Wednesday, April 18, 2007


Is it Ben from the television series "Lost" or is it the fellow who critics allege produced a book about Israel that had the first print recalled because one of its maps placed Lebanon somewhere between Haifa and Tel Aviv?


Anonymous said...

The dud map is probably the fault of his publisher Ms. Adler. Whatever the case, the incompetence is nothing compared to the confusion Loewenstein shows about his so-called Jewish identity and alleged support for Israel in Ha'aretz where his lies are laid bare for all to see -

Justin Cohen said...

As well as not having a proper grasp on facts, Loewenstein does have problems maintaining consistency in his argument.

I wonder whether some of those who slavishly followed his clarion call to arms and signed the IAJV statement would still be prepared to look at themselves in the mirror today having read the bilge he produced in Haaretz?

Anonymous said...

Ronald Green, a relative of Loewenstein posted this response in Haaretz talkback

I had the dubious pleasure of hosting Loewenstein (we are relatives) for a few days during his 18-day first and only visit to Israel and the West Bank in 2005 in order to "research" his impending book. I was under no illusions that the book would turn out to be fair, or indeed accurate, since it was all too apparent that Loewenstein was interested in hearing only what motivated his personal agenda. I never found out exactly how much time he spent in Israel, but it was miniscule compared with his daily sojourns in the West Bank.

I was not wrong. The only Zionists who get more than a passing mention are me and my family, labeled in his book as "racists" and whose inaccurate quotes from our Friday evening meal were given prominence as "typical of Israeli opinion". Even my youngest daughter - mentioned by [albeit inaccurate] name - was slanted in his book as "confrontational", since she had the chutzpa to mention that Jews (such as her mother from Egypt) had been expelled from Arab countries. It was obvious which way the wind was blowing when, challenged to state who had said that "Israelis are making life difficult for Arabs", he admitted that they were "Arabs in East Jerusalem." On another occasion when I asked him if he had seen a certain newspaper article, he told me that he "didn't read the Jerusalem Post because it was too right-wing." I would have expected a "journalist" to at least look at differing opinions.

But it was not just intellectual dishonesty that struck me, but an abysmal lack of knowledge about the history of the area. I was astounded that someone with so little knowledge about his subject would have the temerity to write a book, and even more so that a publisher would agree to lend its name to the finished work. Indeed, the first printing had to be withdrawn to replace a map that had Lebanon placed midway between Tel Aviv and Haifa. Loewenstein's lack of knowledge (as opposed to rhetoric) is well known as well as embarrassing for a so-called expert, such as referring to Israel's foreign minister Zipi Livni as "he", as he did in one of his articles.

One does not have to read his book or be aware that Robert Fisk and John Pilger endorsed his book in order to understand what lies behind Loewenstein, who has made a career of pillorying Israel. It is enough to read his interview with Shmuel Rosner to gain insight into Loewenstein, who can call himself "a true friend of Israel"

Anonymous said...

Another talkback poster said this -

Do not waste your money. Loewenstein basically plagiarizes Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein. His writing is so bad, entire pages are just copy and pastes of contradictory allegations and journalist`s polemics. At the end of the book, you ask "what is he trying to suggest?"

He totally mangles the history and makes false claims about UN Resolutions all over the place. In fact, after his book was published, traffic to his website practically stopped and many former fans dropped him.

He is an admitted atheist and socialist who does not observe Jewish holidays and does not identify with Jewish culture. This is ironic given that he is only given media space because he is Jewish!

The book uses the word "dissent" and "dissenter" over 500 times! His only acknowledgement of Jewish culture is, you guessed it, "dissent."

I think most of us have spent our lives very heavily exposed to athiest internationalsit socialist ranters. Hardly dissent.

Anonymous said...

And finally, a review of his book by Jeremy Jones of the Australian Jewish News

Vanity’ author’s delusions of grandeur

my israel question
antony loewenstein
melbourne university publishing, $32.95

Reviewed by jeremy jones

REMEMBER the enthusiastic reception originally accorded the Australian novel The Hand That Signed the Paper?

There is no way of knowing how the book would have been received if it had been known from the outset that the writer was not Ukrainian, or if it had been initially reviewed by genuine authorities on the period it covered.

But the book was treated as a symbol, rather than judged on its merits.

While Antony Loewenstein is not a pseudonym and did not intentionally write a work of fiction, it is already clear that his book is being treated as a symbol, rather than on grounds of quality or originality, let alone insight or integrity.

The ultimate example of a “vanity” author, Loewenstein has no special experiences which might give him the ability to reach profound insights, no apparent academic, journalistic or other expertise which might give some weight to his conclusions, or any obvious research skills which allow him to make significant revelations.

To the contrary, the author appears unaware of the distinctions between assertions and evidence and between primary and secondary sources, and the sloppiness of his writing on Australian Jewry and Zionism testify to a lack of genuine interest in unearthing facts and revealing truths.

