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.

Shifting sands of Israel/Palestine

My following talk was presented today to a full room at Harvard University:

Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government/Centre for Middle Eastern Studies
ME Forum, 24 November 2008

The Shifting Sands of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: An Australian Perspective

Antony Loewenstein

Australian Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, speaking in March this year at a United Israel Appeal fund-raiser in Melbourne, said he was “a friend of Israel” and referred to its creation in 1948 as “Australian Labor government handiwork.”

In the same month, in an unprecedented move in the country’s history, Rudd praised Israel’s democratic achievements as federal parliament commemorated Israel’s 60th anniversary and highlighted the need for an independent and economically viable Palestinian state.

The majority of parliamentarians supported the motion, but one Labor backbencher dissented. Julia Irwin could not “congratulate a nation which commits human rights abuses each day and shows blatant disregard for the UN.”

On the same day, a large advertisement appeared in the only national newspaper, signed by hundreds of Jews, Palestinians, unionists and concerned citizens, myself included, protesting the government’s obsequiousness towards the Jewish state. “Australia and Australians should not give the Israeli people and its leaders the impression that Australia supports them in their dispossession of the Palestinian people,” the Not In Our Name ad read.

For my relatively minor involvement in the protest, the leading Jewish newspaper in the country, the Australian Jewish News, labelled me the “enfant terrible of the Australian Jewish community…He would be well advised to leave the business of creating an alternative Jewish voice to those who at least support the existence of Israel as a viable Jewish state.”

Like many other Western countries, Australia’s Zionist establishment tolerates little dissent from uncritical support of the Jewish state. With around 100,000 Jews (and more than 300,000 Muslims out of a population of 21 million), there has long been bi-partisan agreement that Australia’s foreign policy should be directed to following Washington’s lead. Australia even wholeheartedly backed Israel’s disastrous 2006 war against Lebanon.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, former Prime Minister John Howard directed Australia to abstain in the UN General Assembly against resolutions that opposed illegal colonies in the West Bank and the application of the Geneva Convention in the Palestinian territories. We joined, alongside the US and Israel, the client states of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands.

Prime Minister Rudd recently reversed this decision and supported the resolutions pressuring Israel to abide by international law. The Zionist establishment reacted with concern. It was a sorry sight to watch prominent Jews argue that the Jewish state should not apply the Geneva Convention in occupied territory. Israel’s “security” needs, so we were told, allowed Israel to behave as a rogue state.

Shamefully, it was reminiscent of leading American Zionist groups who remained silent during the Bush years as evidence mounted that authorities were committing torture in their name. Were they worried that critics would turn their gaze towards the abusive behaviour of Israel towards captured Palestinians?

Australia’s influence in world affairs is miniscule compared to the European powers, but Israel, despite literally being on the other side of the world, remains central to local media coverage and Jewish and Arab concerns. The Palestinian Diaspora is largely disorganised and politically impotent. The Jewish community – principally comprised of Holocaust survivors and their descendents – unhealthily affect public debate, attempting to neuter critical thinking.

Their success is decreasing, however, as evidenced by the best-seller status of my book, My Israel Question – despite attempts by the Zionist lobby to ban it and smear my publisher and me – and the ongoing profile of Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV), an initiative I co-founded in 2007 to empower Jews to challenge the dominant Zionist narrative. Around 500 Jews signed in support.

I compare our actions to an insurgency against an undoubtedly stronger opponent, but one whose positions are increasingly indefensible. I sense that many Jews, especially younger ones, are deeply uncomfortable about Israel’s ever-deepening occupation of Palestinian land but remain unsure how to express those sentiments. Recent studies in America bear this theory out, showing a much weaker connection by young Jews towards the Jewish state.

Throughout the months-long coverage of the IAJV launch in 2007, the Jewish press virtually ignored any discussion of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, preferring to quote various Zionist spokespeople who mouthed the usual platitudes about a “diverse” community that “welcomed debate” and “where disagreement is king – there are no fatwas.”

