The European Central Bank is becoming dangerously over-extended and the whole euro project is unworkable in its current form, the founding architect of the monetary union has warned.
“One day, the house of cards will collapse,” said Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB’s first chief economist and a towering figure in the construction of the single currency.
Prof Issing said the euro has been betrayed by politics, lamenting that the experiment went wrong from the beginning and has since degenerated into a fiscal free-for-all that once again masks the festering pathologies.
“Realistically, it will be a case of muddling through, struggling from one crisis to the next. It is difficult to forecast how long this will continue for, but it cannot go on endlessly,” he told the journal Central Banking in a remarkable deconstruction of the project.
The comments are a reminder that the eurozone has not overcome its structural incoherence. A beguiling combination of cheap oil, a cheap euro, quantitative easing and less fiscal austerity have disguised this, but the short-term effects are already fading.
The regime is almost certain to be tested again in the next global downturn, this time starting with higher levels of debt and unemployment, and greater political fatigue.
Prof Issing lambasted the European Commission as a creature of political forces that has given up trying to enforce the rules in any meaningful way. “The moral hazard is overwhelming,” he said.
The European Central Bank is on a “slippery slope” and has in his view fatally compromised the system by bailing out bankrupt states in palpable violation of the treaties.
“The Stability and Growth Pact has more or less failed. Market discipline is done away with by ECB interventions. So there is no fiscal control mechanism from markets or politics. This has all the elements to bring disaster for monetary union.
“The no bailout clause is violated every day,” he said, dismissing the European Court’s approval for bailout measures as simple-minded and ideological.
The ECB has “crossed the Rubicon” and is now in an untenable position, trying to reconcile conflicting roles as banking regulator, Troika enforcer in rescue missions and agent of monetary policy. Its own financial integrity is increasingly in jeopardy.
The central bank already holds over €1 trillion of bonds bought at “artificially low” or negative yields, implying huge paper losses once interest rates rise again. “An exit from the QE policy is more and more difficult, as the consequences potentially could be disastrous,” he said.
“The decline in the quality of eligible collateral is a grave problem. The ECB is now buying corporate bonds that are close to junk, and the haircuts can barely deal with a one-notch credit downgrade. The reputational risk of such actions by a central bank would have been unthinkable in the past,” he said.
Cloaking it all is obfuscation, political mendacity and endemic denial. Leaders of the heavily indebted states have misled their voters with soothing bromides, falsely suggesting that some form of fiscal union or debt mutualisation is just around the corner.
Yet there is no chance of political union or the creation of an EU treasury in the forseeable future, which would in any case require a sweeping change to the German constitution – an impossible proposition in the current political climate. The European project must therefore function as a union of sovereign states, or fail.
Prof Issing slammed the first Greek rescue in 2010 as little more than a bailout for German and French banks, insisting that it would have been far better to eject Greece from the euro as a salutary lesson for all. The Greeks should have been offered generous support, but only after it had restored exchange rate viability by returning to the drachma.
His critique will exasperate those at the ECB and the International Monetary Fund who inherited the crisis, and had to deal with a fast-moving and terrifying situation.
The fear was a chain-reaction reaching Spain and Italy, detonating an uncontrollable financial collapse. This nearly happened on two occasions, and remained a risk until Berlin switched tack and agreed to let the ECB shore up the Spanish and Italian debt markets in 2012.
Many would say the crisis mushroomed precisely because the ECB was unable to act as a lender-of-last resort. Prof Issing and others from the Bundesbank were chiefly responsible for this design flaw.
Jacques Delors, the euro’s “political” founding father, issued his own candid post-mortem last month on the failings of EMU but disagrees starkly with Prof Issing about the nature of the problem.
His foundation calls for a supranational economic government with debt pooling and an EU treasury, as well as expansionary policies to break out of the “vicious circle” and prevent a second Lost Decade.
“It is essential and urgent: at some point in the future, Europe will be hit by a new economic crisis. We do not know whether this will be in six weeks, six months or six years. But in its current set-up the euro is unlikely to survive that coming crisis,” said the Delors report.
Prof Issing is not a German nationalist. He is open to the idea of a genuine United States of Europe built on proper foundations, but has warned repeatedly against trying to force the pace of integration, or to achieve federalism “by the back door“.
He decries the latest EU plan for a “fiscal entity” in the Five Presidents’ Report, fearing that such move would lead to a rogue plenipotentiary with unbridled powers over sensitive issues of national life, beyond democratic accountability.
