<< FAST FISK FORMULA ~ MAIN ~ I CONDEMN THE CONDEMNERS >>
BOOK, AUTHOR “QUITE SIMPLE”
Smouldering teen idol Antony Loewenstein’s anti-Israel book is shortly due for release following months of delay while his editors translated it into English. To mark the occasion, Wednesday’s Lateline delivered a feast of Antony:
LOEWENSTEIN: If you’re Jewish and you criticise Israel, or criticise even a policy of the Israeli Government, you’re a self-hating Jew or anti-Semitic or you’re unpatriotic or treasonous. I’ve been accused of all those and far worse. If you’re non-Jewish, you’re anti-Semite or anti-Israel hater.
For someone who argues that “Holocaust guilt can no longer excuse, justify and fund a supposed democracy”, Loewenstein is surprisingly eager to play the victim himself. Also, whenever cornered (which is often), Loewenstein is prone to employ the same tactic he detects in his opponents: if you criticise Loewenstein or Islamic extremism, you’re racist! Prior to a debate between Loewenstein and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council’s Ted Lapkin, Lateline ran this inexplicable line from the University of Chicago’s Professor John Mearsheimer:
MEARSHEIMER: I think it’s absolutely disgraceful that people are talking about the possibility of banning this book.
But nobody is. From where Mearsheimer got this idea is anybody’s guess. On to the debate:
LOEWENSTEIN: Israel has the right to self-defence. No one is questioning that. I’ve never questioned that and that’s a statement of fact.
Loewenstein has questioned Israel’s use of mere sound bombs, let alone anything more powerful. His support for Israel’s right to self-defence is, well, a little weak:
Stereotyping Palestinians or Arabs is alright, even encouraged, because, well, they’re all terrorists and hate ‘us’ for our freedoms.
The West, on the other, cuddly West, and Israel, are blameless, because they’re fighting a terrible, evil menace. Out, out, damn menace.
How comforting. How typical. How hilarious. How sick.
How ... busted. Back to the debate:
LOEWENSTEIN: To suggest that I’m pro-Hezbollah because I question civilians being murdered is the kind of rhetoric that we expect from the pro-Israeli lobby. “You are either with us or against us.” The Lapkins and their cronies, their world view very much is the George Bush view of the world - you are either with us and “us” being this sort of emorphis definition of the West, which is we invade, we occupy, we continually bombard or them which supposedly is terrorists. I mean, in the latest edition of Quadrant magazine, Mr Lapkin accuses me essentially of being no better than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Now, that kind of rhetoric, that kind of extremism, which AIJAC unfortunately is very much a part of, means any kind of debate is next to impossible. But, more importantly, it leaves the sense of people who actually understand what that kind of language is about, that to suggest that an individual who questions Western policies, US policies, Israeli policies, is no better than a Hamas militant or a Hezbollah militant is ridiculous.
Smooth talker, ain’t he? Loewenstein—who was saddened by reaction to al-Zarqawi’s death—had this to say in October 2005:
The defeat of America and its allies in Iraq is vital ...
Which would put him on whose side, do you think? In case there’s any doubt:
Working towards, and advocating, “Coalition” defeat has been achieved.
That was written following Loewenstein’s attendance at a Cindy Sheehan rally. To advocate Coalition defeat is to advocate the death of her son. The following Lateline exchange is remarkable:
LAPKIN: Well, I think that it is a far-left anti-Zionist book. It’s rife with factual errors, beginning with the map that appears on page nine of the preface even before you get into the meat of the book. If you look at that map, Antony Loewenstein has Lebanon placed midway between Tel Aviv and Haifa, so he suffers from some geographical confusion. But even worse are the factual errors and the factual confusion that really renders the book a piece of very shoddy scholarship at best.
LOEWENSTEIN: It is interesting how I was expecting this kind of response. This is exactly the kind of response that Mearsheimer and Walt got in the US. They were accused of being extreme. They were accused of making factual errors. They were accused of being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic. This is the kind of tactics that we expect.
Why might people accuse Loewenstein of being “anti-Zionist”? Possibly because of comments like this:
As an anti-Zionist Australian Jew ...
And why might anybody accuse Loewenstein of being anti-Semitic? Oh, I don’t know; maybe because of his slur against Jewish comedian Austen Tayshus:
Jews are often their own worst enemies. It also might help if Tayshus didn’t look so much like those awful caricatures we know from the 1930s!
Possibly people misunderstood this nuanced view:
... reception to such ideas within the Jewish community is usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic. Australian Jews, generally speaking, are incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions.
Hear that reality, Jews! Loewenstein’s review of Spielberg’s Munich may not have helped:
Many prominent Jewish groups and Zionists have condemned the work, clearly a sign that Spielberg has created something worthwhile.
If Jews don’t like it, it must be good! Beats me how readers might conclude that Loewenstein is anti-Israel, merely because he describes himself as:
... a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state.
Host Tony Jones asked Loewenstein about this during the debate:
JONES: Now, you don’t state it outright, but are you actually questioning or attempting to question the legitimacy of the state of Israel?
Considering he “doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state”, Loewenstein’s reply is puzzling:
LOEWENSTEIN: What I’m questioning in my book is quite simple. I’m simply saying when Israel was formed after the war, which was a lot to do with European Holocaust guilt, was talking about that it was formed on the back of another people. In other words, Jews had history on that land. No one is questioning that and I haven’t questioned that in my Israel question. What I have questioned, however, is the way in which Israel was essentially formed on the back of another people.
While you’re trying to work that out, be thankful that at least he’s quit attacking Episcopalians.
UPDATE. J.F. Beck:
Journalist and author Antony Loewenstein’s latest post is titled “They hate us”. The post links to, and has excerpts from, the Guardian and Common Dreams. The thing is, neither linked article discusses the hate “they” have for “us”. Angry Ant slipped up here; he meant to write “I hate us”.
Loewenstein slipped up? Say it ain’t so, Loe! Visit Becky for the links.
Lowenstein is not the only self-hating Jew reporting from traitorous rags posing as newspapers.Here’s Richard Cohen in the Washinton Post:
“Hunker Down With History”
By Richard Cohen Tuesday, July 18, 2006; Page A19
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism… “
Cohen later on in the article has some leftist advice for those who would condemn Hamas and Hizbollah since there’s no point to it ‘cause they wont listen. But there is a point to putting pressure on Israel , so lets do it! As he says:
“There is no point in condemning Hezbollah. Zealots are not amenable to reason. And there’s not much point, either, in condemning Hamas. It is a fetid, anti-Semitic outfit whose organizing principle is hatred of Israel. There is, though, a point in cautioning Israel to exercise restraint—not for the sake of its enemies but for itself. Whatever happens, Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose: the buffer zone in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip itself”
The USA left lies when it says it supports r coalition troops in Iraq and supports Israel. “Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose: the buffer zone in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip itself”. Maybe Cohen doesn’t understand that if Israel had not chosen to “lose” that territory, she might be better off today. Moreover, Israel didn’t “lose” the territories, (Cohen parrots the Hamas line that Israel lost the territories), rather, Israel gave them up to further peace. These pinheads cannot recognize facts, and they call themselves reporters.I’m simply saying when Israel was formed after the war, which was a lot to do with European Holocaust guilt, was talking about that it was formed on the back of another people. In other words, Jews had history on that land.
Paco think Ant just called Israel pimple on Palestine. Paco think Ant maybe better off remove zit from own face before squeezing blackhead on face of other fellow. Ant plenty mad people call him names; but Ant call himself same names. Paco ask, why make Jews go, why give land back to Palestinians? Look plenty far back, other peoples there before Palestinians; why not give land back to Greeks? Maybe, ‘longside English, Ant no savvy thing called “history”.
Don’t forget - the guy censors dissent! Try get something on his site, even polite, that he doesn’t agree with, and it goes in the bin.
The reward of this is watching history unfold whilst taking no notice of the likes of him. He is irrelevant. It must bug the life out of lightweight dingbat.
Posted by Effing & Blinding on 2006 07 20 at 03:59 PM • permalinkSounds like Ant is quite “partial” on matters middle east. He’d better watch out if he ever gets interviewed by George Negus.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 20 at 04:33 PM • permalinkPilger’s rave about book classic saying nothing but sound good:
‘I can think of few books about Israel and Palestine, written by an Australian, as important as Antony Loewenstein’s brave j’accuse. In challenging the propagandists to give up their addiction, he is a truth-teller bar none.’—John Pilger
So how many books about Israel and Palestine written by an Aussie are there?
a truth-teller bar none?
Can any of these guys speak english?Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 20 at 05:30 PM • permalinkAnt expecting to be accused of shoddy scholarship and basic geographical errors begs the question: Was he expecting the criticisms because he knew his work was crap?
As for it being translated into English, I think we might have to wait a bit longer than 2007 if that’s his standard.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 07 20 at 05:32 PM • permalinkJust listening to channel nine morning news . . . the government is locating Australian citizens in Lebanon through Centrelink.