The reality, of course, was far different. One letter writer to the Australian Jewish News argued: “I have a sneaking suspicion that many Jews have left the Jewish community because they are not prepared to submit to the unelected ‘mainstream.’” Some Jews recognised that they had a primary moral responsibility not to remain silent about Israeli crimes committed in their name and on which they may have some direct effect.

Soon after the recent Australian visit of Sara Roy to Australia, the country’s leading Zionist lobby, AIJAC, wrote that, by detailing Israel’s shocking human rights record in the occupied territories, she expressed “ludicrous conspiracy theories, one-sided analysis and seeming disregard for the truth.” Roy had told a radio program that, “the occupation really is about denying people their dignity. It’s about humiliation and dehumanisation.” “Actually”, AIJAC countered, “it’s about security and accepting the Jewish right to self-determination, nothing more, and could have been over long ago had the Palestinians been willing to make peace, but I guess that’s not the paradigm Dr. Roy is interested in.”

The occupation isn’t an occupation. War is peace. George Orwell’s Doublespeak was pleased. It’s surely a sign of success that the establishment Jewish community is forced to defend an occupation that is condemned by the vast majority of the world. The national president of the Zionist Organisation of America, Morton Klein, wrote before the US presidential election that, “it is simply a flat-earth statement to describe Judea, Samaria and Gaza as occupied.” So who is really blocking the road to peace?

Away from parochial politics, however, lies the reality of the conflict on the ground in the Middle East. The facts remain startling. A report released in July by a group partly funded by the European Union found that Jews live longer and enjoy lower infant mortality and poverty rates in Israel than Arab citizens. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights released evidence in late October that Israel had already killed 68 children in Gaza this year. This report was largely ignored by the Western media, despite it claiming that Israeli forces “deliberately target unarmed civilians, including children, as part of their policy of collective punishment of the entire Palestinian civilian population.”

On Israel’s 60th anniversary, Yossi Alpher, senior advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak during the Camp David summit, wrote that the Israelis “have nothing to be ashamed of and everything to be proud of.” He acknowledged the disastrous settlement movement but divorced the ongoing existence of the Jewish state with the colonial project in the West Bank. They are in fact inseparable after decades and Israel is increasingly known globally as a brutal oppressor. A shameful Jewish legacy into the 21st century.

I’ve written and researched the Israel/Palestine conflict issue for years and yet remain surprised with the lack of information reported by the Western media. Who knew that Switzerland in mid-November accused Israel of wantonly destroying Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and near Ramallah in violation of the Geneva Conventions’ rules on military occupation? Or that Israel’s transportation minister, Shaul Mofaz, a former IDF chief of staff and defence minister, recently suggested the return of “targeted killings” for democratically elected leaders of Hamas? How about a report in Haaretz that found Defence Minister Ehud Barak has approved dozens of construction projects in the West Bank contradicting Israel’s supposed commitment to the Road Map? Or that the chairman of Hebrew University’s Arab student body was apprehended by university personnel after he refused to shake the hand of visiting President Shimon Peres after calling it a “murderer of children”? Or that the leader of Hamas in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, again said recently that his group was willing to accept a Palestinian state within 1967 borders?

All of these facts are shocking yet uncontroversial; they are daily life in the Jewish state. A haze of misinformation, outright lies and Holocaust guilt cloud this issue the world over. The occupiers are the eternal victims. Critics tell me that the Palestinians deserve their fate, led by hateful leaders.

A recent leaked Red Cross report found that Israel’s siege on Gaza was leading to a steady increase in chronic malnutrition. “Survival levels” are now the standard phrase used to describe the desperate situation, an environment only permissible with the collusion of the world powers. The World Bank recently argued that the Palestinian economy has “incredible potential” if Israel eases its stranglehold.

