September 29, 2009
Andy Williams accuses Barack Obama of following Marxist theory
Williams, a lifelong Republican whose hits include Moon River and Music To Watch Girls By, told the Radio Times he thought Mr Obama wanted to turn the US into a “socialist country”.
The 81-year-old was a friend of the Kennedy family during the 1960s and was present at the Los Angeles rally where Robert F Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.
“I was very close to Bobby and he asked me to be a delegate for him when he ran for president,” he said.
“He knew about me being a Republican, but just laughed and said, ‘Sign yourself in as a Democrat and then change back afterwards’. Sadly, I never got to do that.
“I was very close to Teddy Kennedy, too, and his death recently brought it all back. What a tragedy. Had he lived, I think Bobby would have been a great president.”
But Williams had a less favourable opinion of the current president.
“Don’t like him at all,” he said, “I think he wants to create a socialist country. The people he associates with are very Left-wing. One is registered as a Communist.
“Obama is following Marxist theory. He’s taken over the banks and the car industry. He wants the country to fail.”
Politicians, media personalities and conservative activists have accused the US president of espousing socialist ideas.
Earlier this month, Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party in Florida, said he was “absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology”, after the US leader appeared in a televised address to be shown in classrooms around the country.
FDIC: Bank Failures to Cost $100 Billion
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators said Tuesday they expect U.S. bank failures to cost the deposit insurance fund about $100 billion in the next four years and the fund to be running at a deficit this month.
That is higher than an earlier estimate of $70 billion in failure costs through 2013.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. made the projections Tuesday as its board voted to propose requiring banks to prepay an estimated $45 billion in regular insurance premiums for 2010-2012. The proposal could take effect after a 30-day public comment period.
It was the first time the FDIC has required prepaid insurance fees.
“I do think this is a good balance,” FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said. The plan requires the banking industry “to step up” while spreading the financial hit to banks over a number of years, she said.
An insurance payment by the industry of $45 billion “is not going to constrain lending,” she said.
The insurance fund has been sapped by billions from a rash of bank failures that began in mid-2008. The banking industry prefers that option over a special emergency fee — which would be the second this year.
Without additional special fees or increases in regular premiums, the insurance fund — at $10.4 billion at the end of June — will become “significantly negative” next year and could remain in deficit until 2013, the FDIC is now projecting.
Ninety-five banks have failed so far this year as losses have mounted on commercial real estate and other soured loans amid the most severe financial climate in decades. That has cost the fund about $25 billion, the FDIC said Tuesday. The $10.4 billion already was the fund’s lowest point since 1992, at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis. That is equivalent to 0.22 percent of insured deposits, below a congressionally mandated minimum of 1.15 percent.
Most of the $100 billion in costs are expected to come from failures this year and next, the agency said.
Bair didn’t rule out the possibility of the FDIC tapping its $500 billion credit line with the Treasury Department, if the economy unexpectedly worsened. “But today is not that day,” she said before the vote.
Some analysts expect hundreds more banks to fail in the coming years. But the FDIC is fully backed by the government, which means depositors’ money is guaranteed up to $250,000 per account.
The deficit partly reflects higher reserves the FDIC has set aside for anticipated bank failures. At the same time, the balance of cash and assets of failed banks that can be sold by the FDIC remain positive, the agency said.
An emergency insurance fee on banks, which took effect June 30, brought in around $5.6 billion. Another one would allow the healthiest banks to keep more capital for investment, but could drive weaker banks toward failure, further depleting the insurance fund.
“The prepaid assessments represent money that the FDIC expects to receive from banks anyway over the next several years, but having the cash on hand sooner … provides more flexibility for dealing with any contingencies over the foreseeable future,” James Chessen, chief economist of the American Bankers Association, said in a statement. “Another special assessment would likely do more harm than good as it would directly reduce bank income, hinder capital growth, and make lending much more difficult.”
In addition to the insurance fund, the FDIC has about $21 billion in cash available in reserve to cover losses at failed banks, down from $25 billion at the end of the first quarter.
“There’s lots of liquidity; there’s lots of cash. Liquidity’s not an issue for the banking system right now,” Bair told reporters.
Dollar is the New Peso
The U.S. dollar will continue weakening, and investors may borrow it to invest in higher-yielding assets, says Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital.
“I don’t know when (the dollar) is going to strengthen,” Schiff told CNBC.
“The dollar isn’t the new yen, it’s unfortunately the new peso.”
A weak dollar and low U.S. interest rates push the greenback toward becoming a carry trade currency, which, like the yen for many years, attracts investors to borrow it cheaply to invest elsewhere.
