The sad story of Holocaust 'witnesses' is well-known to revisionists. It is a tale of obscure individuals making outrageous claims of gassings and mass murder, often based on hearsay and rumor, often self-contradictory, and often in conflict with other witnesses, with material evidence, and even with the laws of physics. This is a serious problem for anyone seeking the truth about the Holocaust. Auschwitz is of particular importance to the narrative, given its centrality in the Holocaust and the large number of survivors. There are a number of recorded witness statements and memoirs, but unfortunately virtually all of them contain serious flaws. Problems with accounts by those such as Wiesel, Vrba, Nyiszli, Frankl, Tauber, Mueller, and others have been well documented—I would refer the reader to Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust, Mattogno's Bunkers of Auschwitz, or my own book Debating the Holocaust. To take one lesser known example of such problematic witnesses, consider the case of Yanina Cywinska. As reported in the LA Times (May 2, 1992), she was a "16-year-old Polish Roman Catholic girl" taken to Auschwitz along with her parents and brother. (They were sent for helping the Jews.) "She recalled being placed in a gas chamber naked along with her father." Miraculously, young Yanina survived: "she was saved by a Jewish woman who gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation." Apparently this story wasn't exactly correct, because the same newspaper reported a different version 11 years later. Now she was a 10-year-old at Auschwitz, where her parents and brother died in the chambers. She was sent there as well, "but because she was huskier than most children, Cywinska only passed out from the gas. A German revived her and put her to work" (August 17, 2003). Then in 2005 the story changed again. The Quad-City Times reported that "she survived the gas chamber when adult bodies fell on top of her, protecting her from inhaling a lethal amount of poison gas. Found moaning by Jewish slave laborers…she was resuscitated, given a uniform, and told to blend in with the others" (April 11). I haven't the space to address the many problems with these reports; suffice to say that there was some heavy poetic license at work here, if not blatant falsification. So we are fortunate now to have an unimpeachable witness in Dr. Thomas Buergenthal. Here we have an authoritative and trustworthy individual who has "devoted his life to international and human rights law," according to his book cover. He has a Harvard law degree, and is currently serving as the American judge on the UN's International Court of Justice. Clearly this is a man dedicated to truth, honesty, and openness—and so we are justified in holding his account of Auschwitz to a very high standard. True, he was a 10-year-old Jewish boy at the time (1944). But even so, this is the work of a mature and intelligent adult, and thus we can expect an honest and straightforward account of the happenings at that most infamous camp. The first question is this: Why did he wait so long? In the preface Buergenthal explains that he wants to "recount [his] story to a wider audience [because] the Holocaust cannot be fully understood unless we look at it through the eyes of those who lived through it." Fine, but why wait 65 years? He has published books since the late 1960s; why wait so long for such an important story? The intervening years can only have obscured his memory—and to his credit he admits as much: Quite a disclaimer! But the author is now well covered for any discrepancies that may appear in the book. Much of Buergenthal's work is autobiographical, and only a few chapters relate directly to the Holocaust. Prior to his time at Auschwitz-Birkenau, a brief point of interest appears in his discussion of the Kielce ghetto. On two different occasions (pages 49 and 56) he speaks of the "liquidation" of the ghetto. Readers will likely be aware that traditionalists read this word as meaning 'mass murder' or 'extermination.' Perhaps the most notorious occurrence was in Goebbels' diary entry of March 27, 1942, in which he wrote that "60 percent [of the Jews in the General Government] will have to be liquidated." Rudolf and other revisionists have responded that 'liquidation' meant simply 'elimination or removal', not mass murder. Buergenthal evidently agrees. He writes, "The ghetto was being liquidated, or, in the words bellowing out of the loudspeakers, "Ausseidlung! Ausseidlung!" ("Evacuation! Evacuation!) Chapter 4 is dedicated to Auschwitz. Here he recounts his time at Birkenau, the place where "millions of human beings died" (p. 64). Presuming this means at least two millions, Buergenthal vastly overestimates even the current traditionalist thinking on this matter—which places total deaths at 1.1 to 1.25 million people (90% being Jews). Or perhaps this was an unconscious throwback to the pre-1990 days, when "four million people" allegedly died at Auschwitz. Buergenthal arrived in early August 1944, which would have been (according to the standard view) just after the mass gassing of the Hungarian Jews: some 400,000+ individuals gassed within a period of just two months—an astounding 50,000 per week, or over 7,000 per day. But he gives no indication whatsoever that any such monstrous event had just occurred. After arrival he recounts the common storyline that, upon "selection," "the children, the elderly, and the invalids were…taken directly to the gas chambers." As luck would have it, "our group was spared the selection process. The SS officers…probably assumed, since our transport came from a labor camp [Henrykow], that children and others not able to work had already been eliminated" (p. 65)—but why assume anything? Were the SS unable to recognize