Such a system would erode the budgetary sovereignty of the member states and violate the principle of no taxation without representation, forgetting the lessons of the English Civil War and the American Revolution.
Prof Issing said the venture began to go off the rails immediately, though the structural damage was disguised by the financial boom. “There was no speed-up of convergence after 1999 – rather, the opposite. From day one, quite a number of countries started working in the wrong direction.”
A string of states let rip with wage rises, brushing aside warnings that this would prove fatal in an irrevocable currency union. “During the first eight years, unit labour costs in Portugal rose by 30pc versus Germany. In the past, the escudo would have devalued by 30pc, and things more or less would be back to where they were.”
“Quite a few countries – including Ireland, Italy and Greece – behaved as though they could still devalue their currencies,” he said.
The elemental problem is that once a high-debt state has lost 30pc in competitiveness within a fixed exchange system, it is almost impossible to claw back the ground in the sort of deflationary world we face today.
It has become a trap. The whole eurozone structure has acquired a contractionary bias. The deflation is now self-fulling. Prof Issing’s purist German ideology has no compelling answer to this.
Real Politics Is Not a Game
The Stubborn Reality of Jewish-Zionist Power
By Mark Weber
Text of an address given on October 1, 2016, at a meeting organized by the Institute for Historical Review in Irvine, California. Kevin MacDonald and Gilad Atzmon also addressed this gathering. The text has been slightly edited, and source references have been added.
As everyone here this evening is very aware, we’re well in the midst of another presidential election campaign. For many Americans, these campaigns are something like sports events, with enthusiastic fans rooting for one contender or the other, and pinning great hopes on their favorite. Such high expectations, you’ll recall, were a defining feature of the election season of 2008, when Americans chose a presidential candidate who campaigned on slogans of “Hope” and “Change,” and who promised that he would usher in a new era of what he called “Change We Can Believe In.”
Considering how little of substance comes of such promises, it’s no wonder that many Americans regard politics is little more than a game. But real, substantive politics is not a game. As the record of the past century should make clear, what’s crucial in determining the really important policies and long-term trends of a nation are rarely individual politicians, whatever they may promise, or whatever their fans may hope or believe — but rather the goals and agenda of those who hold real power.
Serious politics is about power.
This evening I am pleased to welcome Gilad Atzmon and Kevin MacDonald to join in talking frankly about a formidable factor that goes by different names. Some call it the Zionist lobby. Others call it the Jewish lobby. One scholar calls it the “Zionist Power Configuration.” Others speak of the Organized Jewish Community. I often refer to it as Jewish-Zionist power.
Anyone who speaks truthfully or candidly about this power, as our guest speakers here this evening are able to attest, can expect to be viciously attacked for supposedly promoting “hate” or bigotry or “anti-Semitism.” Such smears, which can destroy careers and reputations, are themselves often expressions of bigotry and real hatred. In fact, we wish no harm to any individual, Jewish or not, because of his or her ancestry, religion or background. At the same time, however, we refuse to let intimidation, malicious smears or threats keep us from affirming what is true, and doing what is right.
As everyone knows, the American president, along with other Washington politicians, wield great power and influence. But as powerful and as influential as they are, the Washington political elite — as we have seen time and again over the years — routinely honors and submits to a power even greater than its own.
There is no more striking expression of this power, and of its grip on American political life, than the repeated spectacle of the men and women of this country’s political elite jumping up and down like puppets to frantically applaud the leader of the Jewish state when he visits Washington to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress. / 1 When the Israeli prime minister appeared before such a gathering last year, a BBC journalist observed: “Benjamin Netanyahu rocked the Capitol. His political stagecraft was unbelievable. He had them cheering, whooping and hollering. And that was before he’d said a word … It is hard to think of any other national assembly — including Israel — where Mr Netanyahu would be given such adulation … His script lines, his delivery and his message had U.S. congressmen and women leaping up from their seats like jack-in-the-boxes.” / 2
These politicians applaud more wildly for the leader of this foreign state than they do for the president of their own country. In doing so, they are expressing their devotion not so much to a small country on the eastern Mediterranean as to the great pro-Israel power here in the United States that can make or break their political careers. Prominent politicians decline to speak openly about any of this because they are keenly aware of the fearful consequences of defying this power. They know that even to frankly acknowledge its existence can endanger their careers.
