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.

Small victory

Although we still have a long way to totally discredit the racist ideology of Zionism, this news is welcome, indeed (via Forward):

In a forthcoming paper on American Jewish attitudes toward Israel, Steven M. Cohen and Ari Kelman find that while 82% of their broadly representative sample regard themselves as “pro-Israel,” only 28% — and fewer still in the younger cohorts — see themselves as “Zionists.” Thus, even among the Jews, even among Israel’s supporters, the word has become musty — or worse, an unwelcome evocation of the judgment of its least sympathetic critics. 

30 comments ↪
  • gottcha

    Okay boys, I wasn’t going to do this just yet, but I think the time is right. And to tell the truth, my endeavour is getting a bit tedious. Here goes…

    A couple of years ago I was part of a little community that regularly commented on Antony Loewenstein’s blog. This was before he wrote his book and before he started to become ‘famous’. You were here Andre, although you were called addamo then. We had great debates about Israel and there was little or no monitoring. Antony would sometimes contribute and there didn’t seem to be any problems.

    Then, out of the blue, and I think his upcoming book had something to do with it, we were all thrown off the blog —- banned. I tried to get back on using different names but each time I was put into ‘moderation’ and my comment deleted and never published. You see I am a ‘right-wing Zionist.’

    Others quietly left Antony’s blog, they relocated to other blogs or simply stopped reading blogs believing they had nowhere to carry on the debate we had on this blog about the Middle East. I have to say here that we were an intelligent, nice set of people who were not rude or abusive. Antony liked us for a long time until he became famous.

    So, a couple of weeks ago I decided to try an experiment. I pretended to be an Antony fan; a left-wing, Bush hater who was also a rabid anti-Zionist. AND, YES , I was accepted onto this blog without a single stint in moderation. All my comments were published automatically. All I had to do is ensure that I tell Antony how wonderful he is and every now and then make an anti Zionist remark. Lately, I have to admit I’ve found this more and more difficult. Lately I’ve been putting forward a more pro- Israel perspective and guess what — my comments have been deleted, time and time again. I am now being censored by Loewenstein on his blog because I am no longer agreeing with him.

    So, my point. Well, it’s obvious to me what happened. At some point Antony decided to use this blog as a PR tool to help his career. People like me were in the way; we crowded his style and said uncomfortable things. Antony’s career and newfound fame was more important to him than the honest people on his blog who politely debated the Middle East and made him look ill-informed and ignorant. I guess our questions were too difficult for him.

    Of course he watches this blog like a hawk deleting anything that looks threatening. That’s because his own intellectual argument is so thin he is terrified of being shown up by the common people on his blog.

    So, all you readers out there who have tried to comment on Antony’s blog. The secret weapon is to

    1) Disarm Antony by telling him how clever he is
    2) Pretend to be a rabid anti Zionist
    3) Pretend to hate both Bush, Blair and Howard
    4) Pretend to hate the Israeli government
    5) Never, never suggest that the Palestinians should take responsibility for themselves

    It wasn’t difficult at all.

    The sad and tragic thing as far as I’m concerned is that Antony cares more about his own fame than he does about peace in the Middle East. By banning constructive debate on his blog he shuts down important discussion that can only lead to greater understandings. If the chaos in the Middle East is to ever be resolved then talking, discussing, arguing and debating are things that need to happen. Unfortunately, Antony is more interested in being famous

    Oh, by the way, I’ve screenshot this comment and I intend sending it in to the Jewish News, Tim Blair and AIJAC.

  • gottcha

    Oh Michael,

    I don’t feel poor at all, nor am I after your sympathy. As for your namecalling, well that appears to be all people like you are capable of.

    If you examine Antony Loewenstein’s thesis, it is based on his claims that he is censored by the mainstream Jewish community. My point; therefore, was to prove that he is the biggest censor of them all. In fact, some of my deleted comments were in fact answers to direct questions from Andre. This dissproves your own thesis that my comments are unworthy because they are ‘repeated posts defending the Zionist orthodoxy’. As I have stated when I supported the anti-Zionist position repeaedly, I was published immediately and never deleted.

    And it is proved beyond a doubt that this blog censors and deletes polite comments simply because the owner does not agree with them. I have the screenshots to prove it.

