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.

Kashmir writer’s festival over before it began

As someone who believes in the responsibility of artists and intellectuals to take a stand against tyranny, this news is positive:

Indian-administered Kashmir’s first major literature festival has been cancelled after local writers and artists said it would give the false impression that basic freedoms are allowed in the troubled region.

The Harud literary festival was scheduled for 24-26 September in Srinagar, Kashmir’s largest city and the main hub of opposition to Indian rule.

Festival organisers said the event would be apolitical and showcase “India’s multicultural ethos”. But local writers argued that years of intimidation have made residents unable to speak their minds.

The cancellation late on Monday came as the region enjoys an unexpectedly peaceful summer after three years of violent anti-Indian protests and crackdowns.

The Kashmiri writers Basharat Peer and Mirza Waheed, who have written books set in post-1989 Kashmir, when an armed rebellion and military crackdown began, were the first to refuse to participate.

no comments – be the first ↪

Book reviews can save lives

A fascinating piece of history written by Australian academic Scott Burchill:

In August 2004 I was asked by The Age to review [Australian journalist] John Martinkus’ new book ‘Travels in American Iraq‘ (Black Inc, 2004). It was a very good account of life after the invasion and Martinkus was clearly more sympathetic to the occupied than he was to the occupier. My review was published on 28 August, 2004 and headlined ‘Occupied Iraq – a first hand territory’.

I was told by a colleague of mine who knew him (I had not met or ever spoken to Martinkus at the time) that when the insurgents who took John Martinkus hostage Googled his name to verify both his identity and his political allegiance (if any), my review in The Age came up as the top “hit” against his name. I presume that’s because Google’s algorithm locked onto what was probably the most recent online publication of his name. After allegedly reviewing the internet, Martinkus was released unharmed.

I was always a bit skeptical about all this, so when his article came out last week, I asked Martinkus if the anecdote had any veracity. Here’s his reply:

“That is a true story about them reading that review. I know that because they asked me about it in the long discussions we had which were for me very nerve wracking because I was trying to not say anything that would get them angry or think I was lying.”

Such is the role that luck can play in life. Book reviews can save lives!

2 comments ↪

When you say “liberating” Afghanistan, you mean privatising the lot?

The future of warfare, led by America and the West, is fueled by unaccountable corporations:

At least one in every six dollars of U.S. spending for contracts and grants in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, or more than $30 billion, has been wasted. And at least that much could again turn into waste if the host governments are unable or unwilling to sustain U.S.-funded projects after our involvement ends.

Those sobering but conservative numbers are a key finding of the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will submit its report to Congress on Wednesday. All eight commissioners agree that major changes in law and policy are needed to avoid confusion and waste in the next contingency, whether it involves armed struggle overseas or response to disasters at home.

Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted through poor planning, vague and shifting requirements, inadequate competition, substandard contract management and oversight, lax accountability, weak interagency coordination, and subpar performance or outright misconduct by some contractors and federal employees. Both government and contractors need to do better.

Our final report shows that the costs of contracting waste and fraud extend beyond the disservice to taxpayers. The costs include damage to the support for U.S. military, diplomatic and development efforts; fostering corruption in host countries; and undermining U.S. standing and influence overseas.

The contractor workforce in Iraq and Afghanistan has at times exceeded 260,000 people and has sometimes outnumbered U.S. military forces in theater. The roughly 1-to-1 ratio sustained over the years reflects a basic operating truth that Defense Department officials expressed in testimony to the commission: The United States cannot conduct large or prolonged military operations without contractor support.

Of course, the corrupt Afghan government, our little baby, just wants more money to waste:

Afghanistan has only received $57 billion out of $69 billion committed by the International Community to the country, Afghan finance minister said on Saturday.

Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal told a news conference that only 18 percent of the whole $57 billion that has been flowed into Afghanistan as part of international community’s grant to the country has been spent through the government budget.