During this year’s election season, the leading candidates and the mainstream media routinely focus, as usual, on matters that in the larger context are trivial. We’ve recently heard a lot, for example, about whether one presidential candidate will or will not make public his income tax returns, or whether another contender may or may not have improperly handled classified records. All this should be put in perspective.
Most Americans, even most politicians, now acknowledge that the U.S. bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq was a disaster. The Iraq war of 2003 cost Americans thousands of lives and hundreds of billions dollars — in addition, of course, to the destruction of Iraq itself, and the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. And it didn’t end there. This terrible calamity made possible, and perhaps inevitable, the rise of the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS. The larger, unspoken reality with regard to the Iraq fiasco, and its terrible aftermath, is the power behind the war.
The Iraq war was justified and promoted with strident, alarmist propaganda based on falsehood, and was launched with backing from most American politicians and most of the U.S. mass media. In the administration of President George W. Bush a group — a cabal — of high-level, so-called “neoconservative” Jews played a key role in prodding the United States into war in Iraq. They included: Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; David Wurmser in the State Department; and, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon’s Undersecretary for Policy. These men acted in accord with Zionist plans to overthrow the Iraqi regime that were already in place well before Bush became president in early 2001. / 3
For well-informed people, this reality is no secret. In Britain, a veteran member of the House of Commons candidly declared in May 2003 that pro-Israel Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the U.S. and Britain into war in Iraq. Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy known as “Father of the House” because he was the longest-serving Member of Parliament, said: “A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians …”, and, he added: “There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States.” / 4
In Washington, Senator Ernest Hollings was moved to declare that Iraq was invaded, as he put it, to “secure Israel,” and that “everybody” knows it. Referring to the reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to openly acknowledge this reality, Hollings said that “nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Members of Congress, with few exceptions, uncritically support Israel and its policies due to what Hollings called, “the pressures that we get politically.” / 5
The stark truth is that without the Jewish-Zionist grip on American cultural and political life, and especially on U.S. foreign policy, there would have been no Nine Eleven terror attack, no Iraq war, and no so-called “War on Terror.”
Former U.S. Congressman Paul Findley puts it like this: “Nine-eleven had its principal origin years ago when Israel’s U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel … Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the 9/11 catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.” / 6
Another keen observer of international relations, and especially the U.S. alliance with Israel, is Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent 20 years overseas in Europe and the Middle East working on terrorism cases. In a recent essay, he writes: “… The reality is that U.S. military assistance to Israel is actually all about the effectiveness of an extremely powerful domestic lobby … American politicians who call Israel the U.S.’s greatest friend and ally know they are lying, as Israel is neither. Instead, Israel and its own parochial interests have been key elements in involving Washington in the spiral of violence that has gripped the Middle East since 2001, including the ill-fated invasion of Iraq … Groveling to Israel is in the American political DNA. Even progressive groups that claim to be supportive of Palestinian rights and opposed to growing fascism in Israel exhibit the usual ambivalence when it comes to issues that might actually have an impact.” / 7
It’s important to keep the horrible destruction, death and discord of the Middle East over the past half century in historical context. That means remembering that before the State of Israel was established, nearly 70 years ago, the United States had no enemies in the region. Now, millions of people – not only in the Middle East – but around the world, regard the U.S. government with loathing, contempt and hatred. Many are so enraged by what the United States has been doing around the globe that they are willing to kill, and sacrifice their own lives, to protest America’s policies, and to strike back against the U.S.
The Jewish-Zionist hold on America, including this country’s so-called “special relationship” with the Jewish state, puts the U.S. out of step with the rest of the world. Most of the world regards Israel’s policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as illegal and outrageous. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.
In one session, for example, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution condemning Israel’s so-called “security barrier,” a grotesque thing, parts of it much larger and more formidable than the Berlin Wall, that Israel has built on occupied Palestinian territory. Supporting the resolution were 144 countries, representing nearly the entire world’s population. Twelve countries abstained. Just four countries opposed the resolution: Israel, the United States, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. / 8 The latter two member states are small island countries in the Pacific Ocean, with a combined population of 180,000, that are utterly dependent on the U.S.
