free speech.

    Why so quiet Andre? Too busy writing your next anti-Israel piece?

    Your myopia is still alive and well. I happen to be in Montreal Canada, which is 14 hours behind AEST. It was 4 am here when you posted.

  • gottcha

    Andre

    Daniel Lewis phoned in to a radio station here after Antony was interviewed and complained that he was censored from this blog; that he had tried many times to post comments and they never got through. He has also written letters to newspapers in response to Antony's articles when they have appeared in the papers. He seems to be a polite man with an opposing view to Antony's. But, like I said polite.

    I don't know who he is or if he is Jewish, but I remember his comments because what he said on the radio surprised me. He was polite and articulate. If he is claiming his comments were censored, perhaps Antony ought to look into it. He doesn't sound like a trouble-maker.

  • BenZ

    Having just searched through all the comments posted since May 1st, I am here to tell you that no posts from Daniel Lewis appear anywhere in the archives.

    Andre, you are either being dishonest or naive. I am unsure which, but shall give you the benefit of the doubt. When Antony negatively moderates a comments, i.e. deletes it from moderation, it would not hang around in a trash-folder. It would be gone. There is a good reason you can't see any comments from Lewis in the archives – your mate Antony deleted them. All of them.

    J.F. Beck’s accusation is rather weak considering that neither he nor yourself evidently understand the difference between a screen grab (ie. proof) and hearsay (which is what he has provided on his blog).

    Oh dear… http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2007/05/bloggers-credibi

    Screencaps and all manner of embarrassing observations

    "Poor Andre isn't alert enough to realize when he's being set up"

    Now what are you going to say Andre? It's a "Zionist Tactic" ™ – perhaps the work of a Mossad special operation? Crafty Jews maybe? J F Beck isn't even Jewish, but can see Antony (and now you) for what you are.

    Gottcha,

    I’m surprised Antony and Andre publish your comments. You seem to contribute nothing but criticism. This is Antony’s blog and he can choose what is published on it. And that choice is his right to exercise his own free speech.

    As I have said previously, ordinarily it is a blogger's right to choose what does and does not appear on his blog. In that case you would be right. However, Antony has built his entire reputation on the basis that he was censored for his views. This is an argument he doled out again and again. For him to dish it out therefore, unlike any other blogger, makes him a great hypocrite.

    You are absolutely right about Daniel Lewis. He is passionate and makes his arguments strongly. However, that is the extent of it. Antony has long preferred to surround himself only by a fanclub who agree with everything he says – howsoever inaccurate, dishonest or one-sided – and deleted all other opposing comment.

    There is a very good reason nearly all comments on this blog are supportive of his views. Surely you don't believe everyone agrees with him.

    Opponents of Antony's views did not receive a "hospitable" welcome at all. They received censorship and deletion. As a result, they left. Good for Antony, not good for honest debate – again something Antony claims to want, yet is simply not borne out by his hypocritical actions.

    Sorry for ruining your day Andre.

  • Andre

    BenZ,

    You didn't ruin my day mate. You’d have to be a fool to get into political blogging without having a thick skin. In fact, I'm flattered that someone like JF would spend so much time lurking here in search inspiration for topics of discussion. Things are evidently pretty dour these days for our brethren on the right.

    While I certainly acknowledge that the evidence proves Daniel Lewis posted to the that thread, I can only go by the information available to me. Lewis and Beck called me a liar, but nothing I have said is untrue. I searched for any posts I could find from Daniel Lewis as far back and February last year, and I found nothing.

    I entirely agree with you, that given the nature of this blog, censorship of any kind takes on a greater significance and must be used with the utmost discretion.

    Nonetheless, you are mistaken about why people who agree with Ant post here. As you are aware, there are many who disagree with Antony’s views, and this forum allows those who do agree with him to express this without being shouted down. Nevertheless, that should not exclude the opinions of all persuasions from participating.

    And contrary to your argument, there is nothing to be gained by surrounding oneself with a “fanclub”. That’s the raison d ‘etre of right wing blogs.

    Having said that, I do hope you continue to post here. Your contributions are valued and welcome.

    I am curious however, as to how you measure the degree of hospitality that posters are received, whether they be dissenters or otherwise.

  • BenZ

    Lewis and Beck called me a liar, but nothing I have said is untrue.

    ???

    Everything you said was untrue.

    As you are aware, there are many who disagree with Antony’s views, and this forum allows those who do agree with him to express this without being shouted down.

    You mean an ideological echo-chamber? How is civil debate being "shouted down"? If anything, people here who believe in the State of Israel's right to peace, are shouted down as their posts are either censored, or they are surrounded by the fanclub.