It’s almost enough to make one suspect that Australian citizens in Lebanon have a higher proportion of social welfare recipients than the broader Australian population.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 07 20 at 05:34 PM • permalinkTruth teller bar none?
Didn’t he say only Jews were allowed to drive along a particular road? Lapkin pulled him up on it - saying non-Jewish Israelis could also use it. Lapkin sounds more plausible - hard to see the cops asking your religion to allow you to drive on a particular road. The dipstick refused to concede he was wrong.
Also, doesnt he think the Israeli foreign minister is a ‘he’.
Posted by Effing & Blinding on 2006 07 20 at 05:39 PM • permalinkA tangentially-on-topic shocker - Bill Maher gets it!
Loewy’s blog has now been infiltrated. Read the creepy response of Adam and his curious exchange with addummboo.
I find the rise and rise of Antony Loewenstein very disturbing. A less than impressive scholar, caught out liar and bigot, yet our media embraces him. That Macquarie University through its agent Andrew Vincent find him useful is really par for the cause. And the MUP. The anti-Semitism in our universities is a known and persistent force. But the breadth of media support for Antony is scary.
Is it that he is a loud anti-Semitic voice who has sufficiently respectable cover, that is a Jew by birth, and that University endorsement. Or is it his message, that what ever has been done to Jews in the past, that might have been wrong, now they deserve it. Whatever it is he does appeal to something lurking in our media, and he shouldn’t.
I am going to be really depressed if Packer gives him a voice also.
Exposing middle east expert Loewenstein as a liar by quoting things he has said is exactly the kind of dirty tricks I would expect from you people.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 07 20 at 06:29 PM • permalinkRos, Margos: He’s an ‘expert’? A ‘scholar’? Please. That sounds like defamation against Australians.
Until yesterday I only knew him by reputation and one amateurish article.
The ABC shot him down with Lapkin, who fought in the IDF and knows his stuff, even though he’s not described as a scholar.
Read Lapkin’s coruscating review of George Negus’s ‘World from Islam’ travesty.
At least Tony Jones hasn’t become an author like that yet, but Negus is still posing as an objective interviewer on SBS.
He’s become TV’s Phillip Adams.
Luvviestein is as much a ‘scholar’ as Negus is. I hope The Australian wakes up to this guy quick, and ignores him.Oh Miranda…yoo-hoo.
Yet for all their threats, what the Islamists—from Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley to the Iranian government in Tehran to the jihadists in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle—don’t understand is that they are slowly pushing tired Westerners into a corner. If diplomacy, or aid, or support for democracy, or multiculturalism, or withdrawal from contested lands, does not satisfy radical Islamists, what would?
Victor Davis Hanson…Running Out of Options
Tim you missed the part where he got called out by Lapkin for saying that there are JEW-only roads in Israel. Lapkin said they are ISRAELI-only roads built because the Israelis were being shot and murdered when they traveled the alternative route.
Lowenstein responded saying that that is always the excuse, Israel always claims that their actions are self defence. He was given a chance to retract his statement of fact that they were Jew-only roads and Lowenstein refused! What a creepy little toad he is! And thick, too. I mean, who wouldnt equivocate when called on something so easily falsifiable?
From Addumbos own lips at lowies site.
““Then I watched a few videos. One by Naom Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent) and another about Waco. My perception of the world changed immediately.”“
Now for a refreshing Winston quote:
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
Winston ChurchillHes found his messiah, its religous!
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 20 at 07:14 PM • permalink#17, I had to laugh when Loewenstein was confronted by the roads issue.
TED LAPKIN: If I can point out that I haven’t uttered the word anti-Semitism tonight. The only person who has been uttering it is Antony Loewenstein. You talk about factual errors - he talks about Jewish only roads. That’s one of the errors that he makes in the book. What you have in the West Bank are roads that are limited to Israelis and Arab Israelis can use them and the reason why they were built is because Israelis driving through the West Bank were subjected to gunfire and sniping attacks and so to portray this as some kind of apartheid when, in essence, these roads were built after many Israelis, including Israeli rabs who were using, them were shot to death using the regular road system I think is just absurd and it’s factually incorrect. These are not Jewish only roads. They are roads that are limited to Israelis for security reasons.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: Exactly. This is the thing - everything is for security. In other words, when there is a town which is cordoned off, it’s for security. When there are roads only for Israelis, it is for security. My point is, this kind of rhetoric is always used to justify security measures, which in reality means that the Palestinian people don’t actually have…
TED LAPKIN: Do you concede your error that these are not Jewish only roads.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: No, I don’t.
TED LAPKIN: I’m sorry but you are mistaken.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: Far from it.
TED LAPKIN: Israeli Arabs use them all the time.
So funny when someone is proved wrong will just keep going no matter what. Idiot!
#19 - geez, Cap, Addamo really is a blithering moron, isn’t he? Check this out:
“Now I also understand why the Muslims rightly hate the Jewish community who largely after World War I and II contributed in destroying their civilization into what it is today.”
So, Addamo believes the Muzzies are in the right, and believes that their awesome culture of 100 million people or so was destroyed by a few million Jews in about 50 years. Addamo is either saying (a) the Jews are incredibly powerful, or (b) the Muzzies are incredibly weak.
He also describes his upbringing as “Christian Orthodox.” Methinks he got his anti-Semitism from the teat.
Thanks for posting the link - we only saw the obnoxious and stupid Addamo in his comments here. We didn’t see the sick fuck he truly is.
The debate is the subject on today’s editiorial in The Australian—
Much of Mr Loewenstein’s argument was based on emotion rather than analysis. He argued as if Israel were a garrison state addicted to the use of force far in excess of what is required for its national defence. On the basis of what he said on Wednesday night many of Mr Loewenstein’s opinions are reflective of an ill-informed youthful Jewish guilt. But instead of respectfully rebutting his claims exclusively on the basis of facts Mr Lapkin went in hard. He suggested Mr Loewenstein wanted Israel to stop bombing the transport system in the south of Lebanon so “it would be easier for Hezbollah to be re-supplied with rockets” and called Mr Loewenstein part of “the pro-Hezbollah cheer squad”.
Posted by walterplinge on 2006 07 20 at 07:26 PM • permalinkGee, ain’t love grand?
Adam/Addumbo…Addumbo/Adam, initials carved on trees, love notes being emailed, as we speak.
Adam
Addumbo, I totally understand you and I’m happy that people like you and myself can spare some time to find out about the truth and do not fall into the trap of arrogant and superiority nonsense.
Awwwww gee, snif, snif, I have a tear. How sweet. Both probably have sticky keyboards.
#29 walterplinge
I read Switzer’s Editorial in The Australian too. I disagree with him on a few things. He said Lapkin should have “respectfully rebutted his [Loewenstein’s] claims”. The Editor’s assumption that the “truth” is all that is needed to stop Loewenstein is naive.
The Ant is not interested in truth—he is Louise Adler’s pawn, doing her dity work because she, as head of Melbourne University Press, is also a self-hating Jew.
I do not believe that Loewenstein should be shut down but the fact that a twirp such as he can receive so much attention for a piece of crappy writing is ridiculous. I’ve read his book and it is full of factual errors.
Lapkin is correct that on page 9 of the Preface, the Ant placed Lebanon in between Tel Aviv and Haifa. I mean, how did this book ever get published and why is the ABC even looking at it—it is a joke!
The man is a burlesque caricature of a parodistic travesty
C’mon, salty, you know you don’t have to hold back here. Let it all out, girl!Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 07 20 at 07:55 PM • permalinkThis thread reminds me of the time Krusty thought he wasn’t really a Jew because he never had a Bar Mitzvah and said “I thought I was a self-hating Jew, it turns out I’m just a plain old anti-semite.”
Posted by Brian O'Connell on 2006 07 20 at 08:01 PM • permalink#17 and # 27
I think what you described just proved my point about the Editorial in The Australian today.
When Lapkin did confront Loewenstein with the truth, he simply denied it—said he did not accept it.. Now the Ant visited Israel once for a 2 week stint, Lapkin on the other hand, I believe, grew up there—did it matter to the Ant—nope, not a bit!
The “truth” is not important to these people as they have come to a conclusion without thought or scholarship and they will not budge because their whole self-concept is at stake.
The Left, including Loewenstein, defines itself by its mindset and views, which in turn, define the person—which in turn demonstrate the pure/good motives of that person. To admit error is to blow your self image apart. Being “Left” is a totally selfish exercise with a pseudo-humanitarian facade.
It’s a little more complex for the Ant. He nows sees himself being rewarded for betraying his tribe and adopted by the Left as if he were a hero. And the ABC et al is fascinated by his behaviour because it is so sickening it is almost beyong comprehension.
Just in case there was any doubt about Adam, a few selective quotes.
Ant attracts such wholesome types to his moderated blog.