And the remaining 82 percent of the funding aid has been spent by the international community itself, he added.

no comments – be the first ↪

Hello, my name is the IDF and I love to protect interlopers

In case you need any reminding that the role of the IDF is to protect the colonists illegally living on Palestinian land:

The IDF has conducted detailed work to determine a “red line” for each settlement in the West Bank, which will determine when soldiers will be ordered to shoot at the feet of Palestinian protesters if the line is crossed. It is also planning to provide settlers with tear gas and stun grenades as part of the defense operation.

The IDF is currently in the process of finalizing its preparations for Operation Summer Seeds, whose purpose is to ready the army for September and the possibility of confrontations with Palestinians following the expected vote in favor of Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly.

no comments – be the first ↪

Who would like to provide PR for a brutal, US-backed dictatorship?

PR Watch has the news:

Bahrian’s Sunni-led monarchy has hired the Washington, D.C. PR firm Qorvis Communications at a rate of $40,000/month to help improve its image after the Bahraini government, struggling to suppress a Shia-led protest movement, attacked the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders (DWB). The group offers medical care to injured protesters who are too afraid to go to Bahrian’s government-run hospitals out of fear that they will be arrested or detained. A severely injured protester sought help at the Doctors Without Borders office in Bahrain’s capitol city of Manama. Due to the severity of his injuries, the DWB called an ambulance and the protester was taken to the hospital. Afterwards, government authorities raided DWB’s office, seized their medicines, furniture and patient files and arrested their local driver. After the attack, the government hired Quorvis Communications to try to salvage its image. Qorvis issued a statement to American journalists which said that Doctors Without Borders “was operating an unlicensed medical center in a residential apartment building.” Huffington Post reported earlier this year that a number of Quorvis executives had left the firm because, as one of them put it, “I just have trouble working with despotic dictators killing their own people.” Qorvis had previously worked for Bahrain before through another firm, and has also done work for the Saudi monarchy.

no comments – be the first ↪

Sydney radio on BDS, Palestine and slamming faux anti-Semitism claims

I was interviewed this week by 2SER’s The Wire on why boycotting Israel is a legitimate tactic in the face of Zionist occupation and calling these actions anti-Semitic, as many in the political and media elites do, simply demeans the word’s real meaning.

no comments – be the first ↪

From Wikileaks to the world

A glorious tweet:

Dear governments, if you don’t want your filth exposed, then stop acting like pigs. Simple.

no comments – be the first ↪

This is Australia’s past and future?

My following book review appeared in last Sunday’s Sydney Sun Herald newspaper:

The Protectors
Stephen Gray
(Allen & Unwin, $29.99)

“Mainstream Australia is equivocal about the apology [to the stolen generations] at best.” It’s a provocative start to a work that aims to understand the motives of the farmers, politicians and public figures who took Aboriginal children away from their parents. What did former prime minister Kevin Rudd apologise for and did ordinary Australians accept his reasons? This makes for uncomfortable reading and wonders if the once ubiquitous eugenics view towards indigenous people has gone away. Gray argues that many in white Australia still resent Aborigines being alive at all.

no comments – be the first ↪

Climate change linked to rising violence and private firms will benefit

People will be insecure and demand “security”. Private firms will provide this, for the rich, of course. Climate change will barely be addressed, wild weather will only worsen but gated communities will become far more common in the Western world.

Democracy Now reports:

A new study has found that war is associated with global climate. According to the report, there are links between the climate phenomenon El Niño and outbreaks of violence in countries from southern Sudan to Indonesia and Peru. In fact, the scientists find that El Niño, which brings hot and dry conditions to tropical nations, doubles the risk of civil war in up to 90 countries. The study was published online last week in the journal Nature. El Niño may help account for a fifth of conflicts worldwide during the past 50 years.

no comments – be the first ↪

At what point will the Murdoch press realise they are cheapening real anti-Semitism?

Probably never. Their Zionist love knows no bounds.