“The whole world,” said United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan some years ago, “is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don’t think the whole world … can be wrong.” / 9
Even high-ranking American officials have sometimes acknowledged the priority of Jewish-Zionist interests in determining U.S. policy. In a speech given a few years ago to a gathering of the “Jewish People Policy Institute,” the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, acknowledged that American policy in the region is driven primarily by concern for Israel’s security and identity as a Jewish ethno-religious state. / 10 “The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East,” he said, “is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government.” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been more succinct. “Israel’s cause must be America’s cause,” he says. / 11
This pledge, it should be stressed, is one that the United States gives to no other country, not even to those that the U.S. promises by formal agreement to defend, such as Canada, Norway or Germany. The Jewish-Zionist state is the only country whose ethnic or religious character the U.S. vows to maintain. With very few exceptions, even those American politicians and media figures who might sometimes criticize this or that particular Israeli policy are, nonetheless, all but unanimous in their ardent support for Israel — and not just as a country, but as an emphatically Jewish ethnic-religious state.
In spite of occasional disputes over specific policies, the U.S. continues, as it has for years, to provide Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing. Just two weeks ago, the United States government signed an unprecedented new security agreement with Israel that will give the Jewish state’s military $38 billion over ten years. This is the largest such agreement the U.S. has ever had with any country. / 12 In a statement issued when it was signed, President Obama said: “This commitment to Israel’s security has been unwavering and is based on a genuine and abiding concern for the welfare of the Israeli people and the future of the state of Israel.” / 13 Republican leaders criticized this new agreement – not because it means diverting billions that might otherwise benefit Americans, or people in need around the world – but because, they complained, it should have provided even more money to Israel’s military. / 14
That’s not just politics as usual. That’s an expression of real power.
Americans have paid a high price for the U.S. alliance with Israel. This includes tens of billions of dollars in economic and military aid to the Jewish state, the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Iraq war and occupation have cost, and the deaths there of thousands of American military personnel. Directly and indirectly, America’s so-called “special relationship” with Israel has also generated unprecedented distrust, fear and loathing of the United States around the world. By supporting Israel and its policies, the United States betrays not only its own national interests, but the principles it claims to embody and defend.
In truth, if the United States held Israel to the same standards that it has applied to Iraq, Serbia, and other countries, American bombers and missiles would be blasting Tel Aviv, and American officials would be putting Israeli leaders behind bars for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Why is it that the United States stands out among the world’s nations in such matchless support of the Zionist state? Why is it that support for Israel by politicians and the mass media is more vehement and unquestioning in the United States than anywhere else?
One possible explanation for this unparalleled level of support is that Americans and American politicians are vastly more aware, enlightened or principled than people anywhere else in the world. One person who has spoken candidly about the real reason is Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize. Addressing an audience in Boston, he said: “But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic … People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful.” / 15
Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only two or three percent of the U.S. population, they wield immense power and influence – much more than any other ethnic or religious group.
In recent years the single biggest donor to American politicians, by far, has been Sheldon Adelson, a vehemently pro-Zionist Jewish billionaire. In the 2012 U.S. election campaign, the gambling casino magnate and his wife gave tens of millions of dollars to Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney and other pro-Israel candidates, groups and organizations. As the New York Times reported: “Mr. Adelson, whose $38 billion fortune makes him among the richest men in the world, poured roughly $100 million into Republican campaigns in 2012 …” / 16
The biggest donor to Democratic Party candidates in recent years has been Haim Saban, an Israeli billionaire and global media mogul. Taking note of Saban’s ardent devotion to the Jewish state, the New York Timesreported: “He has since emerged as perhaps the most politically connected mogul in Hollywood, throwing his weight and money around Washington, and increasingly, the world, trying to influence all things Israeli. ‘I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel,’ he said.” / 17 M. J. Rosenberg, a political affairs analyst for The Nation, has observed: “Adelson and Saban are top funders, respectively, of the Republican and Democratic parties, although as Adelson points out, ‘when it comes to Israel we’re on the same side’.” / 18
History shows that when the cultural life of a nation is healthy, its political life is also likely to be sound. But when the cultural life of a people is sickly or degenerate, a healthy political life is not possible. In every society, the cultural life – and in our age that means, above all, motion pictures, television, and the rest of the mass media – sets the limits of what’s “permissible” in political life, and determines the range of “acceptable” political and social discussion.
Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic, has written: “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture … Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” / 19 Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has written: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood … I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” / 20
Over the years, this clout has had a profound impact on how Americans feel, think and act. One prominent political figure who has publicly acknowledged this is Joe Biden. For many of the 36 years that he was a U.S. Senator, he was one of the most influential and prominent of Washington “insiders.” For the past eight years, has been the U.S. vice president.