Let me just add that in his book, My Israel Question, Loewenstein also endorses a false claim that Israeli forces committed a massacre at Tantura even though the original author of this claim, Teddy Katz, retracted his claim after losing a defamation case against the Israeli veterans.
On p66 he refers to Israel as “a free country with a relatively open press” then in the following paragraph he writes that Israel is “an undemocratic Jewish state”.
And, I’m only dabbling. The book is shit. There are plenty of good authors out there who can’t get published and Louise Adler of MUP selects this piece of factually erroneous crap to publish. Then her editors do a shoddy job checking out Loewenstein’s ridiculous allegations and map placements. She ought to be fired. She is a disgrace to a good university.
#39 Daphne - I would not condone you sending a copy of Loewenstein’s claims to these Israeli veterans you speak of.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 07 20 at 08:49 PM • permalinkDoh. you beat me to the submit button Daphne.
I am unsure whether or not someone from overseas can bring legal action of that type in Australia. Perhaps one of our legal eagles can shed some light…
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 07 20 at 09:00 PM • permalink‘The Australian’ editorial today about the Loewenstein/Lapkin debate is a timely reminder to those hung up on ‘Israeli aggression’:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19856161-7583,00.htmlDave S, to be fair to Addamo you were quoting Adam (a new guy on Loewenstein’s blog). A guy who -
just completed my masters in 2005 and continued onto a PhD in Virtual Reality
Though I wouldn’t be suprised if outside the realm of virtual reality, Addamo, Adam (and possibly even Loewenstein), were one person….Slighty OT
In Spain, anti-Semitism is new leftist trend.
Spain has completed its re-transition to Al-Andalus
In the third day of such rants, before a gathering of the Socialist Youth Movement and a day before a demonstration against Israel, Zapatero showed at last his true colours: At the closing of the meeting he let the teenagers take pictures of him wearing a Palestinian kaffiyah.
a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state.
A few weeks ago, I managed to have a flick through Loewenstein’s book (via a useful connection) . Right from the start he couldn’t contain himself from lying to and misleading his readers by stating that he believed in Israel’s right to exist.I do recall that on several occassions he also openly called for a “one-state solution” on his blog, yet as far as I know (but could be mistaken) makes no mention of this view in his book.
# 47
KidonI am convinced that Loewenstein is Addamo. Addamo’s typos are inconsistent and too contrived to be real. If you examine his supposed typos (what he wants us to believe are typos) you will see that some are between large finger distances on the keyboard, not a simple slip of the hand—a clear indication that they are manufactured. He says he is in Canada but demonstrates an immediate acquaintance with everything that happens locally. He isn’t real.
When I have time and a bit more inclination I will do some linguistic analysis (thank you ADF intel training) to prove my theory. But, my hunches are usually correct on this type of stuff.
The IP address Addamo signed up to this site from is a New York City IP address. Has Loewenstein been to NYC lately? Or did he have a buddy or fan of his sign up for him, or as is probably most likely, is Addamo in fact a different idiot than this Loewenstein creature? Who knows, and who cares.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 20 at 09:35 PM • permalinkI could, I suppose, add a code to the comment section that showed the IP address each commenter is currently logging in from. A lot of people will quit commenting here, though.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 20 at 09:37 PM • permalinkOn one hand, you have a list of historical facts. Quotes of contradictions, glaring inaccuracies, factual blunders and downright lies, caught and preserved in Google’s cache like flies in amber. Tim’s takedown of AL, with oodles of hyperlinks is a perfect example of how the historical record can be marshalled to show how utterly intellectually bankrupt a position is.
On the other side, you just have the same lies, Big, Small, and Medium, repeated endlessly, without any attempt at defending the indefensible.
The second side appears to be winning.
It is tricky to defend those who defend the indefensible - that Israelis have no right to defend themselves - if they are defensive about their right to defend themselves.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 07 20 at 10:13 PM • permalinkLoewenstein says:
Australian Jews, generally speaking, are incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions.
I guess that explains why both of my quite reasonable comments were never ‘accepted for moderation’ at his blog.
Presumably Antony didn’t want any legitimate and substantiated criticism getting in the way of his fan-club fawning.
From The Australian:
Rather than badgering opponents and scoring debating points, supporters of Israel would do far better to calmly deploy an arsenal of facts.
Of course, this doesn’t work with people like Ant, Fisk, Chomsky, the majority of the Kos Kiddies, and so on. They don’t care about mere fact. They already know what they think. (This behaviour is not limited to the left, of course, but it’s the left that has adopted it as a lifestyle.)
#59
Exactly Dan Lewis,Loewenstein crushes anything resembling dissention immediately on his blog. I believe he keeps Captain around as a token Zionist, but the rest of us, no matter how polite or diplomatic we are he bans us. He is, in essence, an anti-Zionist bully.
I had a thought of setting up a blog and reposting all of Loewenstein’s threads and then allowing freedom of speech and open discussion on his comments. It would have to clearly state that it was not his blog for legal reasons but it would be a very grand statement about his hypocrisy on his own blog.
And hell it would look good in the Press to have an alternate blog because he bans discussion of Israel from all who disagree with him on his own!
Tony Jones (ABC) could have said “Is it true that pro -Israel commentators have set up their own blog because you do not allow open discussion of Israel on your own blog?”
Just a quick query… is the bloghead Jewish? Or just a non-denominational Zionist.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 07 20 at 10:42 PM • permalinkI had a thought of setting up a blog and reposting all of Loewenstein’s threads and then allowing freedom of speech and open discussion on his comments. It would have to clearly state that it was not his blog for legal reasons but it would be a very grand statement about his hypocrisy on his own blog.
That was a stupid idea when Tim Lambert did it with Tim Blair’s blog and I daresay it’s not much smarter to consider doing it with Loewenstein’s blog, either.
#63 Miranda
Don’t know or care, but the zionists have a lot to answer for about their lack of control when it comes to the media
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 07 20 at 10:56 PM • permalinkHow to lead a crap life. Become a one issue person. Get that issue wrong.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 07 20 at 11:01 PM • permalinkYes Daphne, I wouldn’t do that. It’s a silly idea, one, to take an interest in a blogger to that level; it would become an obsession. Two, several bloggers have tried a similar trick - Mr Lefty on Andrew Bolt, Iain Hall on Mr Lefty, and of course Lambert on Tim Blair; the results have always been worthless.
daphne,
nice sentiment, but let it go. Besides, Tim Blair is already on the case, and with a better approach: just re-post or link to the occasional gem, so we can have some fun.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 20 at 11:19 PM • permalinkand when I say “gem”, I hope you all realise I mean “idiotic piece of trash that’s so stupid it’s funny.” That might not have been obvious.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 20 at 11:21 PM • permalink#75 I have a feeling he’ll eventually undo himself without anyone else’s help.
Posted by HisHineness on 2006 07 20 at 11:59 PM • permalinkLoewenstein is a liar, bigot, hypocrite, incoherent writer, speaks like a cliche robot and is an intellectual runt. He has never expressed an original thought. He sponsors and provides a platform for the most vicious racists and worse. He has shown not the slightest qualm or discomfort about the hate talk his blog attracts like blowflies to a sheep arse in summer. He routinely butchers free expression from those who challenge him who are within his reach while concurrently making lying complaints of censorship.
There is of course alot of this about. Anyone been to Damian Lataan’s blog recently? Take a peg. A sense of decency prohibits me from linking it.
But Loewenstein has been invited onto the board of a university’s Middle East Studies department, been given a contract by the publishing arm of another university, and is being boosted by the ABC and others at every possible opportunity and then some more.
Why is that do you suppose?
Antisemitism is now deeply embedded in our univerities, media and public broadcasters and Loewenstein is the living breathing proof of that. An Australian Aborigine who was prepared to spout racist nonsense for cash and notoriety would be worth his weight in gold to many. He would have a meal ticket for life. That he happened to be a moron would not reduce his value at all.
Ros
I predict the rise and rise of Loewenstein in Australia. Why? Not because he is suave, clever, or even educated. No, what he does is totally side-steps all the beating-about-the-bush that Australia’s Green Left establishment has fallen into in their mire of postmodern relativist anxiety.
Loewenstein can indulge all the crassest and venal antisemitic tropes because his surname ends in “stein.”
The Left (and far right) has been waiting for this breath of fresh air for a generation.
Prepare to hear people start arguing, “I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, BUT, he is a Jew…....”
AL will beocme their antisemitic hero by proxy.
“AWW my god, orrr mye god, or my god, aww my god, aww mye god, awww my god, orr mye god.”
An islamic-Lebanese- women (waving hands up in the air) complaining about the inconvenience of holidaying in Lebanon.Stay tuned for the Gilligan’s Island song on: Leaving Lebanon on the skippers boat and with Gilligan too!
Just a quick query… is the bloghead Jewish? Or just a non-denominational Zionist.