However, Schiff says, the dollar will weaken even further as the yen becomes a stronger currency, which makes the U.S. dollar resemble a more volatile currency such as the peso.
“Not only can you borrow dollars for very cheap and earn to carry by investing in higher yielding assets, but the dollar is going to fall sharply. So anyone who puts on the carry trade is going to make a ton of money.”
Japanese Finance Minister Hirohisa Fujii has repeatedly said his government will not interfere in currency markets and is happy with the strength of the yen, which is helping keep the dollar weak.
“Fujii said they won’t intervene,” says Sebastien Galy, a currency strategist at BNP Paribas Securities in New York, according to Bloomberg.
“That gave people license to sell the dollar-yen. The dollar is under pressure in general.”
U.S. Government Going Broke
Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff says the government “is going broke.”
In a Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review article, he points out that bankruptcy is usually defined as an inability to pay interest on current debt, with no prospect of being able to pay without changes in circumstances.
In assessing whether the United States is bankrupt, Kotlikoff drops the first half of the definition, The New York Times reports.
He instead looks at whether Uncle Sam can pay all of its future obligations under reasonable assumptions. The conclusion: probably not.
Kotlikoff cites a paper written by economists Kent Smetters and Jagdeesh Gokhale in 2002. They estimated the gap between all the government’s expected liabilities and its probable revenue at about $60 trillion, depending on the assumptions.
The Times points out that totals about five years’ worth of GDP, or a few decades of tax revenue at current rates. And seven years ago, the government’s fiscal picture was a lot prettier than it is today.
As that seven-year-old paper indicates, Kotlikoff isn’t the first to realize the dangerous predicament of government finances.
But the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus created in response to the financial crisis has clearly made the situation more precarious.
Investment guru Marc Faber, in an interview with Bloomberg, issued this dire warning: “I don’t know whether it will be tomorrow or in three years, five years, 10 years. But the next crisis will bring down the entire capitalist system.”
Gaza War Moves to Toronto
by T. Litvin
Special to VJ
I cannot seem to walk into Starbucks for a cup of coffee without hearing about the horrific sins of the Israeli people. As far as I can comprehend, the main problem is the fact that Israel seems to refuse to lie down and die quietly, enduring suicide bombings, rocket attacks and slaughter with the quiet air of dignity and submission. The latest crime painted by the mainstream media comes to us in the form of a letter written by a number of ‘artists and activists’ protesting the Toronto Film Festival’s choice to showcase Tel Aviv in its new ‘City to City’ program.
The letter claims that the Toronto Film Festival is complicit in staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of an apartheid regime. This accusation would be amusing if it were not so dangerous. The letter goes on to state that the City to City program is lacking diversity due to the “lack of Palestinian filmmakers in the program…..’ and claims that ‘Tel Aviv is built on destroyed Palestinian villages… Looking at Tel Aviv without…considering the city’s past and the realities of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, would be like rhapsodizing about the beauty and elegant lifestyles in white-only Cape Town or Johannesburg during apartheid without acknowledging the corresponding black townships of Khayelitsha and Soweto.”
Many discussions regarding Israel and the policies of the country are extremely emotional; this one is merely factual. It astounds me that more than 60 artists, activists and respected members of the international film community would sign a letter without checking the facts of the matter first. In fact, Jane Fonda admitted that she signed the letter without even fully reading its contents. In her letter of ‘explanation’ (not, God-forbid, apology,) she states: “I signed the letter without reading it carefully enough, without asking myself if some of the wording wouldn’t exacerbate the situation rather than bring about constructive dialogue…Some of the words in the protest letter did not come from my heart.” She continues and says: “The simplistic depiction of Tel Aviv as a city “built on destroyed Palestinian villages,” … and the omission of any mention of Hamas’s 8-month-long rocket and mortar attacks on Israel…”
I want to scoff. I want to say ‘Wait, you mean Israel did not just wake up one day and randomly decide to attack innocent people? The Palestinians DID something?’ Gasp.
There are millions of people in this world who are not even at fault for feeling this way, seeing as this is what the popular view is in the media. Your average American today does not know that entering Gaza was years in the making, and that Israel repeatedly warned Hamas to stop sending rockets on Israeli towns or they would face retaliation. Show me another government in the world who would spend years warning a neighbouring country to stop bombing them before they react? And yet, the Israelis do. Then they warn that they are going in. And as they do they actually send leaflets and telephone Gazans to tell them when they will be attacking! And when they do go in, they bring humanitarian aid. And this is the country that millions of educated, well-meaning, sincere people are calling an apartheid state.