See today’s outrageous letter, once again complaining that BDS is akin to Nazi Germany. They cheapen the memory of the Holocaust by printing such garbage:

If Bob Brown can’t control Lee Rhiannon (“Senator stands by Israel boycott“, 29/8) it’s up to somebody with a bit more clout to bring her into line. The nonsense that she spouts about Palestinian human rights is just a cover-up for her anti-Semitic agenda.

Anybody who has ever read a book about Germany in the 1930s, or lived during those times, as I did, will recognise the pattern.

David J. Syme, Mollymook, NSW

one comment ↪

Remind me how we’re writing the recent history of NATO bombing in Libya?

Charles Glass in the London Review of Books:

The Libyans are lucky that Muammar Gaddafi did not hold out longer. If he had, there might not be much of the country left. Nato long since ran out of military targets, and it had to hit something to get the ragtag rebels into the royal palace before they ended up shooting one another. ‘At present Nato is not attacking infrastructure targets in Libya,’ General Sir David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph in May. ‘But if we want to increase the pressure on Gaddafi’s regime then we need to give serious consideration to increasing the range of targets we can hit.’ (UN Security Resolution 1973 grants no authority to increase the range of targets, its stated intent being to protect Libyan civilians from an onslaught on Benghazi.) The running total for Nato air strikes is 7459. At about 2000 bombing runs a month, another six months would have added 12,000 sorties. As bad as Libya looked when the rebels at last forced the gates of Tripoli, it would have looked a lot worse by next February. Diminishing military targets had to be replaced by something.

In Vietnam, the Americans called the enemy’s non-military assets ‘Viet Cong infrastructure’. In Afghanistan, they are ‘terrorist infrastructure’. In Vietnam, it could mean a village that fed insurgents. In Iraq, which the US and Britain bombed from 1991 until their invasion of 2003, it meant the electricity system, water supply, sewage treatment, television transmitters, bridges, oil storage facilities, highways and houses. By the time Coalition troops rode into Baghdad, there was not much of modern life left. Libya has been spared that fate, apart from Nato’s blasting parts of its electricity grid.

The other aspect of previous military humanism that Libya has avoided, so far, is the arrival of a Jerry Bremer to take the country back to Year Zero. Nato for the most part limited its presence to the airspace above Libya, facilitating and directing rebel gains. On the ground there were British and French trainers and advisers, the least covert of history’s covert operations. One of them will some day write his Andy McNab tale about leading reluctant teenagers into Bab al-Aziziah, after which the British and French governments will go on pretending the rebels were running their own war all along.

2 comments ↪

On BDS, criminalising pro-Palestinian activism and myopic politics

The following interviews are published this week in Green Left Weekly.

One:

Antony Loewenstein is an independent journalist and author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution. Green Left Weekly’s Simon Butler asked Loewenstein about recent attempts to intimidate supporters of the boycott, sanctions and divestment (BDS) campaign against Israel.

* * *

Nineteen activists in Melbourne were arrested at a BDS protest in July outside a Max Brenner store and four of those 19 were later arrested again in dawn raids. Are there any comparable cases in other countries where there have been arrests of BDS activists, or is this particular to Australia?

This is pretty rare. I wouldn’t be confident to say there have been no other arrests of BDS supporters anywhere in the world. But what I can say is that many of the BDS leaders and activists in Palestine itself are pretty shocked.

They have released statements about the behaviour of the Victorian government and, indeed, many Australian political leaders and trade union leaders, such as [the Australian Workers’ Union’s (AWU)] Paul Howes, on this issue.

One of the things I find most disturbing is that these heavy-handed tactics by the police essentially tries to put very clear boundaries around acceptable debate on this question. Only certain frames of questioning are acceptable. Only certain arguments are okay.

One of the things that is very worrying is that Israel’s behaviour itself is becoming even more egregious, more brutal and more criminal — through the occupation and through legislation that makes supporting BDS illegal.