Golly, Miranda, I thought you loved all humans without equivocation. Why would our religion matter?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 21 at 12:41 AM • permalinkOh, yes, Miranda loves us:
Yes, I even love the bloghead and his pathetic blogsheep, even if they are cold-hearted, blinkered scum, remarkably unmoved by the deaths of children unlucky enough to live where Israel (ie. not “the Jews”) says they need to bomb to make them feel safe.
Oh no, Miranda loves us not:
Hey guys, go fuck yoursleves. <sic>
Well, that just well and truly sucks. At least under the next time Miranda goes through another bi-polar induced mood swing, and it’s Love Love Love!!! once more.
I can hardly wait.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 21 at 12:48 AM • permalinkSo, is the bloghead jewish? It’s a fair question considering the ongoing obsessions of the blogmire. take this thread, where timbo has unleashed a torrent of hate speech against a Jew, just because he’s not 110% behind Israel. The bloghead’s complaint is that Loewenstein is a traitor to Jews because he criticises Israel. So is the bloghead himself a Jew, or just a zionist zealot? Do I get a straight answer? Or do I get called anti-semitic for asking?
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 07 21 at 02:59 AM • permalink“If you’re Jewish and you criticise Israel, or criticise even a [hawkish?!?] policy of the Israeli Government, you’re a self-hating Jew or anti-Semitic or you’re unpatriotic or treasonous…”
...or you’re just a damn idiot.
Sorry—just had to put the cap on that bottle.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2006 07 21 at 03:00 AM • permalinkDid anyone bother to read Adams posts, his grasp of history is amazing. Did you know that the Ottoman Empire lasted for 1400 years and was destroyed by evil white people?, neither did I.
Posted by Daniel San on 2006 07 21 at 03:15 AM • permalinkAnd what’s wrong with being a Zionist zealot Miranda?
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 07 21 at 03:26 AM • permalinkI really hope Lowenstein is doing what he’s doing because he’s misinformed or ignorant.
If there’s any other reason there’ll be ‘tears at bedtime’.Posted by Islam/cancer-Chuck Norris/answer on 2006 07 21 at 03:43 AM • permalinkActually MD it’s not a relevant question. Its already established that Jewish people can be strongly for Israel, fairly neutral or against it. And the against camp incorporates some left-wing jews as well as very conservative jews who don’t believe Israel should have been established as a secular democracy.
Given this, the mere fact of someone being Jewish is irrelevant to their position on Israel except for anti-Israel people to write them off as “partial”.
I suspect Tim’s focus on Lowenstein is because he is a locus of many pet hates of conservatives. He is blindly anti-Israel to the extent that they aren’t allowed to defend their existence; he is hyper sensitive to criticism, always ready to scream censorship or repression of his views, and his acquaintance with facts (as demonstrated in his Lapkin debate) is cursory.
I personally first learned to take Lowenstein with a grain of salt when he was introduced as an “impartial” blogger for the SMH for the 2004 election. The banner of the blog even had “unload the bias” or something like that. Even aside from his undeclared association with Margo Kingston’s “Not Happy John” movement, his obvious bias came through so quickly that SMH had to employ a pro-coalition blogger (Alan Anderson or the like) to balance him.
I might add that being pro-Israel has never been a conservative monopoly. Many older left-wingers were very supportive of Israel. Baghdad Bob Hartley used to stick out in the Labor party because he was in the seeming minority who were pro-Arab. Philip Adams used to be very supportive although I suspect that has changed over the last decade or so.
Howz the nerve of this sack of sh*t…
Cleric banned from rescue ship
July 21, 2006A HARDLINE Muslim cleric barred from Britain for glorifying violence said today he tried to get on board a British warship to flee Beirut but was turned back.
“The answer was, ‘unless you have a British passport you are not entitled to come on board’,” Omar Bakri told Sky News.
Syrian-born Mr Bakri left Britain for Lebanon last August, saying he was going on holiday, after British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged to silence Islamists glorifying violence.
Mr Bakri, who had lived in Britain for 20 years [bludged for 20 years more like it], said he had shown his British driving licence and his cancelled British passport.
“I know myself I am not welcome in the UK ... but I have the right like everyone else to safety,” he said.
“It is better to try and fail.”
preaches violence, gets turfed out, then comes squealing like a stuck pig when he wants some help!!! goes to show how many @rseholes might try and use this mass evacuation panic to get places they’re not wanted…
#99 - goes to show how many @rseholes might try and use this mass evacuation panic to get places they’re not wanted…
I reckon the (Aus) Feds will be watching very carefully to see if Tony Mokbel tries to evacuate. With any luck he’ll be found…in pieces.
Posted by walterplinge on 2006 07 21 at 04:24 AM • permalink#98 - You call it a book?
Posted by Islam/cancer-Chuck Norris/answer on 2006 07 21 at 04:24 AM • permalinkPersonally, I take it as a comfort that the “anti Zionist” section of the intelligentsia is so befret of any sort of intelligent commentators that it the sloppy fact-free book of someone like dreamboat is considered a momentous sleep.
With that sort of “opposition”, Israelis can sleep safe in their beds knowing that the “Zionist entity” is going to continue for quite some time.
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 07 21 at 06:59 AM • permalinkMomentous sleep?
God, I *need* sleep.
“Sleep” should have been “event”.
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 07 21 at 06:59 AM • permalinkI reckon the most amusing thing is that Loewenstein thinks we bag him because of his politics, but it’s more basic than that. Fundamentally, he is stupid and doesn’t know it
Amusingly, he takes himself terribly seriously and clearly thinks he’s some sort of intellectual. I guess if he’s comparing himself to Fisk and his mates then he may well be the big bread knife within that kitchen drawer of intellectual butter knives.
Worse than the puerile arguments he makes is the fact that he mangles the English language en passant. What sort of reputation do his teachers enjoy?
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 07 21 at 07:17 AM • permalink#89:Question from the all humanity loving hypocrite, Miranda:Or do I get called anti-semitic for asking?
Yes, you are an anti-semite, but not only because you’re “asking”. (see #93). That reason is only one among many. You have revealed the loathsome scum that resides in your leftist gut in many ways. Please have someone literate read to you the comments of previous posts.Id willingly pay at least $1.00 for his book. But it would have to be the UN-edited version.
That should have new Zealand oppressing the Botswanians, or Tibet located in Canada. The poor fact checkers must be on stress leave trying to meld such a symphony of shite into something readable if his turgid articles are anything to go by.(I found a winnie quotation site today and might be giving him a flogging for a while)
He is a modest little man who has a good deal to be modest about.
Winston ChurchillPosted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 21 at 07:58 AM • permalinkPrime Minister of Lebanon Rafik Hariri, Walid Jumblatt, leader of Labonese Druids (see Fouad Ajami in todays Wall Strret Journal),the Arab League, especially Saudi Arabia (one cleric has issued a Fatwa against Hezbollah) all have broken with Hezbollah, but not Lowenstein, Cohen of the Washington Post, George Soros and the mighty lover of all Miranda. (Is he/she the only non-Jew in the bunch?) How explain that the Arabs do get it but that self-hating Jews, so consumed by the fungus within them, search for assisted suicide and aim to take their bretheren with them?
Casanova — He glorifies violence, now he wants to leave Beirut… there really is just no pleasing these people…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 21 at 09:30 AM • permalinkHmm. Moronda has laid off the recreational chemicals for long enought to string more than a line together. A near unprecedented achievement. Rehab’s working, then!
“So, is the bloghead jewish? It’s a fair question considering the ongoing obsessions of the blogmire.”
COMMENT: How come Moronda is so hung up about Jews? Another braindead lefty-trendy national socialist anti-semite, perhaps?. Hey, it’s a fair question!take this thread, where timbo has unleashed a torrent of hate speech against a Jew, just because he’s not 110% behind Israel.
COMMENT: Hee! Moronda, proving that she’s been torquing out her brain cell on ice a leetle too much of late. The topic is about Ant’s hypocrisy and his factually-challenged book. Guess Moronda cannot understand the words: they DO have more than one syllable. As a lefty, she’s strictly a one-syllable critter. Kind of like that trained Bonobo.“The bloghead’s complaint is that Loewenstein is a traitor to Jews because he criticises Israel. So is the bloghead himself a Jew, or just a zionist zealot? Do I get a straight answer? Or do I get called anti-semitic for asking?”
COMMENT: No, we point and laugh at you because you just told the world that you are truly the sine qua non of gap-toothed, dull-eyed, slack-jawed, drooling, underevolved, web-footed, sibling-parented cretins, because you are far too stupid to comprehend even the blinding obvious fact that the post is about Ant’s hypocrisy… oh, sorry…
let me reword that into one-syllable terms for you that your brain cell is not overstressed with big words
<switches on the leftist translator>:
‘Ant say dumb stuff. Tim tell world that Ant say dumb stuff. Tim say what dumb stuff Ant say. We laugh. Ant is twerp. You too thick to know what Tim mean. You are lefty. You are dick head.’<switches off the leftist translator>
Even an spavined, inbred intellectual cripple with the intelligence of a cattle tick might stand a fighting chance of understanding that.