Someone, for the love of God, invest in a dictionary. Then we’ll talk.
It is perfectly understandable to me that people react to the atrocious living conditions in Gaza. Someone should write a letter protesting against Hamas and the heads of the Palestinian people who mutilate every Israeli peace offer by refusing to stand by what they continually promise: that they will stop attacking the Israeli people. THAT letter I will sign.
Thanks to the mainstream media and the continuous web of fabrications that they weave, Israeli retaliation to Palestinian terror has been branded unacceptable and unforgivable. The public is not interested in the reasons behind or events leading up to Israel’s response. They’ve seen the pictures. And so have I. I am not about to sit and contest the fact that Gaza appears to be nothing but a dark hellhole. I pity every child that has to grow up there. As if their living conditions are not difficult enough, they are being raised in a cesspool of hatred that exists solely to breed more hatred. They are taught not to question, but to accept, not to create, but to destroy. They will be discriminated against if they are female, gay, handicapped, or reject the opinions handed down by fanatics whose life’s goal is to breed hatred and unrest.
Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici addressed the following remarks to John Greyson, who initiated the boycott when he stated that he would withdraw his film to protest Israel’s “brutal” military assault on Gaza earlier this year. “If Mr. Greyson “were to walk down the streets of Tel Aviv with a sign saying he is a homosexual filmmaker, he would be invited to the Tel Aviv Queer Film Festival. But if he did that in Ramallah or any Palestinian village in the Territories, his films would have to be shown posthumously because they would kill him.” Mr. Jacobvici makes a cogent point.
Indeed, the supreme irony of this entire boycott is the fact that Israel is the only country in the entire region of the Middle East in which such a festival could be held. It’s the only country in the region where films are made freely and without censorship, where creative expression is a reality, and not a far off dream being suppressed by radical voices. The true tragedy here is the fact that people who claim they are trying to boycott oppression are the very same ones causing oppression for the Jewish people. The general opinion on the Jewish people and Israel is not great at the best of times, but anti-Israel sentiment is growing at an alarming pace as the recent uptick in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide will attest.
Today many people will tell you they have nothing against Jews or even Israelis, but it’s ‘those Zionists’ that they are opposing. Just ask Ahmadinejad.
The veil that is the word Zionist is a convenient way to mask the word Semite. It’s what enabled Ahmadinejad to garner applause from many moderate countries after his poisonous anti-Israel speech at the UN last year. Judaism and Zionism cannot be separated, and pretending that they can be is offensive.
Let’s recap. We now live in a world where the leader of Iran can openly call for the destruction of Israel. Yet Tel Aviv cannot hold a film festival without a group of artists and activists’ screaming from the rooftops about Israel’s alleged oppression of the Palestinian people. This is neither acceptable nor logical, and it is absolutely dangerous and detrimental to the Jewish people.
In the expansion on her statement, Jane Fonda explained that really, the problem comes down to a matter of narratives. She breaks it down to the fact that one narrative sees 1948 as the birth of a nation while the other sees it as “the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their land. Conceivably it was both.” The beautiful conclusion she reaches is: “Neither can be erased, both must be heard.”
While it would appear that neither narrative can be erased, narratives can most certainly be fabricated. I plead that you look at historical facts, and not such a tainted representation of them. Acclaimed film producer Thomas K. Barad recently responded to his fellow members of the film community in an eloquent letter using facts to refute the statements of the initial protest. The letter is an essential read and contains important information that everyone engaged in this debate should be aware of.
An ever growing phenomenon of anti-Israel propaganda is corroding public opinion to the point where it could prove dangerous. Of course, this too is brushed aside and put down to Jewish paranoia, as Ms. Fonda made sure to include in her ‘explanation.’ “In the hyper-sensitized reality of the region…any criticism of Israel is swiftly and often unfairly branded as anti-Semitic.”
I have heard the argument before. I have been at many dinners in which educated people I respect have flat out told me that I hold the opinions that I do only because I am Jewish, and that Jews seem to be ultra paranoid when it comes to criticism. My response is ‘Well, you would be pretty paranoid too if half your family was wiped out in the Holocaust.’