In a remarkable address three years ago, Biden said that what he called the “immense” and “outsized” Jewish role in the U.S. mass media and cultural life is the single most important factor in shaping American attitudes over the past century, and in driving major cultural-political changes. Vice President Biden said: “I bet you 85 percent of those [social-political] changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense.” He went on to say: “Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that’s a fact.” / 21
As Biden mentions, this is by no means a new phenomenon. Forty-four years ago — during a private White House meeting that was secretly recorded, President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham — the nation’s best-known Christian evangelist — spoke frankly about the Jewish grip on the media. Graham said: “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.” To which the president responded: “You believe that?” “Yes, sir,” said Graham. “Oh, boy,” replied Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that [publicly, that is], but I believe it.” / 22
How could all this have happened? Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal – who, by the way, I knew rather well — provided an answer in his detailed 1978 study, The Zionist Connection. He wrote: “How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people? … It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power … The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles …” / 23
During this year’s election campaign, the two major presidential candidates, along with all other prominent U.S. politicians, have made very clear, time and again, their loyalty and devotion to Jewish-Zionist power. And that means that, no matter who wins on election day, there will not be — and there cannot be — any substantive shift in this country’s power alignment, and therefore no real change in basic direction or policy.
That’s why the work and writings of our guest speakers this evening, as well as our own efforts here in southern California, are important. We are meeting here this evening because America’s political, cultural and educational leaders are not doing their jobs. They will not, or cannot, address central issues of power and policy.
As long as the role of what Desmond Tutu calls the “very powerful” Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of history and current affairs, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system and the American media, Israeli oppression of non-Jews, and the Zionist threat to peace.
Because we care about the long-term well-being of our own countries and the world, we strive to raise awareness about the agenda and operations of a cunning, self-assured and formidable power that regards itself as entitled to dictate to all others. Our work is a small part of a growing, global struggle for a more just and healthier world by men and women who share a deep sense of responsibility for the future of our own nations and of humankind.
Notes / Source References
1. See: Ben Norton, “Over One Quarter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress consisted of applause and standing ovations,” Mondoweiss, March 4, 2015 ( http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/netanyahus-consisted-standing/ ) ;
Philip Weiss, “Media are stunned by Congress’s ‘loyalty’ to Netanyahu (but refuse to explain it),” Mondoweiss, March 4, 2015
( http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/congresss-netanyahu-explain/ ) ; Gideon Levy, “Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Shows America Will Buy Anything,” Haaretz (Israel), May 25, 2011.
( http://www.haaretz.com/netanyahu-s-speech-to-congress-shows-america-will-buy-anything-1.363897 ) ; M. Weber, “Netanyahu in Washington: A Shameful Spectacle that Reaffirms Jewish-Zionist Grip on US Political Life.” Podcast. May 25, 2011. ( http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2011-05-25 )
2. Jon Sopol, “Netanyahu’s ‘chutzpah’ rocks Capitol and riles Obama,” BBC News, March 3, 2015.
( http://www.bbc.com/news/31720100 )
3. See: John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2007; Stephen J. Sniegoski, “War on Iraq: Not Oil But Israel,” Oct. 22, 2004 ( http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_oilwar.htm ) . See also: M. Weber, “Iraq: A War for Israel” ( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml ) ; M. Weber, “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby”
( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml )
4. F. Nelson, “Anger Over Dalyell’s ‘Jewish Cabal’ Slur,” The Scotsman (Edinburgh), May 5, 2003
( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-13027250.html ) ; M. White, “Dalyell Steps Up Attack On Levy,” The Guardian (London), May 6, 2003. ( http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/may/06/race.politics ).
5. Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record – Senate, May 20, 2004, pages S5921-S5925. See also: M. Weber, “’Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel,’ Says Senator Hollings,” July 16, 2004 ( http://www.ihr.org/news/040716_hollings.shtml )
6. Paul Findley, “Liberating America From Israel.” ( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/liberatingamerica.shtml )
7. Philip Giraldi, “Israel’s $38 Billion Scam,” Sept. 27, 2016. ( http://www.unz.com/article/israels-38-billion-scam/ ) . Giraldi also holds a BA with honors from the University of Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from the University of London.