But we ARE talking about Moronda here….
MarkL
Canberra#114 the scummiest thing of the whole lot is that he would promote and encourage his jihad, crackpot mates to go kill US and UK servicemen and women, then wants to jump on their boat when is own worthless skin is in jeapordy…
knowing the sort of turncoat dog he is i probably might have let him on, only to push him over board once out past the 3 mile limit… let him swim for it…
You all are too dim to appreciate the subtle, facile mind that lurks behind the user name of Miranda Divide. Indeed, he/she/it might more properly be called, the “Great Divide”?
Who else but a master mind could delve into such a conversation regarding the Ant, who has repeatedly stated that he is anti-Zionist, and come to the oh so nuanced conclusion that “he isn’t 110% behind Israel.”
We are in the presence of genius. We mere mortals, when confronted with statements such as a “one party state solution” tend to meander, as tots are wont to do, to the conclusion that he really means that he only wants to see one state emerge from all of this, and that it ain’t israel. But ah, Miranda sees through this and harvests the ripe kumquat of knowledge. We should all repent, that we jumped to such a harsh, simplistic conclusion.
Please forgive us Miranda, and say that you love us, since we’re but simple children in your intellectually superior presence.
Jack Lacton in #109:
Fundamentally, he [Loewenstein] is stupid and doesn’t know it.
Jack, you nearly summed this whole thread up in 8 words. I would only add that there are people out there who are equally stupid, in that they support or defend him, usually by misdirection, since stupidity can’t be defended, only excused.
Take Miranda, for example, who attacks us because Tim “...unleashed a torrent of hate speech against a Jew…”. The issue of Ant’s basic intelligence and his multitude of factual errors are ignored. “So, is the bloghead jewish?” appears on the thread.
Miranda can’t defend factual errors, so she ignores them. Instead, we are asked what our religious association is, because “The bloghead’s complaint is that Loewenstein is a traitor to Jews because he criticises Israel.”
Again, the complaint is: Loewenstein is stupid, and doesn’t know it. The fact that he’s a self-hating Jew is a symptom of this, not a cause.
“Do I get a straight answer? Or do I get called anti-semitic for asking?”
Straight answer, from my perspective: This segment of the blogosphere is secular and pro-democracy.
The fact that Miranda has always been anti-semitic, or at the very least, anti-Israel (much the same thing, IMHO) is simply gravy.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 21 at 11:25 AM • permalinkHas anyone pointed out the ugly connotations of the title of the book itself, My Israel Question. It sounds uncomfortably like the expression coined by Adolph Eichmann, “The final solution of the Jewish Question.” Is this intentional, like a bad taste in-joke, or is it a sign of complete ignorance of the issues the book is supposed to be about?
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 21 at 12:13 PM • permalinkOnly a little O/T ...
Good morning, Tim.
This is southern Lebanon. The
craven Islamic terroristresistance group known as Hezballah has, under theindulgent...inept... ever-vigilant observation of UNFIL, constructed a massivecryptunderground bunker complex here. They are presentlygrubbinglurking in it with large stocks ofammunition and big explody-thingssupplies.Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to
exterminate these vile terrorist scumneutralize this activist group.Eliminationistnuanced thinking is a must. As usual, should any of your IM (Insensitive Minions) Force be caught or killed, the State Department will disavow any knowledge of your actions (and probably shriek like a little girl and faint dead away).“Do I get a straight answer? Or do I get called anti-semitic for asking?”
Let’s call a spade a spade. You’re racist for asking. Tim didn’t mention Ant’s race. Ant mentioned it. We’re discussing world politics here, but you want to know who all the Jews are in the room. Maybe you should get them to wear armbands.
oh another thing: I never realised Austen Tayshus was jewish, until Ant ‘outed’ him. I guess I haven’t seen enough racist caricatures from the 1930’s to know better. I just thought he was a funny guy in sunglasses.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 21 at 01:15 PM • permalinkjust because he’s not 110% behind Israel.
Yeah, I guess 0% could be considered less than 110%.
So is the bloghead himself a Jew, or just a zionist zealot? Do I get a straight answer?
Oh, fuck you, precious. You ask a snarky question and get uppity because you don’t get a straight answer? That’s gall. Hey, I asked you a couple questions in #64 and #65 - do I get a straight answer?
BTW, I’m not a Jew or a Zionist zealot, and I support Israel - I guess your question is fundamentally fucking flawed, isn’t it?
I guess your question is fundamentally fucking flawed, isn’t it?
A flawed question from a flawed person….I’m guessing your question is rhetorical, Dave! ;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 21 at 02:40 PM • permalinkOne of the important differences between Hezbollah and Israel is that the former is trying to kill civilians and the latter is trying not to kill civilians. End of story. Miranda and Abdullah Mohammed (Addamo) and their little pet ferret Marky are fellow-travelers of terrorism, pure and simple. There comes a time when you have to choose sides; they’ve chosen theirs and so there’s no arguing with them.
#131 that’s Miranda’s way of insinuating that Tim’s site is a religion, with Tim as the leader. It’s a stretch, since Tim’s approach tends to be irreverent, analytical, and humorous. Also, the site is (mostly) unmoderated, and attracts its share of dissenters, like Miranda herself. Gustov once made a similar facile statement to the effect of “everyone here agrees with Tim”, not realising that he, Gustov, was evidence that he was wrong. (this was pointed out to him at the time).
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 21 at 06:18 PM • permalinkI sort of almost feel a little bit of sympathy for the Ant.
Presumably he is still in the adolescent phase of wanting to object to everything as a form of attention seeking - a sort of cry for help.
Unfortunately for him, he has decided to choose geopolitics and the Middle East as his battleground, which requires some intellect and common sense. Emotive ranting doesn’t work, except with the feral moonbats.
He is struggling to keep afloat in this sea of discourse. There’s a lot of splashing around, but in the end, he’s drowning. He just isn’t equipped intellectually to handle this.
On second thoughts, I’ll retract the first sentence. Drown, boy, drown!
Loewenstein’s Blog is getting worse. The comments are pure hatred. His small array of followers all appear to be Islamists or neo Nazis. Here is one of his mates talking about the Editorial in The Australian.
orang Jul 21st, 2006 at 11:17 pm
“Mr Loewenstein’s opinions are reflective of an ill-informed youthful Jewish guilt”
Yeeeeckk. That is so disgusting in so many ways. I bet the author used voice recognition software to produce this shit. They couldn’t have physically typed it - the keyboard would’ve gummed up with all the puke and semen and scum oozing off the whore.
Well, they say “write what you know” and I guess “orang” knows all about various substances oozing off prostitutes.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 21 at 06:44 PM • permalinkLoewenstein is not mislead or ignorant—he is pure evil.
Also that gauge through his upper ear cartilage is so fifteen-year-old girl goth.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 21 at 06:46 PM • permalinkDont worry about Miranda, Gusty or Lowie they have the delightfull and completely Non ani semetic cartoonists from the Gaurdian to back them up.
Dont bother to look unless you are attracted to ....say, mid 1930’s to mid 1945 German periodicals
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 21 at 06:56 PM • permalinkCheck out the hatred on his blog in this thread
Who the F*ck is TimB lair? Listen, if it did not happen here it did not happen. Understand? Given your propensity for BS, it is advisible to give the verification FIRST, before making the accusations about things that happened elsewhere. Even then, the fact is that it is a smear, brought up without context, rhyme or reason. What is it that you have against Jew haters anyway, the competition?
MarkL
Pretty well my reaction in a nutshell, Ive seena couple of blobs of crap from there before but that strikes me as being one of the worst.
Kind of makes you wonder where his “Mohammed” cartoon is? Brave chap that he is.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 21 at 11:06 PM • permalinkSo this bloke is heavily biased, not always right (but knows it all ), doesn’t like criticism or being caught out in error AND (WOT?? NO?) censors posters to his blog??
If this wasn’t all typed so obviously earnestly, as satire it would be pure gold!The point about freedom of speech is that it is important to know what the other person/party knows or believes as then you can engage with or counter them. Inciting others to real violence against others is not included of course. That would actually be illegal in most societies.
If you are able to refute his ideas and information, show him up as a “hate monger” or whatever else you think is appropriately pithy, then all power to you.
His appearance and imagined sexual proclivities (What?? 4 syllables mL.. WOW..phukinA..) are not the issue here.. Are they??
The point about freedom of speech is that it is important to know what the other person/party knows or believes as then you can engage with or counter them. Inciting others to real violence against others is not included of course. That would actually be illegal in most societies.
Aw, the troll tries to lecture. They’re so cute when they play teacher.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 22 at 12:29 AM • permalinkAND (WOT?? NO?) censors posters to his blog?? If this wasn’t all typed so obviously earnestly, as satire it would be pure gold!