Unsubstantiated criticism of the Jewish people is not something to be taken lightly. It doesn’t dissipate. It accumulates and grows and over the centuries, this led to thousands of hate crimes, and what brought on the monstrosities of the Holocaust. Hitler himself never killed a single soul. He did not need to. He had poison. He had words. His propaganda shaped public opinion and in turn inflamed other people to the point that their actions caused death and destruction beyond measure.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Words can be weapons. And this is not about your opinion or my opinion. This is about the sheer distortion of facts that are accepted by the mainstream public. This is about a growing sentiment that paints a vile mask on the state of Israel, one that it has not earned. Every time Israel is referred to as an apartheid state, public opinion is eroded a little bit more. Every time Hamas is not held responsible for the conditions of the Palestinian people and the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, we take a step away from the betterment of the region and a step closer to the destruction of Israel. It doesn’t need to be true to be dangerous.
Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan
By JOSH MITCHELL and STEPHEN POWER
(See Corrections & Amplifications below.)
WASHINGTON — A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000.
The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla is a California startup focusing on all-electric vehicles, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns.
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Fisker’s Karma hybrid sports car, above, will initially cost about $89,000.
The awards to Fisker and Tesla have prompted concern from companies that have had their bids for loans rejected, and criticism from groups that question why vehicles aimed at the wealthiest customers are getting loans subsidized by taxpayers.
“This is not for average Americans,” said Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-tax group in Washington. “This is for people to put something in their driveway that is a conversation piece. It’s status symbol thing.”
DOE officials spent months working with Fisker on its application, touring its Irvine, Calif., and Pontiac, Mich., facilities and test-driving prototypes.
Matt Rogers, who oversees the department’s loan programs as a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, said Fisker was awarded the loan after a “detailed technical review” that concluded the company could eventually deliver a highly fuel-efficient hybrid car to a mass audience. Fisker said most of its DOE loan will be used to finance U.S. production of a $40,000 family sedan that has yet to be designed.
“It’s the ability to drive significant change in fuel economy across a large market segment” that swayed the department to approve the Fisker loan, Mr. Rogers said. “We got quite excited.”
Henrik Fisker, who designed cars for BMW, Aston Martin and Tesla before starting his Fisker Automotive in 2007, said his goal is to build the first plug-in electric hybrids that won’t sacrifice the luxury, performance and looks of traditional gas-powered luxury cars.
The Karma will target an exclusive audience — Gore was one of the first to sign up for one. Mr. Fisker says all new technology starts out being expensive. He pointed to flat-screen televisions that once started at $25,000 but are now affordable to the mass market.
The four-door Karma, powered by a lithium-ion battery, will be able to run solely on electric power for 50 miles, and will achieve an average fuel economy of 100 mpg over the span of a year, the company says. Production is scheduled to start in December, with about 15,000 vehicles a year expected to hit the U.S. market starting next June.
Many of the 1,500 people who have made deposits on the Karma are former BMW and Mercedes owners who want an environmentally friendly car without sacrificing luxury, Mr. Fisker said.
He said he pitched the Karma to Mr. Gore at an event hosted by KPCB last year, and that the former vice president almost immediately submitted a down payment for the car.
Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, confirmed that the former vice president backs Fisker and purchased a Karma. “He believes that a global shift of the automobile fleet toward electric vehicles, accompanying a shift toward renewable-energy generation, represents an important part of a sensible strategy for solving the climate crisis,” she said in a statement.
Fisker’s top investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a veteran Silicon Valley venture-capital firm of which Gore is a partner. Employees of KPCB have donated more than $2.2 million to political campaigns, mostly for Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign contributions.
Officials at Kleiner Perkins didn’t return requests for comment.
Asked whether Mr. Gore had any influence on Fisker’s application, the DOE’s Rogers said, “None at all.”
“This is a very attractive, very across-party-lines kind of vehicle,” Mr. Rogers said. “All of the detailed due diligence [was] done by independent review teams.”
Other Fisker investors include Eco-Drive (Capital) Partners LLC, an investment consortium, and Qatar Investment Authority, a state-run investor based in Qatar.
Fisker’s government loans will come from a $25 billion program established by Congress in 2007 to help auto makers invest in the technology to meet a new congressional mandate to improve fuel efficiency. In June, the DOE awarded the first $8 billion from the program to Ford Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., and Tesla, which are all developing electric cars.
Some companies that have been turned down for loans from DOE say they did not get much feedback from the department about their applications. O. John Coletti, president of EcoMotors International of Troy, Mich., said his company applied for a $20 million loan from the agency last December, and last month got a one-page rejection letter from the loan program’s director, Lachlan Seward. EcoMotors’ lead investor is Vinod Khosla, himself a former Kleiner Perkins partner and a longtime campaign contributor to Republicans and Democrats alike.