    I assume your reference to suportive posts "without being shouted down" is the closest you'll get to admitting the type of censorship that goes on around here. The gig is up Andre.

    I am curious however, as to how you measure the degree of hospitality that posters are received, whether they be dissenters or otherwise.

    Very simply. Those who post nice things about Antony's appalling views get through, those who oppose them do not.

    The only reason my comments are here, and not in the wastebin like Lewis' and any number of others' is that my very first comments were deliberately fawning in order to get through the gate of moderation. Anthony was excited he'd found another fan, to add to the list of terror groups, far-right wing neo-nazi organisations (The Adelaide Instititute) and Iranians that support him.

    If my first comment had instead called him out on routine errors of fact, or much worse, suggested he would sell his own people up the river to sell a single copy of his book, do you really think we'd be having this conversation? Or would all of my comments have gone the same way as Daniel Lewis'.

    Indeed I deeply believe that the only reason these comments of mine are here now, is that Antony is overseas trying to flog his error-ridden book and consequently not logging in as often to wield his censorship.

    Nevertheless, that should not exclude the opinions of all persuasions from participating.

    Easier said than done, as Daniel Lewis and JF Beck have clearly demonstrated.

    To your credit Andre, you do have a somewhat more sensible attitude to censorship than Antony's. However, you mistakenly apply your beliefs to him, when it has been clearly demonstrated he is a total hypocrite who can't handle opposing views to his own or stand up in an intelligent debate.

    To your eternal shame however, you are incapable of admitting that you have been caught out, and making reparations. No matter, everybody else can see that for themselves.

  • Andre

    BenZ,

    You mean an ideological echo-chamber? How is civil debate being “shouted down”? If anything, people here who believe in the State of Israel’s right to peace, are shouted down as their posts are either censored, or they are surrounded by the fanclub.

    Like you ‘re so fond of repeating, the majority of the population, Jewish and otherwise, are unconditionally pro-Israeli. There is little or no danger of being shouted down in most forums. Secondly, no one here has ever challenged Israel’s right exist, but your reflexive response to any criticism of Israel is that it must be a challenge to Israel’s existence.

    Very simply. Those who post nice things about Antony’s appalling views get through, those who oppose them do not.

    What is so appalling about Ant’s views? He is advocating the right of Palestinians to self determination in their own land. Are you opposed to this? Do you not consider that drawing attention to the plight of the Palestinian problem to be in itself appalling?

    The only reason my comments are here, and not in the wastebin like Lewis’ and any number of others’ is that my very first comments were deliberately fawning in order to get through the gate of moderation.

    Anthony was excited he’d found another fan, to add to the list of terror groups, far-right wing neo-nazi organisations (The Adelaide Instititute) and Iranians that support him.

    With all due respects, this is where you begining to sound like some David Horowitz mini-me.

    Firstly, Ant could hardly be described as right wing or neo Nazi for the simple fact that he is clearly on the left of politics. It is the pro Zionist position is right wing. Visit any right wing blog and they will all be pro Israeli.

    Secondly, you mention terrorist groups. What terrorist groups support Ant, or are you just being a bigot and assuming that all Arabs must belong to one?

    Finally, Iranians are people like anyone else, and by maligning them as lesser humans or unworthy, you are displaying the very views that you decry Ant for having.

    If my first comment had instead called him out on routine errors of fact, or much worse, suggested he would sell his own people up the river to sell a single copy of his book, do you really think we’d be having this conversation?

    Sell his own people? What does that mean? That as a Jew, he should give up the right to the free speech and opinion you pretend to care so much about? Has it not occurred to you that there are people who care about Israel who believe that it’s welfare is harmed by it’s policies?

    As for having this conversation, it’s healthy and welcome. Indeed, no one should be excluded from participating on the basis of their persuasion. Admittedly, I would prefer the discussion were more on topic, but nonetheless, it is needed and we should encourage it.

    As for you prediction about all your comments going the way of Lewis’s, try explaining how marginal views like Viva’s are allowed to appear uncensored? If Dean Lewis is being blocked and he is as reasonable as you suggest, I would strongly encourage him to mail Ant and discuss the matter. Lewis is obviously keep to participate in the discussion. If he's prepared to phone into radio stations and write into newspapers to complain about being censored, what's to stop him contacting Ant?

    I have no problem admitting that I was wrong, but I had no reason to lie about it.

    Be honest BenZ. Your gripe is not about censorship, but about Ant’s views.

  • BenZ

    Secondly, no one here has ever challenged Israel’s right exist,

    Rubbish. Antony Loewenstein has personally stated he doesn't believe in the concept of a Jewish state.

    Do you not consider that drawing attention to the plight of the Palestinian problem to be in itself appalling?