I have Israeli Jewish colleagues that have to now watch their language. They have to be careful what they write, what they tweet and what they say because there is now the serious possibility of being prosecuted by groups that claim a good friend’s tweet is affecting Israeli businesses in the West Bank.

The law says clearly that for the Knesset (Israeli parliament) in 2011, there is no difference between the occupied territories and Israel proper — they are one and the same thing.

So as all this is happening in Israel and Palestine, you have this situation in Australia where we are constantly being told that Israel is a robust democracy and there is a peace process and what the BDS protesters are doing here is reminiscent of 1930s Germany, where, of course, Jewish people — including some of my own family — were targetted and firebombed.

I find this — and I say this as someone who is Jewish — unbelievably disgraceful and offensive that the public is being sold this line by people like Paul Howes, Warren Mundine and Jana Wendt, and the Labor and Liberal parties.

In fact, there is really nobody who is a public figure in this country that is coming out and saying that if you choose to claim that what is happening in Sydney or Melbourne with protests outside a chocolate shop is reminiscent of Nazi crimes in Europe in the 1930s you are cheapening anti-semitism to the point of irrelevance.

In Nazi Germany there was real anti-semitism and that’s undeniable. Here, it’s the opposite.

And secondly, it is very disturbing for me how the mainstream Jewish establishment is more than happy to not just support that line, but to in fact encourage it by saying it themselves, with consultation with the Israeli government, which has been acknowledged in the Israeli press.

So there is an attempt to criminalise debate and set boundaries around that debate. And I think it should be fought in the strongest possible way.

One of the criticisms made against the BDS protests is about Max Brenner. Critics say why pick on Max Brenner, it’s just a chocolate shop and has nothing to do with apartheid. So is Max Brenner a legitimate target for the BDS campaign?

Absolutely, yes. It’s a very legitimate target.

I don’t think Max Brenner is the only legitimate target in the country. But it is very clear — it has been very widely documented — that Max Brenner publicly and privately fully supports elements in the Israeli Defence Force, some of which have been accused of very serious war crimes in the West Bank and Gaza, including during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/09.

It seems very legitimate to say that as consumers in a democratic society, we have a choice on how we spend our money, and ask do we want to spend money in a shop that actively supports elements of a criminal army of a strong ally of Australia? My view is that we should certainly say that.

Of course, there are other examples: cosmetic products by Ahava among others. And there have been protests against them in Australia, in London and in other places around the world.

In April, there was an Ahava shop in London that was shut down because of intense public pressure and protest.

Now the argument against that campaign in London was similar to what you see here: Max Brenner has a right to operate, Max Brenner has a legitimate business, it hasn’t committed any crimes here in Australia and so why do activists have the right to protest a shop that is simply doing its business?

I can’t speak for the activists who were protesting, but my view is that as we saw on numerous occasions during apartheid South Africa, where companies complicit in that occupation (which is what it really was in many ways) were targeted, certain companies complicit in Israel’s occupation are legitimate targets [for BDS].

I completely oppose any use of violence against any shops, but a civil, non-violent protest against a company that proudly supports an army with serious human rights and war crime allegations against them make it an unbelievably legitimate target.

The attempt to try to make Max Brenner the victim here, which is what many are trying to do, is a dishonest attempt to ignore the direct complicity of this company.

There is an attempt here to say that, somehow, activists are behaving badly by not regularly speaking in the terms accepted and dictated by the Zionist lobby or the Labor party or parts of the union movement, such as the AWU, and we should reject that completely.

An example: there has been consistent pressure from the AWU, elements of the Labor party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), to censor, challenge or at least stop the [ACTU’s humanitarian aid agency] APHEDA from being “pro-Palestinian”.

It fits into the same mould as what is happening here against BDS. It’s almost as though they are saying: “We, the powers that be, have decided how this debate works and you guys in APHEDA or BDS activists in Melbourne or Sydney, how dare you claim to have a different narrative.”