“I don’t have an issue with the winners … it’s possible somebody has better ideas than us,” Mr. Coletti said. At the same time, he said, “More feedback from DOE on a timely basis would be wonderful. When you’re running a business you’d like to know whether you’re going to be able to take advantage of this opportunity.”
Mr. Coletti’s company — which makes diesel engines and is still waiting to hear from the Department on a separate loan application to help it build a manufacturing facility — isn’t without politically well-connected patrons, either. Its major investor is Vinod Khosla, himself a former Kleiner Perkins partner who has donated to campaigns.
Scott Redmond, CEO of XP Vehicles Inc., said he met with DOE officials twice in Washington after applying for a $40 million loan to develop a $15,000 to $25,000 hybrid, and that both times he was told his application looked good. Since receiving a rejection letter from DOE in August, Redmond said, he has been unable to get a full explanation as to why his request was turned down.
Mr. Rogers said he was not at liberty to discuss individual applications that had been turned down, but said the process has been handled fairly and objectively.
Write to Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications
Tesla Motors Inc. produces all-electric vehicles. A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Tesla produces hybrid gas-electric vehicles.
Golda and the Terrorists
By Yehuda Avner
How does one treat terrorists? Deal with them and you’re done for; don’t and innocents die. Take the case of Schoenau. It is a tale of infamy that seized the assemblage of the Council of Europe in September 1973.
The Council of Europe, Strasbourg, is that continent’s approximation to a representative House. At the time in question its 400-odd delegates watched with various degrees of curiosity as a stooped, aging woman with a face deeply scarred with tragic lines, mounted the podium. She was Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir, and she was there at the invitation of the European Council to state the case for Israel.
Generally speaking, Golda Meir preferred to speak extemporaneously, but since this was a formal occasion protocol required she deliver a pre-prepared address. I, her in-house speechwriter, drafted one. In its preparation I had torn up a dozen or more versions, leaving tooth marks on my pen as I wrote and rewrote page after page, scribbling deranged doodles while mentally struggling for concise, rhythmic, salvationary nouns and alliterative descriptions in my effort to give her words a defining oratory.
Finally, a coherent theme emerged and a speech surfaced. It thanked the Council and individual European parliaments for raising their voices in support of Soviet Jewry’s right to freely emigrate to Israel [this was at the height of the worldwide "Let my People Go" campaign], delved into the intricacies of the Middle East conflict, pleaded for “the European Council’s help to enable the Middle East to emulate the model of peaceful coexistence that the Council itself had established,” and perorated with a quote from the great European statesman, Jean Monnet, that “Peace depends not only on treaties and promises. It depends essentially upon the creation of conditions which, if they do not change the nature of men, at least guide their behavior towards each other in a peaceful direction.”
Seven Jews were taken hostage, among them a 73 year-old man, an ailing woman, and a three-year old child. The terrorists issued an ultimatum.
To my consternation Golda never enunciated a single one of these words. Instead, she scanned the assembly from end to end, jaw jutting, her expression defiant, and after combing back her hair with the fingers of both hands, brandished the written speech, and in a caustic tone said, “I have here my prepared address, a copy of which I believe you have before you. But I have decided at the last minute not to place between you and me the paper on which my speech is written. Instead, you will forgive me if I break with protocol and speak in an impromptu fashion. I say this in light of what has occurred in Austria during the last few days.”
Clearly, the woman had decided it was idiotic to read her formal address after the devastating news which had reached her just before leaving Israel for Strasbourg:
A train carrying Jews from communist Russia en route to Israel via Vienna was hijacked by two Arab terrorists at a railway crossing on the Austrian frontier. Seven Jews were taken hostage, among them a 73 year-old man, an ailing woman, and a three-year old child. The terrorists issued an ultimatum that unless the Austrian government instantly closed down Schoenau, the Jewish Agency’s layover near Vienna where the émigrés were processed before being flown on to Israel, not only would the hostages be killed, but Austria itself would become the target of violent retaliation.
The Austrian cabinet hastily met and, led by Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, capitulated. Kreisky announced that Schoenau would be closed forthwith, and the terrorists were hustled to the airport for safe passage to Libya.
The entire Arab world could hardly contain its glee, and a fuming Golda Meir instructed her aides to arrange for an early flight from Strasbourg to Vienna where she intended to confront her fellow prime minister, her fellow socialist, and her fellow Jew, Bruno Kreisky, herself.
To the European Council she said, “Since the Arab terrorists have failed in their ghastly efforts to wreak havoc in Israel they have, of late, taken their atrocities against Israeli and Jewish targets into Europe, aided and abetted by Arab governments.”