It was therefore ironic to read former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent comments, in the light of Barack Obama’s win, that he suddenly realised the severe limitations of foreign intervention in the conflict. Here was a man who actively supported the 2006 Lebanon war and Israel’s disastrous policies for years and now wanted to talk about consensus politics. On the Arab street, after his enthusiastic backing of the Iraq war, Blair is easily dismissed as simply wanting to manage the occupation, rather than ending it.

British journalist Jonathan Cook, one of the finest chroniclers of the conflict, writes from Nazareth and has attempted to explain the real reasons behind the Israeli suffocation of Hamas. He wrote last week:

“…According to the daily Jerusalem Post, Israeli policymakers have sought to reinforce the impression that ‘it would be pointless for Israel to topple Hamas because the population [of Gaza] is Hamas’. On this thinking, collective punishment is warranted because there are no true civilians in Gaza. Israel is at war with every single man, woman and child.”

It is a view echoed by Haaretz journalist Amira Hass. She rightly chastises Hamas for its human rights abuses but wonders if Israeli policy towards the group is deliberately designed to bolster support, therefore justifying future military action to destroy them. Unlike virtually every other Israeli paper, Haaretz editorially supports the concept of engaging the Islamists.

I’ve long argued that Israel’s most vocal supporters imagine an Israel that doesn’t exist and never has. It’s a Zionism in their minds; noble, inspiring and humanist. Uncomfortable facts can be dismissed. Human rights abuses placed in context and defended. Anybody who challenges Zionism’s core tenets are terrorists. Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists.

Perhaps it requires a latter-day prophet such as former Speaker of the Knesset and head of the Jewish Agency, Avraham Burg, to challenge these delusions. In his latest book, The Holocaust is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes, he writes that Judaism has to get past its obsessive cheapening of the Holocaust to mature as a religion. Burg argues that the everyday use of the word Shoah in Israeli life has left Israel “a nation of victims.” The Jewish state must abandon its “Judaism of the ghetto” and embrace a “universal Judaism.”

It’s a provocative diagnosis by a religious Jew. As an atheist Jew myself, I’m drawn to some of Burg’s ideas because they acknowledge the damage the physical and mental occupation is doing to both Arabs and Jews. Therefore debate must go beyond “what is good for the Jews?” towards “what is good for the peoples of the region?” Arguably traditional Zionism is incapable of acknowledging the difference.

I met a group of influential left-oriented Jews in Melbourne last year. They wanted to engage with me and discuss privately my ideas. It was a depressing affair, however, as one after the other detailed their “pain” and “trauma” over the occupation, expressed dedication to a two-state solution and pledged to work towards its implementation. Publicly, with a few notable exceptions, they refused to condemn Israel’s gross violations of human rights. It was simply a bridge too far. Talking passionately amongst themselves may have made them feel good but the situation in the Middle East requires more than hand-wringing. A fear of societal exclusion held these people back while the Palestinians suffered in silence.

Militant Palestinians are only part of the problem. Radical Jews are the cancer that Israel refuses to destroy (despite Ehud Barak recently calling these settlers “cancerous growths”). The aim of these extremists is to establish a Taliban-style, rabbinical state to replace the current “secular” Israel. It may seem like a pipedream to most — not least the vast majority of Israelis who allegedly oppose the occupation project — but the attempt to uproot any major settlement blocs will incur a vicious response. A civil war between the state and radical Zionists is not unlikely in the years to come.

The world is starting to finally acknowledge the danger. The New York Times editorialised in early November that “law-breaking settlers” must be stopped. The director of Israel’s domestic security service warned that Jewish extremists could kill Israeli leaders who attempt peace with the Palestinians. Settlers routinely desecrate Muslim graveyards in the West Bank. For the Jerusalem Post, though, it is “Palestinian intransigence” that hinders peace in the West Bank, not the presence of the settlers on illegally held land. Interestingly, a number of settlers recently told the New York Times that they believed in a two-state solution and many of their friends would leave the colonies with proper compensation.