In a series of disconnected essays, he manages the extraordinary feat of writing on Zionism without defining the term, talking of Palestinian “interests” without saying what they are, and describing Jewish organisations in Australia without revealing any knowledge of their histories, roles, interrelationships and modes of operation. This lack of insight is complemented by a lack of original thought. His intellectually unenlightening chapters on Zionism, antisemitism and pro-Israeli advocacy will ring a bell of familiarity with anyone with even a casual knowledge of the pronouncements of far-left fringe anti-Zionist political factions.

Even his inaccuracies (which are numerous) are often not original. His first two false statements about this reviewer are drawn from two subsequently corrected newspaper articles. The book does not even have the quality of consistency. For example, he variously considers the Executive Council of Australian Jewry politically irrelevant and deviously determining the actions of the federal Labor Party.

Any person who takes the study of history seriously will be appalled at the chapters on Zionism and antisemitism. I was appalled, but not surprised, given his comments elsewhere which have contained comical errors and personal abuse (on one occasion he claimed a critic looked like a stereotypical Jewish caricature).

In the first paragraph of the book, the author writes that “a reader of online magazine New Matilda wrote that they hoped it [Loewenstein’s book] would ‘lie in the tip alongside such other works as Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’”.

To repeat this comment testifies to the writer’s delusions of grandeur, while on an intellectual basis it is arguable he would be justified in holding delusions of adequacy.

This book has already garnered a fan club among overt antisemites, anti-Israel extremists and others who are treating the author as a Jewish “useful idiot” who serves anti-Jewish agendas. Reading the book, one gains the impression that appreciation from absolutely any source will make the author happy.

I had to read the book so as to be able to review it. I recommend you not waste your money buying it or your time reading it.

Jeremy Jones is director of international and community affairs at AIJAC and immediate past president of the ECAJ.

Wilbur Post said...

I'm glad in a way that this discussion took place on 18 April 2007, the day upon which Magistrate Barbara Cotterell convicted Ocean Grove footballer Simon Christian for his "extremely racist" behaviour of using insulting words in a public place after he chanted "go Nazis" to Menachem Vorcheimer.

You may recall that Loewenstein falsely claimed to the Geelong Advertiser last year that this sort of anti-Semitic behaviour was brought on by Israel's actions in the Middle East.

There was no evidence given at the hearing that this was the case - Israel's defence of its people in the face of murderous attacks by Hizbullah had nothing to do with Christian's anti-Semitic outburst. He was pissed out of his brain and he behaved abominably.

This case tells us a lot about the behaviour of Christian and his friends. At least he is remorseful. However, I doubt we're going to hear any words of remorse from Loewenstein about the ill-considered remarks he made to the Geelong Advertiser. That tells us plenty about some of his own problems doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first anonymous poster who attributes a lot of the blame for the shoddiness on the publisher. Here's an example of what she's all about -

Original Message -----
From: Ronald Green
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: Antony Loewenstein's quotes

Dear Ms. Adler,

I am the Ronnie Green who hosted Antony Loewenstein in Israel.

You are by now aware that not only did I not give Loewenstein permission to quote snatches from a family dinner, but that I had no idea he would do so. I am interested to know whether you were aware of these facts when you saw the manuscript.

Lest my question be misunderstood, I wish to make it clear that I am not questioning your opinion as to whether the quotes were accurate (and for the record, they were decidedly not), since I do realize that it is your job to support a book that you publish.

My question is – and I repeat – whether you knew that Loewenstein did not request nor receive permission from me.

Ronald Green

Quote from Ronald green

"I don’t think he would have wasted the postage on sending me a book, considering my views.

No, he didn’t say he’d send me a copy, but he did say, a day before leaving, that he would like to interview me so as to include my views in the book. Surprisingly, this idea did not crop again!

Why he hates Israel so much requires a psychological background to the man. He is not the only Jew who is so inclined, and what is interesting is what makes them tick. That Antony has problems is in no doubt."

Quote from Ronald Green

"As for what he said about me and my family, you can mention that I was absolutely stunned that he mentioned us, so using me and my family to score a few below-the-belt points. The “quotes” are a mixture of out-of-context sentences and downright lies. I never made one racialist comment, but I am, in retrospect, not surprised that Loewenstein would see comments criticizing Arab policy as racialist. One egregious example of Loewenstein’s sleight of hand is the ellipsis after “The checkpoints, the wall and bypass roads are all necessary…” The one [almost] accurate statement is twisted, since if he had continued with “to protect the Israeli population against suicide bombers”, it would have looked very different.""

Australians who Reject Antony Loewenstein said...

Australians who Reject Antony Loewenstein:

Read the full text of the petition for plenty of links to Antony's schoolboy errors and amateur commentary.

Santiago said...

Does anyone know whether Ms. Adler responded to Ronald Green's letter?

Anonymous said...

Which one is really lost?

Doesn't matter.

They're both dawks.