8. Resolution A/ES-10/L.15. U.N. Press Release, GA/10179, Oct. 21, 2003. ( http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/ga10179.doc.htm ) ;
See also: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/ES-10/PV.22 ,
And, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/5A55BCA2DB23DC0685256E15006FBB71; See also, for example, UN General Assembly vote on Dec. 23, 2003, on draft resolution 58/229. ( https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/77660E5C1B79EF8C85256EA90068A58B )
9. On April 8, 2002, in Madrid. J. Brinkley, “Israel Starts Leaving … ,” The New York Times, April 9, 2002. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/08/international/08CND-MIDE.html )
10. Daniel B. Shapiro, Remarks to the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), Sept. 6, 2011. Text posted at :
Also posted at:
https://il.usembassy.gov/remarks-to-the-jewish-people-policy-institute-jppi-by-ambassador-daniel-b-shapiro/ ; See also: Alison Weir, “US Ambassador: Support for Israel Drives All US Mideast Policies,” Sept. 2011. ( http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/po-israel.html )
11. Announcement by the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Forward (New York), Sept. 17, 2004 ( http://www.ihr.org/other/forward_040917.pdf ). See also: M. Weber, “Bush or Kerry: Any Real Difference in Foreign Policy?,” Oct. 26, 2004 ( http://www.ihr.org/news/041026_weber.shtml ) .
12. “US, Israel sign massive military aid deal; $38B, 10 years,” Associated Press, Sept. 14, 2016 ( https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-israel-sign-massive-military-aid-deal-38b-183103646–politics.html )
13. “The U.S. Is Making a Historic Investment to Protect the Security of Israel,” White House statement, Sept. 14, 2016.
( https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/09/14/us-making-historic-investment-protect-security-israel )
14. “Republican Senators push to expand military aid to Israel.” The Times of Israel and Associated Press, Sept. 21, 2016.
( http://www.timesofisrael.com/republican-senators-push-to-expand-military-aid-to-israel/ )
15. D. Tutu, “Apartheid in the Holy Land,” The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html )
16. N. Confessore, E. Lipton, “Seeking to Ban Online Betting, G.O.P. Donor Tests Influence,” The New York Times, March 27, 2014 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/politics/major-gop-donor-tests-his-influence-in-push-to-ban-online-gambling.html); J. Horowitz, “Republican Contenders Reach Out to Sheldon Adelson, Palms Up,” The New York Times, April 26, 2015 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/us/politics/republican-contenders-reach-out-to-sheldon-adelson-palms-up.html ) ; E. Lipton, “G.O.P.’s Israel Support Deepens as Political Contributions Shift,” The New York Times, April 4, 2015 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/us/politics/gops-israel-support-deepens-as-political-contributions-shift.html) ; See also: M. Gold, P. Rucker, “Billionaire mogul Sheldon Adelson looks for mainstream Republican who can win in 2016,” The Washington Post, March 25, 2015 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billionaire-mogul-sheldon-adelson-looks-for-mainstream-republican-who-can-win-in-2016/2014/03/25/e2f47bb0-b3c2-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html ); P. Stone, “Sheldon Adelson Spent Far More On Campaign Than Previously Known,” The Huffington Post, Dec. 12, 2012 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/sheldon-adelson-2012-election_n_2223589.html )
17. A. R. Sorkin, “Schlepping to Moguldom,” The New York Times, Sept. 5, 2004. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html ) ; “Israeli Billionaire Saban is Biggest Donor to US Politicians,” Ynet News (Israel), Jan. 23, 2007. ( http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3355786,00.html )
18. M. J. Rosenberg, “Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban: Billionaire Funders for Israel,” The Nation, Dec. 8, 2014 (http://www.thenation.com/article/192065/sheldon-adelson-and-haim-saban-want-be-koch-brothers-israel )
19. M. Medved, “Is Hollywood Too Jewish?,” Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37.
20. J. Stein, “How Jewish Is Hollywood?,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2008. ( http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column )
21. Jennifer Epstein, “Biden: ‘Jewish heritage is American heritage’,” Politico, May 21, 2013. ( http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/biden-jewish-heritage-is-american-heritage-164525.html ); Daniel Halper, “Biden Talks of ‘Outsized Influence’ of Jews: ‘The Influence Is Immense’,” The Weekly Standard, May 22, 2013.