  • gottcha

    Ha Michael,

    I said what I had to say to remain a contributor to this blog. I’ve already explained why I needed to do this — and that of course is what really irks you. That I had to “pretend” to be someone I wasn’t in order to be accepted as a contributor on Antony’s blog. You’re working awfully hard here to try and discredit me. Have I hit a nerve? Are you really an Antony dressed up as a Michael?

    The fact is, you can attempt to discredit me all you like — it’s too late. The facts speak for themselves. You are DEFENDING the CENSORSHIP of FREE SPEECH. All I did was pretend to be like you in order to be accepted on this rabidly discriminative blog. Then I declared my true goal. What’s your excuse for your anti – democratic views?

    Antony has on many occasions claimed to be censored by the mainstream Jewish community. It has been recorded by the media in interviews and in print. To deny it is ridiculous — after all it was one of the mechanisms he employed to become ‘famous’.

    Okay Michael, go back to some of my previous posts regarding Arab Constitutions and the meaning of fascism. Let me know what your views are unless the subject matter is too difficult for you. Your excuse that I provide the ‘established line’ and not ‘challenging material’ is not aceptable. I’d appreciate your comment on the content of Arab Constitutions. I’m prepared to debate you on any Middle Eastern policy or event. Let me know what pushes your buttons and we’ll see who knows more about history or politics , yours truly or you who claims to be the judge of ‘challenging material’.

  • gottcha

    Here we go again (my first comment was deleted — lucky I screenshot it)) in response to Michael,

    Let me know your view on this Michael. It’s not exctly the ‘established line’ as you claimed, but I reckon you could manage a response (if it isn’t too challenging). Come on put your money where your mouth is — show us what you know about the subject.

    Basil Brush:

    Yes, Hitler was elected democratically but then he passed legislation that enabled him to become a dictator. But, any student of history would know this. Let me give you some tips Basil Brush.

    Why Israel isn’t a “fascist” state:

    The epithet “fascist” has become a favoured slur that is ubiqutiously hurled with intellectual abandon at anyone or any ideology that is disliked. As George Orwell, once remarked:

    “The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else … Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.”

    Lefties commonly apply the term to Israel, but any serious study of the characteristics of fascism reveals this to be without foundation.

    1. Fascism is anti-socialist. AS Kevin Passmore of Cardiff University explains:

    “Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests – family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service – where the interests of the nation are considered to require it.”

    But the pioneers of the Zionist movement, who were Israel’s founding fathers, were explicitly socialist Zionists. These included Ben Gurion, Rupin, Borochov, and A.D. Gordon, to name just a few. These socialist Zionists founded socialist kibbutz collective agricultural communities. They established the Israeli Labour Party as Israel’s dominant political movement and created a very powerful trade union movement that was centralised in the Histadrut. These facets of Israeli society are all fundamentally incompatible with fascism.

    2. In his Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini wrote:

    “Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.”

    Those who cast the epithet “fascist” at Israel are only displaying their own superficial intellect and erudition. Sciolism is the word that comes to mind.

  • gottcha

    I ought to add here that I am not Jewish; I’m not Arab; I have never read the Jewish News nor belonged to any Jewish group.

    I’m just an ordinairy Australian, who refuses to jump on board and ‘be’ anti semetitic, no matter how acceptable activists like MUP publisher, Louise Adler and her muse, Antony Loewenstein try to make it.

    How much money did Melbourne University Press waste on a full time publicist for My Israel Question? I’d like to see Adler justify the expense to her superiors. When other titles on her list sold more copies without her ‘very special’ priviledges.

    According to Amazon, the book is about 80, 000th in its best-selling list. Hardly a best seller as the author claims. But, anyone in publishing knows ‘best seller’ is a purely relative term in this genre and can be bandied around to mean anything. It’s very interesting that neither MUP or the author will give out the number of copies sold to back up their ‘best seller’ claim. That’s because the main agenda here is to bring about the destruction of Zionism and Israel by Diaspora Jews who have never lived in Israel. It’s a hiccup in their social life you see. This way they get to be ‘good Jews’.