    I'm yet to see any serious critical analysis of Palestinian self-inflicted problems anywhere on this site. Amidst the odd token reference to Arab corruption or violence, is a constant stream of anti-Israeli rhetoric. You won't read any posts on this site (from Antony or yourself) about how many more Palestinians are killed by Palestinians than by Israel. You won't see endless posts condemning the daily incitement by Palestinians. Any criticism whatsoever of Palestinian terror groups is token at best and usually surrounded by anti-Israeli writing. You either know this full well, or are so blinded by your views it takes someone else to point it out.

    Secondly, you mention terrorist groups. What terrorist groups support Ant,

    The Adelaide Institute, a neo-nazi hate group was advertising Antony's book on their website. Why might that be? What is it about his views which are so palatable to the enemies of Jews?

    Sell his own people? What does that mean?

    It means, he supports people who like killing Jews.

    That as a Jew, he should give up the right to the free speech and opinion you pretend to care so much about?

    He seems to have no problem denying others' free speech…

    As for you prediction about all your comments going the way of Lewis’s, try explaining how marginal views like Viva’s are allowed to appear uncensored?

    As for having this conversation, it’s healthy and welcome. Indeed, no one should be excluded from participating on the basis of their persuasion. Admittedly, I would prefer the discussion were more on topic, but nonetheless, it is needed and we should encourage it.

    Then I suggest you have a quiet word to Antony about censorship.

    If Dean (sic) Lewis is being blocked and he is as reasonable as you suggest, I would strongly encourage him to mail Ant and discuss the matter.

    I have a better idea. Why don't we do it in the open and hear from Antony himself, in this thread, or a post on the topic. I think it's pretty obvious he is remaining deliberately quiet here, knowing the hole he has dug for himself. Let him know, we'd all love to hear his views on Daniel (not Dean) Lewis and the comments in this thread.

    Lewis is obviously keep to participate in the discussion. If he’s prepared to phone into radio stations and write into newspapers to complain about being censored, what’s to stop him contacting Ant?

    Uh, are you kidding? He has done precisely that, however Antony's sole response was to hit "Delete". He might never have written to newspapers about Antony, had Antony not acted in such a grossly hypocritical fashion.

    Be honest BenZ. Your gripe is not about censorship, but about Ant’s views.

    Actually, the two are completely intertwined. Antony's views certainly are terrible. However, what's worse, is the total intellectual dishonesty on display, where he claims (again and again) to have been censored (even though each time such claims were published they disproved themself). However, he is a total hypocrite by virtue of his actions here.

    It is bad enough that his views are appalling, his facts are distorted, his errors are rife and his viewpoint is limited. However, add hypocricy to the list and it is quite an achievement. indeed.

    I will sit back and wait eagerly for Antony to respond to the evidence within this thread. Should I bet money on it?

  • BenZ

    There was an erroneous HTML tag in my previous comment (as this site has no preview button) and the following was omitted:

    As for you prediction about all your comments going the way of Lewis’s, try explaining how marginal views like Viva’s are allowed to appear uncensored?

    I'm sure Viva can answer for himself, but my gut feeling is, you keep him around as a token alternative voice, knowing that he will be grossly outnumbered within this ideological echo chamber. In other words, he's the fall-guy.

  • gottcha

    Actually Andre Zionism is not solely a right-wing ideology. There are plenty of left-wing Zionists. My grandfather-in-law was a communist as well as a Zionist. My father-in-law is a left-wing Zionist.

    Assuming that all Zionists are neo cons or even right wing, is erroneous. Just as assuming all Jews are religiously Judaic. Secular Jews are everywhere. I believe Antony is one of them. Some Jews don't even believe in G-d.

    As for censoring, there has been a long history of people complaining that cannot get onto this blog to comment. It isn't just BenZ. And while there are troublemakers, perhaps Antony can give people a go before he judges them. I assume he is bombarded by abusive comments regularly and it must be difficult putting up with it. But, maybe he is missing out on some good debate by assuming too much about his potential contributors.

  • Andre

    Gottcha,

    I am not disagreeing with you about Zionism. It would be wrong to characterize it as right wing, but that is certainly where the status quo resides today.

    Similarly, characterising Zionists as neocons, and visa versa is equally false.

    But to characterise Ant's position as right wing or neo-nazy is beyond pathetic.

  • BenZ

    Andre,

    You have quite deliberately ignored my comments suggesting Antony respond here. You have also ignored Gottcha's.

    Gottcha,

    And while there are troublemakers, perhaps Antony can give people a go before he judges them. I assume he is bombarded by abusive comments regularly and it must be difficult putting up with it.

    The simple fact is that he reads each comment before deciding to dispose of it. Many of the comments were quite civil, and simply disagreeable to Antony's simple, one-eyed view.