And that’s a move based on fear, not strength. Fear that if anyone spent anytime looking at the poll numbers of how people in virtually every Western country viewed Israel’s policies towards Palestine, the numbers are pretty dismal for Israel.

There needs, therefore, to be civil disobedience — which is what BDS clearly is — to highlight that point, over and over again.

Max Brenner should not be the only company targeted, not at all. But it is a legitimate target.

Victorian government minister Michael O’Brien has called for the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission to investigate five groups, including Green Left Weekly, alleging these groups are anti-Semitic and have broken industrial laws banning secondary boycotts. Coalition senator Ron Boswell has since repeated the allegation in parliament. How do you interpret the move to pursue these groups, most of which were not part of the recent Max Brenner protests?

I think it is clearly a heating-up of pressure. It’s an attempt to bully organisations such as Green Left Weekly, Australians for Palestine and others. Many, as you rightly say, had nothing to do with the Max Brenner protests.

Australians for Palestine support BDS, but they weren’t at the protest. They weren’t there: it’s really quite simple.

The idea is that if you target certain activist groups or certain left-wing unions or whatever, other people will see it and they will pull their heads in.

My hope is that it will have the opposite effect. The reality is that the Victorian government and elements of the political establishment are debasing the concept of anti-Semitism in an attempt to silence political discussion they don’t like or find challenging.

The comments from the Victorian government make it very clear: the real issue here is that they are trying to stop, in their view, living neo-Nazis running around Melbourne. That is essentially what they are saying.

And apart from the fact that its incredibly defamatory, I think there is a real question to be asked of elements of the political mainstream — Labor and Liberal, and for that matter the Jewish community — for allowing, encouraging and supporting individuals in government positions to cheapen the memory of the Holocaust.

I agree that we should never forget the Holocaust. But you don’t remember the Holocaust and the callous killing of Jews and gays and so many others in that horrible event by claiming that any legitimate discussion against Israeli crimes is tantamount to Nazi Germany.

It really does concern me that there has been absolute silence on this question. It ties in with how the Zionist lobby releases, as it does every year, reports of when anti-Semitic attacks or comments are made in Australia.

Some of [the cases reported] are undoubtedly anti-Semitic, such as someone daubing a synagogue. But so much of what is claimed to be anti-Semitism — and you see this in the US and Britain as well — is blatantly the opposite. It’s an attempt to frame criticism of Israel as illegitimate political speech to the point where, in some countries, there is a desire to criminalise it.

Two:

Israel has been rocked by weeks of ongoing protests against high house prices and the cost of living. To avoid being painted as “extremists”, the organisers have avoided the obvious ― the cost of the occupation of Palestinian territory and protecting the illegal Jewish settlers has directly contributed to the Israeli state’s neoliberal austerity policies.

The August 18 attack in southern Israel, in which eight Israelis died and no one has claimed responsibility for, provided the Israeli state with a golden opportunity for a fresh war drive to undermine the protests. In the aftermath of the attack, Israeli bombings in Gaza killed at least 22 people ― including children ― by August 26, Xinhuanet.com said.

At least three Egyptian border guards on Egypt’s border with Gaza were also killed by Israeli fire on August 18 ― sparking huge protests outside Israel’s embassy in Cairo.

A protester, Ahmed al-Shehat, became a hero across the world when on August 21 he climbed to the top of the 22-floor building housing the embassy and ― to the cheers of the crowd, took down the Israeli flag and replace it with an Egyptian one.

Protesters burned the Israeli flag.

Independent journalist and author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution, Antony Loewenstein, spoke to Green Left Weekly‘s Simon Butler

* * *

Israeli warplanes have bombarded Gaza for days straight, which Israel’s government says is in retaliation for an attack on August 18. The Israeli government has also been under increasing domestic pressure from a large movement for housing rights. Do you think this domestic situation influenced Israel’s decision to bomb the Gazan population?