Yossi Alpher, former advisor to Ehud Barak, recently commented that, “Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination continues to symbolize the rise of the violent messianic political right in Israel. They are still among us. They still threaten everything that is dear to rational, peace-minded Israelis. Here is one area where Rabin’s successors have failed miserably.”

The September pipe bombing by Jewish radicals of Israeli historian Ze’ev Sternhell’s home in Jerusalem – a long-time critic of the settler movement – signalled a profound shift in the struggle against Israel’s internal enemies, a point powerfully made by leading peace activist Uri Avnery. “Israeli fascism is alive and kicking”, Avnery warned. “It is growing in the flowerbed that produced the various religious-nationalist underground groups of the past.” And yet the vast majority of the international Jewish Diaspora is tellingly silent on these issues, preferring to protest against Hamas “terrorism” and Iranian “provocation”.

Sternhell, even more determined to warn the world against the Jewish state’s threats, has argued since the attack against him and his family that “If Israeli society is unable to muster the courage necessary to put an end to the settlements, the settlements will put an end to the state of the Jews and will turn it into a bi-national state”.

As a believer in this solution, I don’t fear Sternhell’s thesis, but settler violence undoubtedly challenges the (long-discredited) claim that Israel is a Jewish democracy. The departing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently declared, on the 13th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s murder, that unless the Jewish state returns occupied land, “we could lose support for a two-state solution.” Instead, he imagined a “Zionism that is practical, realistic, responsible and courageous.” Wise words, but after a lifetime of enabling the settler movement through direct action, they are devoid of meaning.

The election of Barack Obama opens a faint possibility of real change, not just the rhetorical kind. Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy echoed this sentiment, writing in early November that he hoped the new President would not be a yes-man for the status-quo in the region:

“When we say that someone is a ‘friend of Israel’ we mean a friend of the occupation, a believer in Israel’s self-armament, a fan of its language of strength and a supporter of all its regional delusions. When we say someone is a ‘friend of Israel’ we mean someone who will give Israel a carte blanche for any violent adventure it desires, for rejecting peace and for building in the territories.”

America’s position as a global super-power is slipping. It maintains an enviable ability to shape events across the globe, but the rise of the rest is something that should worry the Jewish state. China and India will never view Israel the same as Washington. The resurgence of Arab resistance – most potently displayed by the Hizbollah struggle against Israel in 2006 – signals a lessening fear of Israel’s military machine. Obama may even pressure the incoming Israeli government – currently looking like Likud’s Bibi Netanyahu, whose election, Gideon Levy wrote last weekend, would prove once and for all that, “an Israel that votes Likud does not want peace – no ifs, ands or buts” – to cease settlement construction and negotiate with a Hamas-Fatah leadership. We can live in hope.

I fear, however, that the dye has been cast. The occupation, in some form, will never disappear. How does a state remove nearly half a million settlers? The long-term plan of Zionism was to establish irreversible facts on the ground. On this definition, the ideology has been a raging success. The rights of the Palestinians were always secondary and remain so. Israel has mastered never-ending and never-progressing negotiations. Talks for the sake of talks, as colonies expand. The fact that the Arab League’s peace initiative has been largely ignored suggests a country that has deliberately chosen the path of confrontation. Peace is too difficult, too cumbersome, too problematic and too painful.  A fortified ghetto appears to be Israel’s future. History has a cruel way of repeating itself.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of the incendiary book The Israel Lobby, recently asked leading American Jewish blogger Phil Weiss that, despite polls consistently finding US citizens overwhelmingly supportive of the Jewish state, “do most Americans favour the ‘special relationship,’ where we unconditionally give Israel abundant material aid and firm diplomatic backing?” Furthermore, both men argue, most Americans “do not believe that the US should favour Israel over the Palestinians, even if they identify more with Israel than the Palestinians.”