    More examples are popping up in comments at JF Beck's site and you are clearly aware of it also.

    I'm still waiting for him to respond to any of this. Andre? How about it?

  • Andre

    BenZ,

    You are revealing more and more about yourself with each successive post. The more you express your own views, the more obvious it becomes how extremist your views are.

    While it is true that Antony doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state, that position is not at odds with Israel’s right to exist. His position is not that Israel has no right to be a Jewish state per se, but that the concept of a religious state doesn't square with being a democracy – it doesn’t work. Never has he or anyone else advocated the destruction of Israel.

    The Palestinians have made mistakes since they were ethnically cleansed, but in the greater scheme of things, to describe their plight as a self-inflicted is like blaming the Iraqis for being invaded. It is absurd to suggest that the Israelis and the Palestinians have equal footing in the current state of affairs. The reason Israel are being scrutinized is because it is Israel that holds all the cards, just as the US are being scrutinized for their invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    We don’t focus on Palestinian “terrorist groups”, because the terrorist mantra have been utterly abused in a one sided and gratuitous way, that it ceases to have any relevance. Today, a terrorist is simply any militant that doesn't have access to attack helicopters and fighter planes. Do you think that presented with an F-16 and a suicide vest, a potential suicide bomber would not opt for the F-16? All one need have to achieve legitimacy these days, is the right military hardware and enough of it.

    Many more Arabs are killed at the hands of Israel than visa versa, yet people like yourself maintain that the Arabs are mindless terrorists while Israel is the vulnerable party fighting for it’s survival. It’s beyond a joke and since the Lebanon war, fewer and fewer people are buying it anymore. Face it, you have lost the debate.

    The main stream media are covering stories of Palestinian crimes more than adequately, though they constitute a fraction of what Israel perpetrates on a daily basis. What we are drawing attention to are stories that don’t readily appear in the main stream Australian news outlets. If our posts criticize Israel, it is because by it’s policies and it’s action, Israel is sticks out like a sore thumb.

    I fail to see the relevance of The Adelaide Institute advertising Antony’s book on their website. That’s not even guilt by association. It’s the same intellectually bankrupt argument made against Mearsheimer and Walt – that because right wing groups may be using their thesis to forward their own agenda, it implies that Mearsheimer and Walt must also hold these extremist views.

    There are right wing fascist that support Israel. Why might that be? What do you say about right wing evangelicals moonbats in the US who support Israel because it will hasten the Apocalypse? Why are you so comfortable with having so called friends that believe the Jews will perish in the last days unless they convert to Christianity?

    It means, he supports people who like killing Jews.

    You are a liar. Ant has never supported the killing of Jews or anyone else. It is no secret that when you kill and oppress people, they will fight back. If by supporting the rights of Palestinians, you are suggesting that Ant is advocating the killing of Jews, then it could equally be said that you are supporting the killing of Arabs an in the case of Lebanon, Christians also. I suppose in some perverse way, you regard that as a moral position to take.

    He seems to have no problem denying others’ free speech…

    Really? So what book has Ant demanded not be published? Who has he lobbied to deny the appearances of AJC members on television or in public? To whom has he written letters calling for pro Zionist individuals to be denied appointments or employment?

    As for Dean Lewis, I gave an obvious suggestion. He need only e-mail Ant to get to the bottom of this. I have not read any of Dean’s comments apart from the post in which he called me a liar. It is all too easy to present an amicable facade on public radio and letters to a newspaper editor, and then resort to highly offensive invective on a blog.

    As for Gottcha’s suggestion, Ant does give people a go before judging them. The reason Viva is welcome on this blog is not because of any tokenism. Simply put, interspersed with the infrequent trash talk, Viva contributes intellectually to the debate and offers some valuable and informed opinion.

    Perhaps it’s time that you too gave it a shot? I'm sure you are more than capable.

  • BenZ

    Andre,

    You seem very good at speaking on Antony's behalf.

    However, I'm not interested any more.

    Antony should have the honesty to respond here himself, to numerous documented examples of his censorship of dissenting views in parallel with his own constant complaints about being censored.

    I won't hyperlink them as that will force this comment into moderation – and we all know what happens then. However, readers (including Antony) should go back to comments on J F Beck's post, where there are significant further examples (yes Andre, including screenshots) of Antony's double-standards.
    http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2007/05/bloggers-credibi

    Antony's a big boy and I'm sure he doesn't need you to speak for him. So, is he going to face the music? Or cower. His absence speaks volumes to his ethics and credibility.

    By the way, it's "Daniel Lewis", not Dean Lewis. I've even pointed that out once already Do you actually read anything before firing out a reply?