And once again you display your pig ignorance. Posts are rarely censored here (I’ve been visiting for years and seen it maybe twice, and they were censored for egregious offensiveness, NOT because they were “dissident”). Posters are banned, after being given MILES of rope to hang themselves with (Miranda still posts here, and look at the screeching insults s/he hurls at everybody here.) Ant, meanwhile, wields the delete key like a scimitar, censoring posts that are in courteous disagreement with him (Larvetus Prodeo, another left-wing dillweed site that talks like you do, not only censors inoffensive posts, but also heavily EDITS them to make the poster look bad. I know, it’s happened to me.)
Look, junior (by your tone and general ignorance I’m guessing between 19 and 24) - every time you post you make an idiot out of yourself. At least be a man and admit you were wrong at least once in a while. See my post #52 for an example.
If you are able to refute his ideas and information, show him up as a “hate monger” or whatever else you think is appropriately pithy, then all power to you.
You’re kidding, right? Before you posted this, did you happen to take a cursory glance at the blog entry and comments you’re posting this about? It’s kind of all right there, kiddo. C’mon, make an effort here.
Debating a troll (sa opposed to a genuine question) is like wrestling witha pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys itself
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 22 at 01:12 AM • permalinkHey, Ant will be happy to know this (via Best of the Web) - radical muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, principal lecturer at the London School of Shari’ah before the Brits had enough of him, said back then that in waging jihad, “Muslims are forbidden from killing women, children, the elderly or trees unless killed accidentally and unavoidably because, for example, they are located amongst the enemy.” So Israel is fighting in accordance with mutually-agreed restrictions!
147.. Can you not distinguish between a plain statement and a challenge?? This sentence was by way of the former.
148.. I beieve you have used this “playing with a Pig” type analogy previously (or someone who types like you.) Is there something we should know?
Small point of information.
I think that one of the many links peppering this thread related to Restricted Roads, the inference being that there were none. Therefore this bloke was a liar. I had heard reference to this situation before.
If you follow this link to the B’Tselem site (don’t tell me.. Self Hating Israeli Jews..)
http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp
there is a very informative map/pdf which shows quite clearly that there most definitely are restricted roads, some totally restricted, others not so.hal_thall
At least quote it right.Ok a real debate.
I will accept for the sake of arguement that there are some restricted roads in Israel.
Now you can tell me why you believe those roads are there?Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 22 at 01:38 AM • permalinkhal_thall sez:
...shows quite clearly that there most definitely are restricted roads, some totally restricted, others not so.
From here, Loewenstein & Lapkin discuss the matter:
TED LAPKIN: Do you concede your error that these are not Jewish only roads.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: No, I don’t.
TED LAPKIN: I’m sorry but you are mistaken.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: Far from it.
TED LAPKIN: Israeli Arabs use them all the time.
From hal_thall’s link:
The map displays three kinds of roads in the West Bank: roads on which Palestinian travel is restricted, although no special permit is required, roads on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel unless they have a special permit, and roads on which only Israeli citizens are allowed to travel.
From your link, hal, there are no “Jew only roads” in Israel. You are correct, hal, although your phrasing is pretty vague. Loewenstein is adamant that there are Jew only roads there….and won’t admit his error.
That’s stupidity and arrogance on Loewenstein’s part. And the point of this whole thread.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 22 at 01:46 AM • permalinkthere is a very informative map/pdf which shows quite clearly that there most definitely are restricted roads, some totally restricted, others not so.
It was never disputed that there were restricted roads. What Antony continues to lie about is that the roads are restricted for Jew only access.
The site you linked to only says it is restricted to Palestinians. Arab Israelis do have access to it and us it all the time which disproves Antony’s claim of apartheid. In other word all Israelis have access to the roads. Is that so difficult to understand.
#155
The site you linked to only says it is restricted to Palestinians. Arab Israelis do have access to it and us it all the time which disproves Antony’s claim of apartheid.
Christian Israelis also use it, Druze Israelis use it, B’Hai Israelis use it and Muslim Israelis use it. Any religion can use it, provided they are Israeli. It is fundamentally no different to strong border control between any two countries, particularly given that the roads were only segregated subsequent to Palestinian terror attacks.
Of course it bears mention that all roads in Gaza have an undocumented prohibition whereby any Jew passing along them will be killed or have their head cut off. We seldom hear about those.
Nor will you hear about what happens to Jews driving on roads in Saudi Arabia, because Jews are forbidden from being in that country.
Nope, you won’t hear a thing about that. You will however continue to hear the same old lies about Israel.
Lies, lies, lies.
I misunderstood the point of contention and the fine points of definition. Plus there were soo many posts and link thingies to look at. My mistake.
146. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… Oooo I wet myself.. Jeez, you must have some real feelings for me to keep asking my age.. HAHAHAHA..
Sorry, sorry.. I’m far too old for you.
But THANX anyway, you made my day.
And thanks for the demonstration of how to grudgingly acknowledge that you were wrong about something.. I have always used the direct approach rather that the comically contrite.
See Above..154.. I just posted a link to what I thought was a relevant map url. Nothing vague about that.
155.. Oh Joy.. I guess for a PALESTINIAN it might be something of a problem.
156.. A shoal of Red Herrings.For those watching at home.
Thread summary:
Ant “Dreamboat” Lowey: Dude! Israel is like TOTALLY Apartheid-era South Africa. It even has Jew-only roads!
Ted Lapkin: Ant, those roads are used by Israeli Arabs all the time.
Tim Blair: Ant = Moron
hal “trollin’ for tips” thal: Wingnut! You are teh wrong! Ant was right - look at this - Israel doesn’t even allow foreign nationals, from a state pledged to Israel’s destruction, to use the road. Racist! Racist!
Game on.
Disclaimer: I once kissed a Jewish girl, which may or may not make me a fully paid member of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy.
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 07 22 at 03:34 AM • permalinkWhy some people think Israel is required to compromise its own security for the convenience of foreigners, is not quite sure.
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 07 22 at 03:58 AM • permalinkThat should read “I’m not sure.”
Bloody Zionists.
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 07 22 at 04:01 AM • permalinkI don’t know about you guys, but I’d trust my northern border to these Israeli Army girls - don’t sweat, it’s work-safe.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 07 22 at 05:08 AM • permalinkI received this via e-mail from a friend in Israel. I thought I’d share it.
Dear friends,
Rarely do I put political pen to paper, but when David Ignatius of the Washington Post asked me to contribute a post, I sat down and wrote the following piece. Feel free to link or share.
—Bob
________________________________
One Israeli’s ViewThe great Yogi Berra once said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
I am not a columnist - just an ordinary American citizen living in Israel - but I have gained some insight into both cultures, some might say mentalities. Here is what many Israelis are feeling nowadays.
The first point concerns some unwritten American values I grew up with:
Problems are solvable.
Good will is returned in kind.
In general, favor the underdog over the top dog (unless you’re the top dog).
If two sides are fighting, they must both have some justification.
Be reasonable; split the difference.
But what if you are living in a neighborhood where they are not quite as reasonable as you? Where your attempts to reason and split the difference backfire? Or worse, where concession is laughed at as weakness.The second point concerns Israel in particular. We are 6.6 million people, toughened but pragmatic. At 8,020 square miles, we have an area 25% smaller than Maryland. The difference is that, unlike America’s vast power, with oceans and peaceful neighbors on all sides, the Jewish state is surrounded on several sides with people who actually want to kill us. Not subdue us - destroy our country.
It would be convenient to think that this must be because of something we did. But Hamas and Hezbollah say it out loud and crystal clear. The “occupation” is the whole works. Their final solution is the total destruction of Israel. Iran, a member state of the UN, holds conferences called “A World Without Israel.”
This is the backdrop against which most civilized countries would have us turn the other cheek. As social writer Eric Hoffer once said, “We really do expect the Jews to be the only good Christians in the world.”
To put things in perspective, imagine, if you can, that Arlington lobbed 1,000 shells at Georgetown. Or sent suicide bombers. How exactly would you react? Imagine that Mexico was calling for the destruction of the United States, backing it up with cross-border raids and missiles.
The third point is that Israel already withdrew from every last inch of southern Lebanon and Gaza, as the international community demanded. But the provocations and terror - violence aimed intentionally against civilian targets - continued. This is why we entered this conflict.
Enough is enough.This is a horrible situation to be in, fighting Hezbollah behind its human shields. But before bombing southern Lebanon and the Hezbollah neighborhoods of Beirut, Israel dropped leaflets encouraging evacuation. Confronted with terrible choices, we are trying to fight while minimizing civilian casualties.
It was wishful thinking to hope that joining the government would make Hamas and Hezbollah more responsible. Sometimes putting the bully in charge of the playground works, and sometimes it doesn’t.