  • Pingback: Beyond The Fringe » Blog Archive » In no uncertain terms()

  • BenZ

    Quoth Antony:

    I want healthy and challenging debate and ideas to be tested and provoked. Everybody has the right to comment but must feel comfortable and not intimidated when doing so.

    An utter lie.

  • gottcha

    BenZ

    You get to lie, distort and misrepresent when you have a blog, just ask Michael.

    Michael,

    You claimed all my contributions were the ‘established line’ so I pointed out some of my comments which did not fit your description. And you then said:

    ‘I still don’t know what your current obsession over “Arab Constitutions” has got to do with anything. ‘

    How stupid are you? I provided exactly what you asked for, then you claim ignorance. I hate your dishonesty mate. It makes me want to puke.

    What is your blog address? Id be pleased to wipe your arrogant and ignorant arse.

  • gottcha

    Wow, I'm deleted again. What is this censorship?

  • LOL!

    You poor thing!

    gottcha, I think that you need to wake up and smell the roses. There are comment rules on this blog, as most, and as on most blogs, the owner reserves the right to delete comments on a variety of grounds. Deal with it.

    If you think this is a free speech issue, you're deluded.

    I'd imagine your comments are deleted because they are the kind of comments that are a dime-a-dozen. If Antony is after "challenging material", repeated posts defending the Zionist orthodoxy are the antithesis of that.

    If anything this blog allows a preponderance of commnets from 'defenders-of-the-faith' like yoursefl. Just look at the 'Israeli Intolerance' topic. 22 comments, 13 are from your 'side'.

    'gottcha'?, more like paranoia.

  • "If you examine Antony Loewenstein’s thesis, it is based on his claims that he is censored by the mainstream Jewish community"

    Wrong, as usual gotcha.

    The thesis is that the Zionist mainstream is intolerant of such views, and tries to shout down and discredit those views while maintianing that it's position is the only legitimate.

    Precisely what you endevour to do.

    Given Antony's thesis, it is, if anything, exceedinlgy generous on his part that he allows people like you and 'viva hate', so much latitude. Your views are already very well represented by the "Jewish News, Tim Blair and AIJAC", so why should Antony be compelled to provide you another platform??

    You don't provide "challenging material", just the established line.

  • Andre

    Gottcha,

    OK mate, here’s the deal.

    So far, there have been 25 posts to this thread, 13 of which have been from you and a further 3 or 4 from BenZ. None of your posts have been remotely on topic, yet all have been making a case about being censored.

    I think you’ll agree that you have been given ample latitude to express your grievances, and in the process, have demonstrated why some posts end up being deleted. Hopefully you have gotten this off your chest and we can now move on.

    If you insist on highjacking thread, then you’re wasting your time, and everyone else’s. If it’s an audience you want to attack Antony, I’m sure you’ll be welcomed on other forums like Jewish News, Tim Blair and AIJAC.

    We appreciate your excellent contributions when they apply to the topic at hand and I hope you’ll continue to participate in that vein.

    What do you say?

  • Now here's a really good laugh courtesy of 'gottcha'.

    Having whined this today,

    "Wow, I’m deleted again. What is this censorship?" -gottcha

    look at what he was saying just a week ago on the subject of "censorship",

    "I’m surprised Antony and Andre publish your[BenZ] comments. 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." – gottcha

  • BenZ

    This issue goes to the core of Antony Loewenstein's credibility.

    Right now, it's below zero and headed south.

  • "I said what I had to say to remain a contributor to this blog. I’ve already explained why I needed to do this — and that of course is what really irks you. That I had to “pretend” to be someone I wasn’t in order to be accepted as a contributor on Antony’s blog. You’re working awfully hard here to try and discredit me. Have I hit a nerve? Are you really an Antony dressed up as a Michael?" – gottcha

    Working awfully hard? No, it's extremely easy to discredit you. And yes, you've hit a nerve. It's my 'funny bone' (AKA the ulnar nerve).

    You're a scream. Maybe this is actually a parody of the fanatical Zionist and Antony is paying you to do it.

