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.

A picture is worth a thousand words

Surely only Muslim extremists and would be suicide bombers would look at this picture and take it the wrong way.

9 comments ↪
  • Carrie Lewis

    Before the 1947 U.N resolution which divided what was left of the British Mandate of Palestine the people of the region were generally regarded as Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Arabs. Many of the Palestinian Arabs had affiliations with Syria and regarded themselves as Southern Syrians. For example, the main Jewish Newspaper of that time was The Palestine Post. The Palestinian team that was an affiliate representative at the first World Cup of Soccer in 1934 was made up entirely of Jews. I have Israeli relatives who told me they regarded themselves as Palestinians pre 1948.

    When Israel declared its independence in 1948, its founders decided on the name Israel – they refused to take on the name given to the region by the Roman Imperialist invaders.

    Your distinction of "Jewish" and "Palestinian" is utterly false. The picture is not worth even three words.

    Furthermore, some Palestinian Arabs have stated they want a state based more or less on 1948 borders. These are open to negotiation and the Palestinian and Israeli delegations agreed on a borders at Taba in early 2001 before the deal was rejected by Arafat who wasn't prepared to deal or compromise.

  • Andre

    An interesting contribution as always Carrie,

    Arabs and Jews lived alongside one another with a reasonable degree of solidarity and mutual regard, though the Arab population at that time outnumbered the Jewish population more than ten fold.

    A small detail that you seem to have overlooked, is that the “independence” of Israel was secured by terrorist attacks, such as the bombing of the King David Hotel. You have also ignored that the Israeli state did not stop there, but used the 1948 war as a pretext to carry out an existing plan to ethnically cleanse Israel of it’s remaining Arab population (hence map 2). So yes, the picture is indeed worth a thousand words – over 700,000 in fact.

    Most of the Arabs in the region at that time considered themselves Arabs, not Syrian or Jordanian or anything else for that matter.

    As for Arafat’s rejection of the offer, you are of course, assuming the Dennis Ross interpretation of Camp David and Taba; that Israel made huge concessions and that the Palestinians refused to make any concessions. Ross later admitted that Israel acted more like Israel’s lawyer than an impartial broker during those talks.

    The commonly held belief is that Arafat maintained an unyielding positions and missed a “huge opportunity”, an assumption based on the standard of what Israel wanted to keep as opposed to what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, in which case, Israel made no concessions. Furthermore, the land Barak was offering was not contiguous, and subject to permits, military order, with no viable independence.

    To this day, Israel continues to flout more than 60 UN resolutions. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements are illegal under international law. Even leaked documents from the Israeli government acknowledge this. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal, nevertheless, the Palestinians were willing to concede 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. So already, the Palestinians had already made enormous concession.

    The World Court decision also declared Jerusalem to occupied Palestinian territory. The Palestinians were nevertheless, willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half.

    Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels of 1% of Israel. The Palestinians never demanded the full return of six million refugees.

    As you can see Carrie, on every issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is that the status quo resides over what Israel wanted to keep and how much it was willing to give up.

    Former Israeli foreign affairs minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, admits that Taba presented problems. Taba ended when Barak withdrew his negotiators. It wasn’t the Palestinians who walked out of Taba. The Palestinians expressed reservations about the pending issues, whereas Israel came to the table stating that they were not willing to give any more ground.

    According to Ben Ami, who was involved in the talks, Israel felt it was committing suicide. Two weeks before general elections, the chief of staff, General Mofaz, said publicly that Israel were putting at risk the future of the state of Israel.

    At Taba, Barak instructed his team to conduct secret negotiations with Abu Alla.

    Barak’s legitimacy (as a government to negotiate such central issues as Jerusalem, as Temple Mount, the temple, etc), was being questioned, not only by the right, but by the people from his own government. Haim Ramon said at the time that “Shlomo Ben-Ami is ready to sell out the country for the sake of a Nobel Prize” , which made Labour’s position unsustainable.

