The Australian Jewish News continues its tradition of hard-hitting journalism, touching stories that no other “serious” paper would consider

"Serious" journalist Antony Loewenstein demonstrates again he has no idea what he is talking about.

The Jewish News is a community newspaper. Of course it reports on stories that no other paper would consider. For example, how Maccabi did in soccer over the weekend. Who got married at which synagogue, which Jewish students did well in their exams.

You could probably say the same thing about any local newpaper as well.

I totally fail to see what Antony's point is, other than to sneer and mock and abuse, all the while complaining that he is occasionally on the receiving end of abuse. In other words, he's only good at dishing it out.

A key difference of course, is that by and large the Australian Jewish News will print any letter sent to them and a variety of diverse opinion on Jewish issues, whereas Antony Loewenstein censors comments here daily.

The Jewish rag must be getting desperate. If they’re needing to quote blogger Tim Blair

Well Antony must be getting even more desperate if he has to quote a newspaper he so derides, who in turn quoted a journalist he despises.

Still, anything to attract a few links I guess…

Are you able to form any opinions of your own? Your last three comments were little more than extended quotes by others, followed by your own endorsement. An original thought would be nice.

It is also worth noting that Tim Blair has taken Antony's bait and linked to this post.

I can only imagine how many comments are currently being censored here.

Fortunately mine (by and large) get through the gauntlet.

Antony is yet to respond to any discussion of his censorship practices and hypocricy. http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2007/05/08/bush…

Like many tops discussed only inside Israel, they only become controversial when discussed in the US, the Britain and Australia. Dershowitz and an co. went after Carter as if to suggest he arrived at the conclusion himself, when in fact all Carter did was document what had already been reported.

As we saw with Jimmy Carter’s book (which contained nothing controversial) , little effort has been made to address the primary arguments.

Carter may not have been the first to compare the situation in Israel-Palestine to apartheid but this does not make his comparison less controversial.

To say that there is "nothing controversial" in his book is drawing a pretty long bow, I think.

The solution has to come from addressing the problem, which inevitably involves bringing those responsible for the mess to account, even if it just means aknowledging there is a problem.

But as Ben has just demonstrated, the pro Israeli camp reject any such process on the grounds that it is anti-Israeli and musty therefore be motivated by malice towards Jews.

As we saw with Jimmy Carter's book (which contained nothing controversial) , little effort has been made to address the primary arguments. In stead, critics will focus on attacking the minutia as a way of avoiding the debate.

Noam Chomsky puts it very well when describing Allan Dershowitz's campaign against Norman Finkelstein.

Dershowitz is intelligent enough to know that he can’t respond, so he does what any tenth-rate lawyer does when you have a rotten case: you try to change the subject, maybe by vilifying opposing counsel. That changes the subject. Now we talk about whether, you know, opposing counsel did or did not commit this iniquity. And the tactic is a very good one, because you win, even if you lose. Suppose your charges against are all refuted. You’ve still won. You’ve changed the subject. The subject is no longer the real topic: the crucial facts about Israel, Dershowitz’s vulgar apologetics for them, which sort of are reminiscent of the worst days of Stalinism. We’ve forgotten all of that. We’re now talking about whether Finkelstein did this, that and the other thing. And even if the charges are false, the topic’s been changed. That’s the basis of it.

That pretty much explain why we are not engaging in constructive discussion about how Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and share the land they live on.

You are right. Unfortunately your longing for constructive discussion is hindered by a constant stream of anti-Israel (and anti-US) rhetoric on this site, coupled with Antony's censorship of any opposing views.

There has been some well researched critical analysis of plenty of Antony's work. Unfortunately such comments never got past moderation and were instead (fortunately) cross-posted to other sites who can only look at this one and shake their heads.

If you are genuinely looking for constructive discussion, sadly you have come to the wrong place. Antony's claim to be striving for "open and honest debate" is little more than hot-air.

It's all the tit-for-tat crap you people go on with. And don't get me wrong, I also get annoyed when Antony does it as he did in this post. His sarcastic remarks about Colin Rubenstein and the Jewish News are really uncalled for.

Why can't we just stick to the topic instead of needing to hit back and every little typo or comment or view. Why hit out at every person who disagrees with you. Surely the object is to talk to each other and figure out solutions. When I sit back and watch the daily squabbling here I wonder how we will ever find peace in the world.

We ought to be engaging in constructive discussion about how Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and share the land they live on, not bashing each other up.

It is indeed re-released later in the year in a new, updated edition (clearly the sign of a dismal failure.)

Or the sign of correcting yet more basic errors in it? What are we up to now, version 4?

The book was a best-seller in Australia last year,

While constantly referring to it as a "best-seller" Antony has never, ever disclosed how many copies were actually sold. The Jewish News article also notes the publishers refused to specify. Why so coy? Perhaps for the same reason a mere 400 or so people signed his petition instead of the 1000 Antony expected?

And still he refuses to engage in comments on his own blog, regarding pretty serious charges. What total arrogance.

Wrong. He’s read it and found it “painfully written”.

But has nothing to say about the issues raised in the book. Maybe he doesn't like the cover? If Ant had used the US flag, Blair would be singing it's praises.

Seems Blair has made his comments based on no knowledge of the book and no knowledge of the award categories.

Wrong. He's read it and found it "painfully written".

Is Antony ever going to respond to direct accusations of censorship and hypocricy?
http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2007/05/08/bush…

Or is he just going to ignore it and hope it goes away like so many other comments he didn't like and deleted.