Any resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict will only appear with major external pressure. It is difficult to see this happening any time soon.

11 comments ↪
  • You wrote: "It was a sorry sight to watch prominent Jews argue that the Jewish state should not apply the Geneva Convention in occupied territory. Israel’s “security” needs, so we were told, allowed Israel to behave as a rogue state."

    Besides the legal aspects of what is a High Contracting Party, whether there ever was a state of palestine and other aspects of international law, the fact is that in practice all the humanitarian elements of that Convention are applied by Israel. Arabs resident in Judea and samaria regulalry have recourse to Israel's High Court of Justice, which in many cases has adjudicated in their favor.

    As for your use of the term "colonies", and in doing so to link in a political sense that enterprise to the pejorative "colonialism" rage, actually, Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate makes it quite clear that Jews, in addition to possessing the right to recontitute their National Home in the areas of Judea and Samaria, that they were to be afforded, as a "right", that "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

    You will note: the term Arabs doesn't appear in any document of the time regarding Palestine as the intended Jewish Natioanl Home. There was to be a Jewish polity which would contain minorities of all sorts of nationalities, ethnicity and religion. That an "Arab state" was to be establsihed only officially appeared in the 1939 British White paper which, legally, contradicted the League of Nations decision and itself was illegal.

  • Fema Mame

    Mr Yisrael Medad incorrectly claims that "all the humanitarian elements of that Convention" (the fourth geneva convention) are applied by Israel.

    The origin of this claim started with the Attorney General Meir Shamgar who constructed the legal argument. But Shamgar always fell short of stating which ones of the provisions are "humanitarian" and of course Israel finds itself at odds wit the Red Corss (the guardian of the Fourth Geneva Conventions) which regards all of the items as humanitarian.

    Shamgar also made two legal "innovations" although he allowed the Palestinians to appeal to the Supreme Court, it neglected their status as citizens. So they would get the (selective) benefits of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, but would not get the rights of citizens, which made it easy to grab vast swabs of land from them.

    The facts on the ground are clearly different than the actual Geneva convention text:
    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

    Pretty much every guarantee from Article 3 has been violated by Israel during its occupation of the West Bank.

    The fact that Palestinians can appeal to the Supreme Court has given people the illusion that "the Palestinian rights have been safeguarded and that the occupation was legal".

    This particular myth is discussed in detail in Jonathan Cooks' "Disappearing Palestine" book and contains both references to the policy making and the Knesset resolutions from 1967.

  • Totally agree with your assessment. Keep up the good work, antony.

  • frank

    Mr reactionary writes/preaches/proclaims etc "uncritical support of the Jewish state."

    This noise only reveals the barking of a dog. This tripe blog as a rule give "uncritical support of the so called Palestinian cause". Reading this unJews' opinions a person might think that Arabs never even fart.

  • Richard

    Hello Frankie..
    Please point to ONE (1) incorrect statement (tripe??) that we can all share.. Go on, don't be selfish.
    Problem is, as real history shows, the might and the fault always has been/is pretty much all on one side..
    That is why the situation is as it is now..

  • Pingback: Bringing the tribe back from moral decay | Antony Loewenstein()

  • frank

    Hello Richie..

    These are the outlines of this Harvard U. Kennedy School of Government:

    "A critical examination of the Israel/Palestine conflict from an Australian perspective. How is the conflict reported in Australia? What is the position of successive Australian governments and why? What is the role of the Jewish and Arab communities in the debate? Loewenstein will also discuss the current direction of the conflict itself, not least the growth of a fundamentalist Jewish minority who threaten peace far more than Palestinian militants. What does this mean for the future direction of the Jewish state? With the declining power of the US in world affairs, where does this leave Israel and its supporters?"

    Let's analyze it line by line: "How is the conflict reported in Australia?"