  • Marilyn

    Yeah Carrie and you should see the map of villages destroyed by Ben Gurion and his gangs of terrorists during the ethnic cleansing.

    It is available in Ilan Pappe's book and adult readers have thrown up when the see it.

    There is something truly shameful in not understanding that this is all illegally stolen land – Israel were told in 1948 to get out of the occupied lands and ignored it.

    They have been told every year since and they ignore it and now the millions of Palestinians who own the land are squashed like bugs in a jar behind walls and razor wire.

    These pictures tell me 700,000 stories.

  • Carrie Lewis

    Both Andre and Marilyn have missed my point. The Jews of Palestine regarded as Palestinians pre 1948. The nascent Jewish State was attacked by 5 Arab armies and the Palestinian Arabs who stated they were fighting "a war of extermination against the Jews." That war continues until today with both Hamas and Fatah threatening to destroy Israel and kill the Jews.

    The maps or the picture as you refer to it, is racist and offensive in that it suggests that the Jews weren’t entitled to be considered as Palestinian before the creation of the State of Israel. It also omits the fact that most of the land was crown land, a good deal of it unoccupied, before Israel’s independence.

    My three words about this picture are therefore: –

    “racist and offensive”.

    The only way to resolve the problem is not by suicide bombers, kassams and threats of violence and/or jihad. It's by negotiation. Barak withdrew from Taba when Arafat refused to support his own negotiating team that had come to agreement with the Israelis on the new borders between the two states. It got too hot for Arafat and he pulled out. A week later both he and Shimon Peres were to have made speeches at the World Economic Forum expressing their desire for a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Peres fulfilled his part but Arafat produced an inflammatory outburst which achieved the desired result a few days later – it got Sharon elected as Israeli PM. That's how Palestinian negotiators worked then i.e. Arafat vetoed all progress to embarras barak during an election campaign. Forgot what Dennis Ross is alleged to have sais, I got this first hand from one of the negotiators (on the Palestinian side).

    Marilyn – please give me a valid reference to the claim you make that "Israel were told in 1948 to get out of the occupied land".

    Was it the Secretary General of the Arab League who threatened the Jews with "a momentous massacre"?

  • Andre

    Your point is not being missed Carrie, but comes down to a distinction without a difference.

    The Palestinian Jews of pre 1948 were regarded as expendable by new settlers. After all, who can forget Ben Gurion's quote when asked what should be done with the Arab Jews – to get rid of them. That attitude changed of course, when Gurion realized the Arab Jews could be exploited for propaganda purposes.

    And regardless of the whether most of the land was crown land and unoccupied, 700,000 Arabs were indeed ethnically cleansed from their homes.

  • viva peace

    Tragically the Muslims chose war over peaceful co-existence. They always do. They simply cannot cannot live among other people unless they dominate them. As Hanan Ashrawi said, "the biggest mistake we ever made was not accepting the 1947 partition."

    Ain't it the truth.

  • Carrie Lewis

    After all, who can forget Ben Gurion’s quote when asked what should be done with the Arab Jews – to get rid of them.

    Reference please?

  • BenZ

    Marilyn likes stories…

  • viva peace

    Andre, Andre, Andre

    As a classic bigot, you will never learn.

    The World Court decision also declared Jerusalem to occupied Palestinian territory. The Palestinians were nevertheless, willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half.

    Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels of 1% of Israel. The Palestinians never demanded the full return of six million refugees.

    1. The 'World Court' did NOT make any 'legal' ruling as it was not empowered to. All it could, and did, do was provide an 'advisory opinion' to the UNGA. A simple example will help you. Think of an inhouse lawyer for a corporation who advises his company whether or not take further action.

    The UNGA DID take further action by referring the matter to the ultimate authority; the UNSC, which unaminously ruled the 'advice' was garbage.

    2. Neither Amnesty International nor HRW has anything whatsoever to do with these issues. They have less credibility than Aunty Edna.