This remark caused a fidgety buzz to drone around the packed chamber, and it seemed to deepen when she spoke bitterly about the eleven Israeli athletes kidnapped and murdered at the Munich Olympics the summer before, an outrage compounded by the German government’s subsequent release of the surviving killers in return for the freeing of a hijacked Lufthansa plane and its passengers.
“Oh yes, I fully understand your feelings,” said Golda cynically, arms folded as tight as a drawbridge. “I fully understand the feelings of a European prime minister saying, ‘For God’s sake, leave us out of this! Fight your own wars on your own turf. What do your enmities have to do with us? Leave us be!’ And I can even understand” — this in a voice that had gone grimmer than ever — “why some governments might even decide that the only way to rid themselves of this insidious threat is to declare their countries out of bounds, if not to Jews generally then certainly to Israeli Jews, or Jews en-route to Israel. It seems to me this is the moral choice which every European government has to make these days.”
“…there is but only one answer — no deals with terrorists; no truck with terrorism.”
And then, chopping the air with balled fists, her face as granite as her eyes, she thundered, “European governments have no alternative but to decide what they are going to do. To every one which upholds the rule of law I suggest there is but only one answer — no deals with terrorists; no truck with terrorism. Any government which strikes a deal with these killers does so at its own peril. What happened in Vienna is that a democratic government, a European government, came to an agreement with terrorists. In so doing it has brought shame upon itself. In so doing it has breached a basic principle of the rule of law, the basic principle of the freedom of the movement of peoples — or should I just say the basic freedom of the movement of Jews fleeing Russia? Oh, what a victory for terrorism this is!”
The ensuing applause told Golda Meir that she had gotten her message across to a goodly portion of the European Council, so off she flew to Vienna.
Ushered into the presence of the impeccably dressed, bespectacled, heavy-set man in his mid-sixties whom she knew to be the son of a Viennese Jewish clothing manufacturer, she extended her hand which he shook while rising with the merest sketch of a bow, but not budging from behind the solid protection of his desk. ‘Please take a seat, Prime Minister Meir,” he said formally.
“Thank you Chancellor Kreisky,” said Golda, settling into the chair opposite him, and placing her copious black leather handbag on the floor. “I presume you know why I am here.”
“I believe I do,” answered Kreisky, whose body language bore all the signs of one who was not relishing this appointment.
“You and I have known each other for a long time,” said Golda softly.
“We have,” said the chancellor.
“And I know that, as a Jew, you have never displayed any interest in the Jewish State. Is that not correct?”
“That is correct. I have never made any secret of my belief that Zionism is not the solution to whatever problems the Jewish people might face.”
“Which is all the more reason why we are grateful to your government for all that it has done to enable thousands of Jews to transit through Austria from the Soviet Union via Schoenau to Israel,” said Golda diplomatically.
“But the Schoenau transit camp has been a problem to us for some time,” said Kriesky stonily.
“What sort of a problem?”
“For a start, it has always been an obvious terrorist target…”
Golda cut him off, and with a strong suggestion of reproach, said, “Mr. Kreisky, if you close down Schoenau it will never end. Wherever Jews assemble in Europe for transit to Israel they will be held to ransom by the terrorists.”
“But why should Austria have to carry this burden alone?” countered Kreisky with bite. “Why not others?”
“Such as whom?”
“Such as the Dutch. Fly the immigrants to Holland. After all, the Dutch represent you in Russia.”
It was true. Ever since the Russians had broken off diplomatic relations during the 1967 Six Day war the Dutch embassy in Moscow represented Israel’s interests there.
“Oh, I’m sure the Dutch would be prepared to share the burden if they could,” responded Golda, trying to sound even-tempered. “But they can’t. It doesn’t depend on them. It depends entirely on the Russians. And the Russians have made it clear that they will not allow the Jews to fly out of Moscow. If they could we would fly them directly to Israel. The only way they can leave is by train, and the only country they will allow Jews to transit through is yours.”
“So let them be picked up by your own people immediately upon arrival in Vienna, and flown straight to Israel,” argued the chancellor holding his own.
“That’s not practicable. You know and I know that it takes guts for a Jew to even apply for an exit permit to leave Russia to come to us. They lose their jobs, they lose their citizenship, and they are kept waiting for years. And once a permit is granted most are given hardly more than a week’s notice to pack up, say their goodbyes, and leave. They come out to freedom in drips and drabs, and we never know how many there are on any given train arriving in Vienna. So we need a collecting point, a transit camp. We need Schoenau.”