    The Austrian Prmime Minister and the majority of the government praised Israel. Antony brings a minority opinion of 1. This peddler of trief tripe writes: "but one Labor backbencher dissented. Julia Irwin could not “congratulate a nation which commits human rights abuses each day and shows blatant disregard for the UN.”

    "What is the role of the Jewish and Arab communities in the debate?"

    Diplomatic dialogue between the participants to the dispute Jews and Arabs. We Jews call the lands captured following the 6 Day War as "Administered Territories" the Arabs call them "occupied territory." Antony calls too emphatically declares them "occupied territory." This is trief tripe. 2 Jewish Kingdoms historically ruled over these disputed lands. Never once in all recored history has a Palestinian people ever ruled these lands. The Arab armies that conquored these lands from both the Romans and Christians were not Palestinians. This Arab successful invasion occured around 700 CE. An Arab empire who's capital was in present day Iraq ruled these lands. Later non Arab Turks conquored these lands and established the Ottoman empire in 1400s. The Sultan was not a Palestinian, there did not exist a people called "Palestinians" during the entire Ottoman reign over the Middle East! Antony's Arabist declarations as if they were undoubtably true, that's really trief tribe!

    Richie its obvious to me that either you don't know how to read beyond what you see in newspapers and reactionary blogs like this. Please stop pretending that your knowledable on this subject because every word you write only convicts you for being an utter fool.

  • A good, angry article, Antony, and it should provoke some good, angry responses. One thing puzzles me, though. You write of a "group of influential left-oriented Jews" you met in Melbourne last year for the purpose of discussing your ideas. Was the Australian Jewish Democratic Society among them? Or Meretz Australia? Or was it just individuals like myself? A little more precision on your part would help dispel the "loose cannon" reputation you seem to be developing. Loose cannons, as we all know, sometimes hit the target, but sometimes they don't.

  • Austin

    Fantastic.

  • Pingback: Vindskupan » Obamas kvarlämnade armé()

  • Noru Tsalic

    I stumbled across this collection of rubbish. What a selective and misleading presentation of half-truths!

    "A report released in July by a group partly funded by the European Union found that Jews live longer and enjoy lower infant mortality and poverty rates in Israel than Arab citizens." Wow! And what were the life expectancy, infant mortality and poverty rates of Arabs 60 years ago? What were they 20 years ago? I can also tell you that the life expectancy, infant mortality and poverty rates of Arab citizens in Israel compare favourably – ney, VERY favourably with those prevailing in the neighbouring Arab countries. Check for yourselves. And by the way, a bit of personal experience, of which of course Mr. Loewenstein has not an ounce: in Israeli hospitals, Jewish and Arab Israelis share exactly the same facilities and the same rooms and are treated by the same doctors and nurses, many of whom are Arab themselves.

    As an ex-IDF soldier who served for 20 years, including in the West Bank in the midst of intifada, I hereby solemnly swear:

    I have never been given an order to shoot an unarmed civilian. I have never heard such an order being given to somebody else. Quite the opposite: the orders we received ALWAYS stressed that civilians must NOT be harmed.

    Throughout my military activity, I have never targeted an unarmed civilian. I have never seen any IDF soldier who did.

    Relationships with the civilian population in the West Bank were often (though not always) tense, full of mutual mistrust. Neither myself nor any of the IDF soldiers I saw have ever purposefully mistreated or unnecessarily humiliated Palestinians. Sure, we were soldiers and not social workers. Often, we were concerned with our own security, with the job we have been given and with maintaining our authority in front of people who were constantly testing us and pushing against the limits. But I am proud to say that we have always kept our humanity. Confronted with the need to check that Palestinian civilians did not carry weapons or bombs past check posts IDF brought female soldiers to check Palestinian women. Yes, to spare these civilian women the embarrassment of a male soldier moving an electronic wand along their bodies, we have placed our own 19-year-old female comrades in the harm's way. Does Mr. Lowenstein know this? Would he even care if he did?