    You're probably the most frequent poster here (or maybe second to viva peace) over the past few weeks, and yet you are screaming about "censorship". Just look at this article. You again dominate it with your whinging, while crying "censorship"! Only a complete fool thinks that a blog-owner choosing to allow or disallow comments is a principle of free speech. It's in the comments policy- you know it. and you decided, as an act of free choice, to willingly participate.

    So do you think that when pro-Israel blogs delete my comments that is "censorship"?? Are you going to take up the cudgels and fight the good fight against these terrible acts of censorship? Didn't think so.

    The best bit is how you were so logical and reasoned ("This is Antony’s blog and he can choose what is published on it.") when you were expressing a view that you now repudiate. Telling, isn't it?

    "Okay Michael, go back to some of my previous posts regarding Arab Constitutions and the meaning of fascism. Let me know what your views are unless the subject matter is too difficult for you. Your excuse that I provide the ‘established line’ and not ‘challenging material’ is not aceptable. I’d appreciate your comment on the content of Arab Constitutions" – gottcha

    I have no idea what you're rambling on about here. Seriously, I don't.

  • gottcha

    Michael,

    Trying to laugh off your prejudices doesn't work mate. Being stupid also doesn't work when you have claimed that my comments were deleted because I presented nothing 'challenging'.

    Let me repeat again:

    " Okay Michael, go back to some of my previous posts regarding Arab Constitutions and the meaning of fascism. Let me know what your views are unless the subject matter is too difficult for you. Your excuse that I provide the ‘established line’ and not ‘challenging material’ is not aceptable. I’d appreciate your comment on the content of Arab Constitutions”

    Your reply:

    I have no idea what you’re rambling on about here. Seriously, I don’t."

    Do you know what a Constitution is?

    Have you read an Arab Constitution? Or are you incapable of analysing political documents?

    What is your view on whether Israel is fascist?

    These are intelligent and relevent questions to the Middle East debate Michael, which you don't appear to comprehend.

    It seems you do not understand your own problem with Jews or Israel. If you did you would be able to debate it, rather than your current silly performance, where your only responses have been ranting, namecalling and incomprehensible groans.

    What political or history topic would you like to debate Michael? The namecalling thingy is getting boring..

  • So your whole 'secret squirrel' act was so you could tell us that criticising Israeli actions is "anti-semitic".

    I'm underwhelmed. What absolute idiocy.

    Antony you're a very naughty boy. Gottcha says so.

    For his next trick, gottcha (AKA secret squirrel), will 'infiltrate' dissadent Chinese blogs, where he will say things like "yeah, me too" to ingratiate himself with the unsuspecting host. Then, with the trap laid, he will spring it! – revealing himself to be immune to the anti-Sino bandwagon such activists are trying to make acceptable.

    My hero.

  • gottcha

    Where's the debate Michael?

    What is it you'd like to discuss about the Middle East?

    You are a coward who doesn't know the first thing about the Middle East.

    Come on big boy with the big mouth, what would you like to discuss (other than your floppy dick)?

  • "It seems you do not understand your own problem with Jews or Israel." – gotcha

    Why do such people always bring in down to nonsense like this – 'I know what you really think'.

    How convenient for you gottcha. When people don't say what you want, speculate on what you think they really think.

    I still don't know what your current obsession over "Arab Constitutions" has got to do with anything. You don't like them. OK. I don't either much. And?………

    Is Israel fascist? I don't think so. Elements tending that way? Sure. But by your illogic, neither Saddams Iraq nor Syria can be considered fascist because of the socialist Baath Party.

    Had you forgotten about that?

    I'd 'debate' you, but given current evidence you might find yourself rather embarrassed.

    Besides, this is Antony's blog and having your own blog means that you set the 'frames of reference' to some degree. If you want to vent your spleen, and rant hysterically to me, my blog has my email address. Email me and I'll answer any other stupid question you have. This isn't the place for it.

  • BenZ

    Naturally, on the question of his censorship, Antony has nothing at all to say.

    You’re probably the most frequent poster here (or maybe second to viva peace) over the past few weeks, and yet you are screaming about “censorship”.

    He is doing so, as am I, on behalf of the dozens of quite polite posts which are censored here as a matter of course. There is ample evidence of this courtesy of other bloggers.

    Only a complete fool thinks that a blog-owner choosing to allow or disallow comments is a principle of free speech.