The chancellor settled his elbows on the desk, steepled his fingers, looked the woman directly in the eye, and said sanctimoniously, “Mrs. Meir, it is Austria’s humanitarian duty to aid refugees from whatever country they come, but not when it puts Austria at risk. I shall never be responsible for any bloodshed on the soil of Austria.”
“And is it also not a humanitarian duty not to succumb to terrorist blackmail, Herr Chancellor?” Her words, sudden and raw and angry, were a declaration of war. What had begun as conflicting views between opponents was now a nasty cut and thrust duel between antagonists.
Kreisky shot back: “Austria is a small country, and unlike major powers small countries have few options in dealing with the blackmail of terrorists.”
“I disagree,” seethed Golda. “There can be no deals with terrorism whatever the circumstances. What you have done is certain to encourage more hostage taking. You have betrayed the Jewish émigrés.”
“You have opened the door to terrorism, Herr Chancellor.”
The man’s brows drew together in an affronted frown. “I cannot accept such language, Mrs. Meir. I cannot…”
“You have opened the door to terrorism, Herr Chancellor,” the prime minister spat undeterred. “You have brought renewed shame on Austria. I’ve just come from the Council of Europe. They condemn your act almost to a man. Only the Arab world proclaims you their hero.”
“Well, there is nothing I can do about that,” said the Austrian in an expressionless voice, looking uncomfortably still. And then, with a hint of a shrug, “You and I belong to two different worlds.”
“Indeed we do, Herr Kreisky,” said Golda Meir in a voice cracked with sardonic Jewish weariness. “You and I belong to two very very different worlds.” And she rose, picked up her handbag, and made for the door. As she did so an aide to the chancellor entered to say the press were gathered in an adjacent room awaiting a joint press conference.
Golda shook her head. She asked herself, what was the point? Nothing she could say to the media could make any difference. Kreisky wanted to keep in the good books of the Arabs — it was as simple as that. So, she turned and hissed in Hebrew to her aides, “I have no intention of sharing a platform with that man. He can tell them what he wants. I’m going to the airport.” To him she said contemptuously, “I shall forego the pleasure of a press conference. I have nothing to say to them. I’m going home,” and she exited through a back stairway.
Five hours later she told the waiting Israeli press at Ben-Gurion airport, “I think the best way of summing up in a nutshell the nature of my meeting with Chancellor Kreisky is to say this: he didn’t even offer me a glass of water.”
Postscript: Schoenau was shut down, but Golda Meir’s remonstrations triggered such an international whirl of protest that the Austrian chancellor had no choice but to offer alternative arrangements.
One day a few years later, after Menachem Begin assumed the premiership [1977], I was about to walk into the room of his bureau chief, Yechiel Kadishai, when a bedraggled-looking fellow in a battered trilby hat and a tattered raincoat, whom I recognized as a peddler of matches in downtown Jerusalem, walked out.
“What’s that hawker doing here?” I asked. “Do you know him?”
“Sure.” said Yechiel, his face deadpan. “His name is Kreisky,”
“Kreisky who?”
“Shaul Kreisky, brother of the Chancellor of Austria, Bruno Kreisky.”
My mouth dropped open. “You’re pulling my leg,” I said.
“No I’m not. He’s been living here for years. The Prime Minister occasionally helps him out. He’s a great fan of Begin. Run after him and ask him.”
I did. It was true.
This article originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post.
The writer served on the personal staff of five prime ministers, including Golda Meir and Menachem Begin.
Al-Qaeda’s Next Target: Germany
A new Al-Qaeda recording threatens the start of “jihad in Germany” should the electorate return Chancellor Angela Merkel to power next week. The spokesman in the video appeared again one day later in a second video discussing his personal devotion to Islam and death for Allah.
German authorities and most terrorism analysts are taking very seriously the mounting threats to Germany by the international terror organization.
In a video released into jihadist forums on Friday, an Al-Qaeda spokesman known as Abu Talha al-Almani (“the German”) warned that if Angela Merkel wins the German national elections on September 27 2009, the result will be “bitter” for the German people. They can expect a “rude awakening,” he said in a German-language recording. If Merkel is reelected, Abu Talha warned, Germans “have [signed] their own verdict.”
Addressing Muslims in Germany, the jihadist warns, “Stay away from anything vital for two weeks after the election” if the electorate refuses to take his warning seriously. However, he also personally guarantees that “the city of Kiel will remain safe irrespective of how long the conflict will last in Germany.”