( http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-talks-outsized-influence-jews-influence-immense_728765.html ) See also: M. Weber, “Vice President Biden Acknowledges ‘Immense’ Jewish Role in American Mass Media and Cultural Life,” July 2013. ( http://ihr.org/other/biden_jewish_role )
22. “Nixon, Billy Graham Make Derogatory Comments About Jews on Tapes,” Chicago Tribune, March 1, 2002 (or Feb. 28, 2002). (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html );
“Billy Graham Apologizes for ’72 Remarks,” Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2002. “Graham Regrets Jewish Slur,” BBC News, March 2, 2002. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1850077.stm ) The conversation apparently took place on Feb. 1, 1972.
23. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 209.
Nazi jargon revival after decades rings warning bells in Germany
Long-banished German words and phrases linked to the country’s Nazi past have been revived by far-right politicians railing against the refugee influx, sparking comparisons to the 1930s.
The re-emergence of formerly taboo words has prompted some historians to draw parallels with the rhetoric used in the final, turbulent years of the Weimar Republic, the fledgling democracy that gave way to Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship.
For more than a year, the Islamophobic Pegida street movement has routinely insulted the media as “Luegenpresse” (Lying press), a word used by Hitler in the 1920s to discredit the mainstream press.
Far-right demonstrators heckling Chancellor Angela Merkel and her ministers also labelled them “Volksverraeter” (Traitors) for allowing 890,000 asylum-seekers to come to the country last year.
While “Volksverraeter” is a bona fide word denoting someone committing treason, it carries a stench when used in political protests, evoking Hitler and his henchmen going after those they labelled enemies of the state.
At German reunification anniversary celebrations in the eastern city of Dresden in early October, one protester went as far as to carry a banner bearing a quote attributed to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.
In Germany, where glorification of the Nazis is a crime, some have called for the law to step in.
“When national incitement becomes a popular sport, the state cannot just watch on,” said Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily in an editorial, adding that “there has already been a Weimar Republic. It must not be followed by a Dresden Republic”.
But the loaded vocabulary is not only deployed by angry protesters ranting on the streets.
Stirring up fear
Some politicians too have been using racially charged words such as “voelkisch”, a term meaning “ethnic” but used by the Nazis to describe people belonging to the superior German race, and “Umvolkung” – the fascist idea of replacing racially inferior populations with the German people.
The leader of the anti-refugee right-wing populist party AfD, Frauke Petry, who has never been shy of controversy, last month suggested that “voelkisch” be rehabilitated and wiped of its negative connotation.
“I do not use this term myself, but I don’t agree that it should only be used in a negative context,” she told Die Welt daily, drawing a chorus of condemnation.
Die Zeit columnist Kai Biermann pointed out that “the term voelkisch was a synonym for extreme nationalism and racism. It is, until today, a symbol for Nazism and its ideology to exterminate and murder everyone who is not German.”
The columnist charged that Petry had dug up the term because “it expresses the wish to reject everything that does not belong to one’s people”.
“It stirs up the fear that too many foreign people are coming who can change the status quo,” he wrote.
A politician belonging to Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union went on to also use the term “Umvolkung”.
While the Nazis had used the word to define the Germanization of people in regions seized by the Third Reich, today it is used in the far-right milieu as shorthand for immigration.
Bettina Kudla drew fire when she said in a tweet that: “Merkel disputes it … The Umvolkung of Germany has already begun. Action is needed!”
Shift in identity
Hans Kundnani, political analyst at the German Marshall Fund, noted that politicians would not have used these controversial terms two decades ago.
“There’s been a shift in German national identity over the last 15 years or so, and I think the use of these terms has reemerged against that backdrop”, he said.
What has changed is that there has been a “resurgence in the collective memory of Germans as victims” in World War II.
As a result “Germany has become a little bit less critical about the Nazi past than it used to be”, he said.
Reunification 26 years ago may also have played a part, as it meant that “discourse in Germany is now partly being influenced by east Germans in a way that it hasn’t been before”, he said.
“They had a different historical experience, and had a different engagement – less of an engagement with the Nazi past.”
Political scientist Hans Vorlaender said: “In eastern Germany, and in particular in Saxony state, there is a greater propensity to use these terms.
“This is because, especially in Saxony, they are much more conservative and more nationalist in their thinking,” he said, noting that the AfD and Pegida were playing to this.
Such speech should not be interpreted as an attempt to resurrect fascism, said the professor at Dresden University.
Rather, he said, “what they want is to strengthen national patriotism and to say that there is no historical responsibility for Germany to welcome every Muslim here”.