The operative emotion in Israel right now is sadness, sadness for what is being done to us, sadness for what we must do to defend ourselves. The missiles shot at Haifa landed a few miles from the research labs of Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Google. Israelis would much rather
continue working on desalination, stroke treatment, and alternative fuels (see http://www.israel21c.org). We would rather that our adversaries developed their own economies pragmatically.We hate this conflict, but we will not commit suicide. As Golda Meir said, “We will have peace when our enemies love their children more than they hate ours.”
My father was a survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, was the most optimistic person I ever knew, but he once taught me, “Above all else, when someone threatens to kill you or your loved ones - just believe him!”
The lesson for America is simple. Do not hide from international responsibility. Do not assume the oceans offer protection. Iran is behind Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and, of course, the insurgents in Iraq. If Iran gets nuclear bombs, do you want to bet they won’t sponsor a radical Islamic group to eradicate American cities?
You want to know what Israelis are thinking? Theory and practice are intertwined. We are on the front line, but we will show patience and strength. That’s why 89% of Israelis, Left, Right and Center, support the army right now. A mere 61 years and 10 weeks after V-E day, we know that evil and blind hatred exist. And that they can be beaten.
‘Sam’ commenting over at Loewenstein’s has the solution to the middle east’s woes -
‘Sam
Jul 22nd, 2006 at 8:45 pm
‘In my opinion the future of Palestein and the people cast out from Jordan rests upon there being a solution to the ‘Israel’ problem.
The Jews need to give back the (stolen) land they took from the paleostain people and stop bombing them (Arab people).
Then maybe there will be peace in there middle east.
What can we in are countrys do? we can agitate for change in ‘Israel’ - get them to realise that violence and oppression is not appropriate’.
Go Sam!Posted by Islam/cancer-Chuck Norris/answer on 2006 07 22 at 05:50 AM • permalinkIn my opinion the future of Palestein and the people cast out from Jordan rests upon there being a solution to the ‘Israel’ problem. The Jews need to give back the (stolen) land they took from the paleostain people and stop bombing them (Arab people).
The problem is, both the Palestinians and other Arabs believe the “stolen land” is all of Israel plus the occupied territories. They will not stop until they have it all. And chances are, they wouldn’t even stop then. Just rest until they battle for the next “stolen land” (Spain, Caucausus, Central Asia, East Timor).
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 22 at 07:01 AM • permalinkI will accept for the sake of arguement that there are some restricted roads in Israel. Now you can tell me why you believe those roads are there?—the frollickingmole
If I recall correctly, Palestinian snipers were shooting at innocent civilians, killing and wounding many. What I don’t recall are any expressions of outrage over it.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 22 at 07:17 AM • permalink#145
hal. Thank you for bringing this topic back on track to what all of the threads are about here - you and your feelings.
I too have noticed that complete fuckwits do not receive the respect they deserve at this site.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 07 22 at 07:25 AM • permalinkLook for the hand of Irfan Yusef behind at least one of these trolls. They have a thread going at Online Opinion about Antony Loewnstein’s article in the Australian. For the love of god do not bother, it is a zoo, but Irfan makes the following remarks here:
If people thought the responses on these forums can get hysterical, check out pseudo-conservative Tim Blair’s nausiating blog and some of the lunatics that post there.
Tim’s infantile attempt to undermine Antony’s credibility made me almost fall off my chair laughing. The comments on his post were dominated by hysterical fruitcakes complaining that Antony was ... wait for it ... a “self-hating Jew” (whatever that means)!
Still, I cop flack from Muslims for openly criticising the leadership of peak bodies and mosques. It’s not easy going against the flow.
Hey Leigh, aren’t you the same Leigh that puts xenophobic comments on the blogs of Tim Blair and Peter Faris?
Thus expect a swarm of unhinged Online Opinion types to visit here shortly.
On a related note, Robert Spencer rather neatly dispatches Irfan over another instance of his generalised Jew hatred at the following link.
Apologies if this appears off topic but I just felt like getting the knives out for a special someone.
Marky, your two dimensional views are indicative of the fallacy of effort after meaning. It is a tradition of Islamists to claim that as y followed x,x caused y merely because of temporal sequence. They opportunistically exploit this ad nauseum.
But this is too serious for you to fully contemplate. I think you are better off with the drifters and dreams back at Ant’s blog.
169. wronwright
Be weeery weery quiet, Im hunting trolls. i wanted to see what fancifull excuse they came up with. Not that i was likely to get a reply anyway…
166. Usama Van Halen
Did he mention getting the Hindus out of India, Spainish out of Spain or any of the other dozen or so Islamic warzones outside the middle east?
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 22 at 08:35 AM • permalink#172 lemmy
Irfan Yusef is a bully boy (with a law degree). He threatens to sue anyone who writes about Islamist activities in Australia. Whenever some brave journo writes about the activities of groups such as FAMSY (Federation of Australian Muslim & Student Youth), Irfan Yusef threatens to sue them on his blog. Oh, and then Loewenstein posts and congratulates him.
I’m a bit hazy on this, but I believe he mouthed off about AIJAC (Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council) once, and they threatened him with legal action. He had to withdraw his comments and admit they were not true. He is a horribly fat, nasty piece of work, and an ideological mate of Loewenstein.
157 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… Oooo I wet myself.. Jeez, you must have some real feelings for me to keep asking my age.. HAHAHAHA..
Sorry, sorry.. I’m far too old for you.Real feelings, yes, but you wouldn’t like to have them spelled out for you. If you are so mature, you should probably ask yourself why everybody else thinks you’re a puerile twit.
Oh look Loewenstein is starting up his own Army to fight the common enemy—American and Israeli soldiers!
Glenn Condell Jul 22nd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Antony
I have thought for years that if conscription ever returned that I would rather spend time in gaol than serve alongside American and especially Israeli soldiers. But lately I’ve gone further and decided that if there were any way to fight AGAINST them, I would willingly do so.Game over, folks: I decided to ban hal_thall because I had previously banned him under the name “drpoll.” If I ban you once, and you decide to re-register under another email so you can continue abusing people here, there’s a good chance I’ll ban you again when I find out. I also decided to ban marky because I didn’t want hal to be alone in the outer darkness. I do have some compassion.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 22 at 09:24 AM • permalinkDaphne: there’s a way he can fight against us. David Hicks did it. However, I don’t recommend that route. I doubt this Anthony person has the balls to try. “Hey, I’m an Australian Jew, but I really despise my own people for trying to defend themselves against Muslim terrorists. Can I join your group?” I’ll bet that would stick in even a Muslim terrorist’s craw.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 22 at 09:26 AM • permalinkdaphne, did I read that correctly….these clowns actually want to join up with known terrorist groups to fight the Great/Little Satan….and they actually think said terrorist groups will accept them, rather than give them a quick beheading?
LOL!
And who says Lefties aren’t hilarious!
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 07 22 at 09:50 AM • permalinkIts going to Antony’s head. Now he is going after our troops in Afghanistan.
“It is time for a serious examination of the role being played by Australian troops in Afghanistan. Are they working with warlords?”
Thanks Australian, ABC, etc.
An aside. Do any Lebanese in Lebanon actually work. Like 90,000 Sri Lankans, 70,000 Brazilians etc. Aren’t there only around the 4 milliom in Lebanon?
There’s a sort of Mark Latham feel to Loewenstein. I mean that those of us who have watched him know him, the rattling is very obvious
Like his hating, like his extreme reaction to criticism, indeed fury at any Jew who dares defy him, like his very high self esteem, and its lack of connection with reality. But he must have some kind of ability to charm, why are these medias falling over themselves to put him out there. The Australian makes him the subject of their editorial for Christ’s sake. Excuse but blimey.
And he is over the top about it clearly. No one is beyond Loewnenstein’s venom and reach it seems.
Mr Latham of the chattering classes. Long live narcissism. Long live our journos who just to have some one who hates us to worship.
#183 Quentin
Well, Loewenstein has said (and Tim has quoted him) that “the defeat of America and its coalition allies is vital.”
I’m not sure what his method of contributing to his own country’s defeat is, but his mate Glenn Condell appears to be volunteering to fight our own soldiers.
But I agree with Andrea, Loewenstein wouldn’t have the balls to put his life on the line, he’s all hat and no cattle.
OK, so still no answer yes, the blogsheep accuse me of racist for asking. Our hero, the bloghead, is only railing against - wait for it - hipocrisy!!!!!!
Yet clearly he also believes he has the moral authority to question Mr Loewenstein’s credibility as a Jew:
For someone who argues that “Holocaust guilt can no longer excuse, justify and fund a supposed democracy”, Loewenstein is surprisingly eager to play the victim himself.
From what fount of utter bullshit does the bloghead draw this special privilege? If Timbo himself isn’t Jewish, then who the fuck does he think he is? Even then its a stretch.
And amazing how quickly the blogsheep reach for the vocab of “loony left” political correctness when boots are quietly forced onto other foul and smelling feet.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 07 22 at 10:18 AM • permalinkBut he must have some kind of ability to charm, why are these medias falling over themselves to put him out there
I’m ashamed to say but I used to be the type of person that would be drawn to a Loewenstein type.