“I am telling the youth of Islam in Germany: my dear brethren in Islam, should the jihad begin in Germany, let Al-Qaeda do its job first,” Abu Talha said. “If there should be any need later and we would have to move on to the next phase, we will tell you, inshallah (‘Allah willing’), what every one of you can do to participate in the jihad in Germany.”
The Al-Qaeda jihadist places an additional condition on ending the organization’s conflict with Germany: “With the withdrawal of the last German soldier, the last mujahedin (‘jihad fighter’) will also be withdrawn from Germany.”
The Abu Talha release gives additional weight to an earlier jihadist communication this month that included an explicit threat of a 9/11-like attack in Germany. The communication declared that “everyone knows” that the “next strike is very near, a strike that will surprise everyone in its effect, which will be much more shocking than that of 9/11/2001.” At the time, analysts from the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response commented that the recent Al-Qaeda communications have been unusual in explicitly specifying the timing and type of an attack on Germany and German assets.
‘Turn Unto Your Lord Repentant and Surrender’
On Saturday, a second Al-Qaeda video featuring someone alleged to be Abu Talha as well discusses jihad, the issue of sin and the speaker’s love for Islam and martyrdom. The video, entitled “O Allah, I Love You (Part I)”, calls for repentance and describes the fate of infidels in the End of Days using extensive quotations from the Koran.
Among the texts referred to are the phrases, from Chapter 39 of the Koran (verses 54-55): “Turn unto your Lord repentant, and surrender unto Him, before there come unto you the doom, when ye cannot be helped. And follow the better (guidance) of that which is revealed unto you from your Lord, before the doom cometh on you suddenly when ye know not.” Later Koranic verses, 39:58, are cited in the same reading: “Or should say, when [you] seeth the doom: Oh, that I had but a second chance that I might be among the righteous! (But now the answer will be): Nay, for My revelations came unto thee, but thou didst deny them and wast scornful and wast among the disbelievers.”
Germans Defiant or Unaware?
Current polls would seem to indicate that the German people are either unaware of or defiant against Al-Qaeda’s latest threats.
A public opinion survey by Forsa for Germany’s RTL Television released Tuesday showed that Angela Merkel’s parliamentary bloc (Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union, the Bavarian CSU, and the Social Democratic Part) and the Free Democrats Party (FDP) could form a leading coalition in next week’s elections.
No combination of major left-wing parties was able to garner enough support in the public opinion poll to indicate that a serious coalition challenge could be mounted.
In light of the increased jihadist chatter and activity focused on Germany and the coming elections, Berlin has raised the national terrorism alert level.
September 25, 2009
Bolton: Obama Speech Puts Israel on ‘Chopping Block’
From Newsmax.com:
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said President Barack Obama’s address to the U.N. was “unprecedented” and “unpresidential” as he sought to distance himself from the previous administration.
In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly immediately following Obama’s speech, Kelly cited Obama’s statement that Iran and North Korea must be “held accountable” and “the world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.”
Kelly asked: “Does that advance the ball?”
“I don’t think so,” Bolton responded.
“I think that is exactly the problem that the Security Council of the United Nations has not been able to address effectively with respect to Iran and North Korea’s proliferation activities.
“So to me that was a real example, citing international law of all things, of how the U.N. has failed in the past. I think that really what the president is hoping for is that because he is Barack Obama, he asked explicitly for the other nations to join with him.
“I don’t think that’s going to change anything, but that reflects the very basic view that his accession to the presidency alone changes America’s perception in the world and therefore should change others’ policies. It hasn’t happened in eight months. We’ll see what happens now.”
Obama’s speech included the remark: “I took office when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and mistrust,” Kelly noted.
“I have never seen an American president give a speech at the United Nations that spent so much time contrasting his administration with the previous administration,” Bolton observed.
“Obviously a president talks about his own policies and how he sees America’s role in the world. But this was a speech almost more designed for an American audience than an international audience, hoping to play on the aspect that he is not George Bush. I was struck by how personal it was, and I must say how unpresidential.”
Obama also stated: “Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside…America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy.”
Bolton commented: “As I said, a president is going to advocate his own policies. But these repeated efforts by the president in this speech to say implicitly, I am not George Bush, is I think unprecedented.
“And I think it’s carrying an American political debate, which is legitimate to have, into the international arena. That is particularly what I find unpresidential.”
Bolton also said that in his address Obama “put Israel on the chopping block. I don’t think there’s ever been a speech by an American president, let alone one at the United Nations, that was so critical of Israel.”
Powered by WordPress