    That is not in dispute. However, other blog-owners don't run around at every possible opportunity flogging their own writing on the basis that they are censored for their views. In other words, if other bloggers do it, fine. If Antony does it, it's bald-faced hypocricy. That is the issue – his credibility, not freedom of speech. His unwillingness to even buy into this discussion speaks volumes.

    It’s in the comments policy

    Bullshit.

    His 'policy' (if you can call it that) says:

    Therefore, any comments that are racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist or way off topic will be deleted.

    How that means blatantly comments such as one by EJ can remain online wheras others don't see the light of day, means there's an unwritten (but well known) part of Antony's policy:
    Antony reserves the right to secretly delete any comments that he doesn't agree with, rather than take part in the robust debate he dishonestly claims to support.

  • gottcha

    And this is beautiful. The Pure Untruth of it.

    'I want healthy and challenging debate and ideas to be tested and provoked. Everybody has the right to comment but must feel comfortable and not intimidated when doing so.'
    Antony Loewenstein

  • According to the comments policy Antony has poste, he's be quite within his rights to delete every single comment here, as they are all "way off topic".

    That hasn't happended, so there appears to be a great deal of lattitude being given to us (gottcha in particular, who has filled half the comments page with his whinging).

    The argument that Anthony "run[s] around at every possible opportunity flogging their own writing on the basis that they are censored for their views." is a fabrication. A necessary one, or you'd have no basis to complain.

    The censorship issue came up primarily in relation to Danby's delusional attempt at preventing the publication of Antony's book. That was, albeit stupidly ham-fisted, an attempt at censorship. Antony has referred to this many times, but his main argument* wasn't about censorship, but about the unwillingness of the pro-Israel camp to accept open debate on the issue, preferring to ignore or personally attack people with dissenting opinions. Unfortunately for your argument, yourself and gottcha just keep demonstrating the truth of this – you repeatedly attack Anthony, not his arguments.

    * – "Over two years of writing, researching and spending time in the Middle East and the US………I soon realised that I wasn't being silenced….." – AL. Sept 2006.

  • gottcha

    Michael,

    The truth is Antony spent two weeks in Israel with a cousin who later wrote to the Jewish News and claimed that he had exploited the family's hospitality and refused to meet with anyone whose political views he didn't share.

    Now, to your main point, which is to claim that most of my posts here have been 'way-off topic'. Praytell, Michael what is the topic? If you examine your own comments you will find that you have refused to debate or discuss anything other than your incredible loyalty to Antony, and your own feelings about blogging.

    You have made wild, unsubstatiated allegations and then moved the goal posts when asked to explain your verbal outbursts. I find it difficult to believe that you have the brainpower to run your own blog. If you do, then put your money where your mouth is and post the address of it so we can come on over and debate you. My guess is you're too gutless, or you are not who you say you are. You have dominated this discussion yourself with childish outbursts and inaccurate claims.

    If you cannot see the relevancy of Arab Constitutions to the Israeli/Zionist position then you are dumber than I thought. If you are an anti-Zionist then you would need to know (one would think) that one of the basic anti-Zionist claims is that of racism by Israelis toward Arabs. If you believe this, then what do you have to say about 75 per cent of the 22 Arab constitutions explicitly defining their countries as Muslim and governed by Sharia Law?

    Why is perfectly fine for the Arab states to be openly racist, but not acceptable of Israel to do so? (if you think they are, as any anti Zionist would claim).

    How much more relevant do you need this discussion to be?

    You appear to know a lot of intimate details regarding Antony and his feelings, personal thoughts and behaviour. It's interesting the way you feel entitled to speak FOR him.

    It's also interesting that he hasn't had time to post a single new post in his blog since I made my revelation earlier and you retaliated on his behalf.

    You also write in a similar way to Antony and share his penchant for unnecessary hyphenation. And hey, how convenient that you have Antony Loewenstein quotes right there on hand. and of course there's Antony's habit of using single and double quotations marks in the same post — that you appear to share with him.

    It's all very, very interesting Antony, oops I mean Michael.

    What's the address of your blog again?

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Ok, either stay on topic to the post, or your comment will be deleted. Simple as that. Spend your time masturbating each other elsewhere. Clear? Good.