It is alot about charm and I cringe to say that now. Some one on his blog once was astounded at criticism toward him because Antony was so cool.
Don’t panic, Miranda—you’re a keeper.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 22 at 10:43 AM • permalink#187,
Did you mean “font” of utter bullshit?. And as for calling us blogsheep, I take offence to that. You’re a coward who snipes from behind a keyboard.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 07 22 at 10:50 AM • permalinkWell, the lefties here in the US are working on their message.
They were out in the intersection last night with their Ceasefire! and Humanitarian Crisis! signs last night, so I went out there to join them with an appropriate sign (No Blood for Jews!)... but they decided to leave.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 22 at 10:57 AM • permalinkOK, so still no answer yes, the blogsheep accuse me of racist for asking. Our hero, the bloghead, is only railing against - wait for it - hipocrisy!!!!!!
[sic]
Did you mean this? (See the second to last sentence.)
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 22 at 11:23 AM • permalink...so I went out there to join them with an appropriate sign (No Blood for Jews!)... but they decided to leave.
LOL, richard! You sneaky bastard!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 22 at 11:26 AM • permalinkSo hal_thall was drpoll under another blogname, eh? I’m not surprised, although the uniformity of the moonbats does make it hard to tell the difference, short of reading the name.
But not Miranda…..s/he is certainly unique. To put it mildly.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 22 at 11:30 AM • permalink#187. Miranda “I love the world” is so full of hate that it comes stinking out of every body oriphice. Like all leftists, it ignores every response to its lunatic braying that confuses it. Yes, Moronda, you have been answered over and over again in previous comments (from #110 on). But keep bleating. It reminds us that you are part of the unhinged community that hates itself and its countrymen.
146. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… Oooo I wet myself.. Jeez, you must have some real feelings for me to keep asking my age.. HAHAHAHA..
Sorry, sorry.. I’m far too old for you.
But THANX anyway, you made my day.So, you’re proud of your arrested development?
And thanks for the demonstration of how to grudgingly acknowledge that you were wrong about something..
Grudging? It was immediate and unambiguous.
As others have pointed out with your utterly erroneous defense of Ant on the road issue, you have profound difficulties with basic reading comprehension.
#40 Dan Lewis—I read the link, and now I’m thinking…Ant/Addamo/Adam and a host of other morons like Richard Cohen think Israel should not exist, because they have deluded themselves (possibly by never having picked up a history book) that the place was always all Arab, all the time. But wait! The Founder of Christianity and his Co-Chairs actually lived there! And they were there way before Mo’ was riding around in the sky on his flying Barbie horse. So, since they really really don’t like those pesky Jews, AND they think that whoever was “there” first should own the place—Israel should be a Christian country. I mean, this solves the whole “question,” right? Wouldn’t Our Ant agree?
Plus Christians own the really big guns. We could sub-let the place to our beloved Jewish cousins, like Monica’s Grandma did for Monica on “Friends.”
Shh, Dave S.! We’re trying to confuse them!
See, the Jews were, indeed, there first (I mean, after the Paleolithic period, and of course after the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, but I don’t think we have to worry about them wanting the land “back”) because the first year of the Jewish calendar was -3760, and one shouldn’t argue with a calendar.
The Jews were there, there, there, while The Old Kingdom of Egypt rose and fell, and the first King of Ur ruled, and a whole bunch of guys with ridiculous names ruled and died. They were still there, there, there, and there some more, during the beginning of the Iron Age, and the Trojan War. They crossed the Jordan around that time, but still, the Jews were there, in Israel, hanging around, being all Jewish, while democracy started up in Greece; they were there while King David ruled; they were there even when the land was split up into Israel and Judah in -993.
Even during the Babylonian captivity in the 7th(?) c. BC the Jews were there. Yadda yadda.
Jesus was a latecomer, comparatively, but Christian claim to the place at least begins around two thousand years ago.
Mohammad? Sure, right, if he was indeed flapping around on a magic horse, he was 1400 years too late to contest the possession of the land called Israel.
However, Ant and Friends hate those pesky Jews; the Jews, unlike every other damn group, don’t get to claim original possession of land—provable possession!
So I figure fine, let Ant debate the claim of 2000 years against the one of a mere 1400 years.
See?
#201 Geoff, it only works if you walk widdershins, arms akimbo…
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 22 at 04:15 PM • permalinkSo I figure fine, let Ant debate the claim of 2000 years against the one of a mere 1400 years.
See?
Unfortunately, Leftard History 101 states that the Muslims were there for, like, forever, being all peaceful and inventing mathematics and whatnot, and then the evil Christian Crusaders showed up and started hacking everybody up left and right for, like, no reason, and now the Muslims are legitimately pissed. Oh, and then the Zionists came and pissed them off even more. Disproportionately.
keep in mind also that European Jews were already emigrating in large numbers to Palestine in the years before World War 2. There was no policy driving it, it was just an immigration trend, driven by increasing anti-semitism in their home countries.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 22 at 06:37 PM • permalinkThe Ottoman empire ruled as Feudal lords throughout that area, mos of the people living in the area had no tenure on land being at the most share croppers and serfs. If a landlord (usualy absentee) kicked his workers off his land that was it for them, move away.
The Palestine area was considered crap farming ground, with the Ottomans unwilling to spend even the minimum to improve it.
A lage portion of what is now Israel was brought from these absentee landlords, who then kicked the workers off (as they were doing the work now) and put in the capital needed to make the area flourish. This was of course resented as religous “inferiors” the Jews should not be able to do this. it has been argued that the rise of Arab nationalism was in a direct response to the nationalism of the Israelis. That there was no great “idea” of Palestine (Or greater Syria) until they realised Israel was forming.(I read a book, something Mr Loewenstein could try)
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 22 at 07:29 PM • permalink#211 thefrollickingmole
And of course 70% of historic Palestine is now Jordan. The population there is almost 70% Palestinian as well, and all Palestinian Arabs have enjoyed—but mostly ignored—a complete right of return to Jordan. They are calling for the destruction of, and waiting for, that tiny piece of land—the size of Tasmania—called Israel
They would rather live in UN refugee camps in neighbouring countries (& the West Bank) on Israel’s doorstep and play the victim than grasp any of the opportunities handed to them such as the handing over of Gaza.
UNRWA is the only UN agency that specifically employs its own clients. These Palestinian refugees employed by UNRWA work very hard to encourage their own to continue living off the donations of Western countries.
The UN created UNWRA in 1948 as a temporary agency and here almost 60 years later it still exists and despite many opportunities to create a better life, its recipients would rather be victims, whinging and murdering and calling for the complete destruction of another country than building something for themselves.
#211 The Ant doesn’t need to read other people’s books. Why read books when you can write them yourself?
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 22 at 08:09 PM • permalink#187 I am also not sure what point Miranda is trying to make but I think it is only fair that we advise Miranda about Tim’s background.
Tim is actually a self-loathing Palestinian…
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 07 23 at 02:45 AM • permalinkon the topic of sound bombs, I found it interesting that the LeftAnts were calling the use of sound bombs murder, because they induced miscarriages. Now, maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. There’s only anecdotal evidence of sound bombs causing miscarriages, but let’s say it’s true.
BUT, isn’t being pro-abortion an article of faith on the left? Yet abortion is nothing more than an induced miscarriage.
So… are sound-bombs murdering unborn children? Make up your mind, lefties! Either induced miscarriage is murder, or it is not.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 23 at 03:32 PM • permalinkI can see a day coming in the not too far off distance where those that align themselves with the enemy will allow us no weapon more devastating than large bags of marshmallows.
Then they will accuse the US and her allies of trying to give everyone diabetes.
And we are weak for putting up with that crap.
Marshmallow bombs! The Pilger view:
In response to the deaths of twenty three Israeli children last month, Israelis have taken to humiliating and degrading their Arab neigbours by firing huge marshmallow bombs into Palestinian territories. “It makes me feel like less of a man to be covered in marshmallow” said one un-named resident of the Gaza strip, as he wiped the sticky white substance from his face and beard. “This makes all Arabs angry. Before, I felt nothing but love for the Zionists. But now they have the marshmallow bomb, I want to join the Jihad against them.”
Hamas says that the Israelis are using marshmallows to make their children fat, thereby less able to fight effectively when they become the next generation of suidide bombers. “As a jihadist, you’re supposed to blend in with the infidels. How can you conceal plastic explosives when you are 100 pounds overweight?”
The United Nations says that the marshmallow bombs are in violation of international law, because they target civilians, as well as discourage healthy eating from the five food groups. The European Union has called on America to pressure Israel into abandoning the marshmallow bomb policy, and instead to come to the negotiating table with Hamas. Crisis talks are scheduled for next Wednesday.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 24 at 11:13 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I checked out the photo of Antoine, and guess what? He really is a pinhead.