Quite possibly ― this has been said quite clearly by Jewish columnists in Haaretz. I don’t think it’s really a secret.

[Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu was looking for a gift, and a terrorist act or act of aggression against the Israeli Defence Force or Israeli civilians is a glorious gift for the Israeli government.

All the discussion that has been going on in Israel about housing rights and all these other issues, which are legitimate questions, have been totally replaced by armchair generals and real generals and politicians saying, basically, that we need to bomb Gaza back into the stone age.

We realise how totally deformed the Israeli political debate is when Kadima, the main opposition party headed by Tzipi Livni (which is supposedly the mainstream quasi-centre-left) is saying we encourage the government to bomb Gaza and root these terrorists out.

So there really is no mainstream political party in Israel that is against the occupation.

A future potential Israeli Labor Party prime minister gave an interview to Haaretz recently and also said: “I support the occupation.”

This is Labor, which liberal Zionists claim is the great hope of Israel’s political system.

One of the things that really clarifies things, and you can feel this fear in Israel, is that the relationship between Israel and Egypt is changing.

The so-called peace deal that has existed for 30 years between Israel and [former Egyptian dictator] Hosni Mubarak didn’t really help the average Egyptian at all.

I’m not at all encouraging for a second the notion that there should be a beginning of war, but what I’m saying is that there is a profound hatred within Egypt itself towards that peace treaty.

This is because it hasn’t helped the Palestinians at all. It essentially allowed Gaza to be sealed in a ghetto for the past five years, supported by Israel and Egypt.

This recent attack on Gaza puts that question back to the forefront, to the point where many of the more sensible voices in the Israeli press are saying: “We need to recognise the Middle East is changing.”

They are saying it’s changing and it’s changed, that they cannot simply rely anymore on dictatorships that do their bidding.

That’s the way Israel has survived until now. And as I’ve been saying for the past nine months since the uprising in Tunisia, the only way Israel can survive as an occupying state ― which is essentially what it proudly wants to be ― is with dictatorships nearby supporting it.

That’s the only way.

In Egypt, which is still run by a dictatorship, there nonetheless are cracks and questions appearing. There was a guy a few days ago in Cairo ― now dubbed the “Flagman” ― protesting outside the Israeli embassy.

He scaled the embassy, with a huge crowd below, and replaced the Israeli flag with the Egyptian flag. It was very symbolic and has caused a lot of Twitter conversation and press in the Arab world.

Something is changing and Israel has always known to never miss a good opportunity to distract the world from what they are actually doing by talking about terrorism ― and therefore either bombing Gaza or running new operations in the West Bank.

On August 21, as an example, there were the greatest number of Palestinian civilians arrested in Hebron in the West Bank since 2004.

This sort of thing is happening at a time when the world is looking away.

Although the recent huge protests in Israel give an indication that many people are dissatisfied with the status quo, one of the things that is not being talked about is the elephant in the room: the occupation.

You can’t win social justice in Israel unless you address the fact that there are billions spent every year on the occupation. You just can’t.

The organisers [of the housing movement] argue that as soon as we mention Arabs or the occupation, we are going to divide the crowd.

Well, I think that is very tragic if that is the case.

They make legitimate points about the need for cheaper housing ― Israel has implemented neoliberal policies for the past 30 years ― but ignore the fact that there are Arabs who aren’t worrying about housing rights, they’re worrying about have they got a home.

I think again that this comes back to the profound disconnect that happens when you have the debate about the boycott, divestments and sanctions (BDS) campaign here in Australia.

I think there is a danger that major politicians and unions are trying to put pressure on the one major NGO ― APHEDA ― that is trying to actually send people over to Palestine to see what is happening in our name.

And they are trying to shut that down, because most people who go over there on trips funded by the Israel lobby come back with only one message.

So they don’t want a situation where union leaders are coming back and saying: “You know what, I support BDS. You know what, our policy here is insane.”

And that is what has been happening, and makes it a threat that has to be shut down.

one comment ↪