  • gotcha, the topic is the article from 'Forward', about which you haven't uttered a syllable. Hence every singl epost here is "way off topic", becuase you're too busy attacking Antony personally.

    How does someone who dominates the comments thread get off schreeching "censorship"??

    "I find it difficult to believe that you have the brainpower to run your own blog. If you do, then put your money where your mouth is and post the address of it so we can come on over and debate you. My guess is you’re too gutless, or you are not who you say you are. " – gotcha

    Your poor thing. See my name in red above this post. That's a link. To my blog. Follow?

    "You appear to know a lot of intimate details regarding Antony and his feelings, personal thoughts and behaviour. It’s interesting the way you feel entitled to speak FOR him"

    It's just that I can read the comments policy (do these really count as "intimate details"???) and comprehend them. Just trying to help you out.

    "It’s also interesting that he hasn’t had time to post a single new post in his blog since I made my revelation earlier and you retaliated on his behalf.

    You also write in a similar way to Antony and share his penchant for unnecessary hyphenation. And hey, how convenient that you have Antony Loewenstein quotes right there on hand. and of course there’s Antony’s habit of using single and double quotations marks in the same post — that you appear to share with him.

    It’s all very, very interesting Antony, oops I mean Michael." -gottcha

    You should take a few deep breaths before your next post. And those voices in your head – pay them no heed.

    Well, this has been a very fascinating look into the (fertile) imagination of a pro-Israel ideologue. Not pretty, but fascinating.

    Gottcha has fabricated quite a position for himself; Antony has made a name for himself by claiming 'censorship' (it's a false argument, but we'll let that slide). Antony is clearly wrong in his contention becuase his views are everywhere. Not only that but he's a hypocrite because he censors gottcha's comments (as gottcha has told us in numerous comments today). Therefore we can't take his position seriously, as has no credibility.

    Gottcha clearly has a problem – if we just accept his argument as true, then it must apply to gottcha as well, as he has been dominating comments to claim he's being censored, in which case gottcha has no credibility and his argument can't be taken seriously. On the other hand if we judge the argument on its merits, the preponderance of comments by gottcha undermine his claim he is being censored and therefore his argument fails.

    To sum it up – gottcha's case is a crock of…….

  • gottcha

    Antony Loewenstein May 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    "Ok, either stay on topic to the post, or your comment will be deleted. Simple as that. Spend your time masturbating each other elsewhere. Clear? Good."

    That's fine Antony, so now I assume you'll delete the nasty, abusive, completely off-the-topic diatribe from Michael?

  • As I said earlier gottcha, we are all being shown some generous lattitude as none of this is on the topic. And all you can do is keep whining about being censored.

    I lay awake at night dreaming of being…. censored like gottcha.

  • gottcha

    Umm Andre,

    'We appreciate your excellent contributions when they apply to the topic at hand'

    The thing is, this all began when I posted a perfectly polite and relevant comment on this thread and it was deleted. As far as I can gather, it had nothing for you to complain about and it was directly on the topic.

    Thank you for the invitation, and I'll pop in occasionally and stir you all up.

    I have to say that things around here have been more fun since you came on board.

  • Well, here's something at least tangentally related to the topic of the thread.

    Nakba Day 2007 (for yesterday).

  • BenZ

    How does someone who dominates the comments thread get off schreeching “censorship”??

    The issue is not Gottcha's comments or mine being censored but the comments of dozens, perhaps more, people whose very first comment and every comment thereafter never sees the light of day here, as Antony "Let the debate continue" Loewenstein deletes them.

    You want the thread to be 'on topic'? Fine. More Palestinians were killed this week by other Palestinians, than by Israel. Discuss.

    Palestinian television incites young children to die for Allah. Discuss.

    Ok, either stay on topic to the post, or your comment will be deleted. Simple as that. Spend your time masturbating each other elsewhere. Clear? Good.

    Antony Loewenstein finally has the decency to respond to accusations of censorship and hypocricy, having had plenty of opportunity – blog
    yet the best he can come up with is some manner of sexual fantasy. Discuss.

    Let the debate continue! (Cough cough cough)…