a child when they saw one? Wouldn't every errant child, once spotted, be carted off for immediate gassing? Apparently not. Young Thomas and his father were then separated from his mother, but he would be reunited with her in late 1946. After a few months his father was taken away ("shipped out on a transport"), never to be seen again. So evidently all three Buergenthals survived their stay at this most notorious 'death camp.' Next he describes a standard delousing procedure: "we were marched toward a big building. Here we were ordered to take off our clothes and made to run through some showers and a disinfecting foot pool. Along the way, our hair was shorn off…" (p. 66). The boy then received his arm tattoo ("B-2930"). One cannot help but wonder why the Nazis would have bothered to delouse and tattoo a 10-year-old boy, unless they were trying to forestall a typhus outbreak, protect prisoners' lives, and track their movements to the East. But this is precisely the revisionist thesis. Young Thomas was first housed in the 'Gypsy camp,' which had recently been emptied: "all of them—men, women, and children—were murdered shortly before our arrival." (So he knew about the Gypsies, but nothing on those 400,000 Hungarians?) What evidence he had for this belief, he does not say. He then describes a nighttime incident at the local infirmary, in which the SS are rounding up sick patients: "Of course, the patients knew they were being taken to the gas chambers, and we knew that the SS was thinning out the population of the infirmary to make room for new patients. They would do that every few weeks." —a strange situation indeed. Another interesting incident occurred one day when, as errand-boy for the Kapo of the sauna, he was ordered to pick up some "gas": Some sense, but not much. Again, one is left to wonder what the conditions could have been in the camp, such that a Jewish child could just walk over to the crematoria and pick up some cans of deadly Zyklon from joking young men (Jews? Germans?), who were allegedly engaged in the process of killing thousands of people per hour. A following observation by Buergenthal supports the revisionist position, namely, the fact that the crematoria smoked when operating. "The air in Auschwitz always smelled foul because of the smoke that came out of the crematorium chimneys." This is important, as we know, because operating, smoking chimneys would have been captured by air photos—but only one air photo (August 20, 1944) shows a single smoking chimney. The absence of smoking chimneys in nearly a dozen air photos suggests very little use of those incineration ovens. The air may have indeed "always" smelled foul, but the evidence suggests that this was not due to crematorium smoke. Certainly the photos show far too little of it to account for the alleged mass incinerations. He incidentally also remarks on those infamous 'flaming chimneys' of Elie Wiesel: "Whenever the crematoriums were being operated at night, the sky above them would take on a reddish brown color" (p. 76). Perhaps some glowing ash reflected off the smoke, causing a bit of illumination— After escaping temporarily from three more 'selection' events, he was finally corralled with 30 or 40 other men destined for the chambers. "I admitted to myself that there was no way out and that I would die in a few hours." Soon an SS truck arrived. "At first the truck moved in the general direction of the crematoriums, but then it veered off slightly and entered the nearbyKrankenlager, or hospital camp…" (p. 79). Why were they not gassed? "The SS had apparently concluded that it would be a waste of resources to take our small group to the gas chambers," but instead held them "until they had put together a larger group." Time passed; no "larger group" materialized. "I began to like my life in the hospital camp. Maybe the SS forgot us, I thought." The only downside of hospital life was the late-night awakenings from "screams and pleas…as people were being herded into the [nearby] gas chambers." In time he was relocated to the "children's barrack in Camp D" (so, it obviously was not quite true that "children…were taken directly to the gas chambers"). Buergenthal explains that the children were useful for garbage collection. On one of his trash runs he found his mother in the women's camp. Not long afterward, he "heard that a large number of women, including [his] mother, had been sent to another camp in Germany" (p. 84). Odd that, in an alleged extermination camp, large numbers of Jews would be shipped elsewhere. And back to Germany, of all places! His Auschwitz story concludes in "late December 1944 or early January 1945," with a death march evacuation. (Final evacuation occurred on January 17.) So, what can we conclude from Dr. Buergenthal's account? I think that he was, in fact, quite a reliable witness—in terms of the events that he actually observed. Of what he actually claims to have seen, revisionists have very little to quarrel with: the many children in the camp, the movement between barracks, the peaceful time at the camp hospital, the periodic shipments of Jews out of the camp, the delousing procedure, the common use of Zyklon for disinfection, the smoking chimneys. It is only his inferences that are highly dubious—specifically Buergenthal's high reputation and his straightforward, unexaggerated reporting of events make this book worth reading. It provides an unusual insight into daily life at Birkenau, and gives a picture that is at odds which much of the traditionalist account. Thus, in the end, Buergenthal seems a better 'witness' for revisionism than traditionalism. Let us hope that this does not get him in trouble with his fellow seekers of justice.
InconvenientHistory
Volume 2, Number 1 - Spring 2010
A Lucky Child
by Thomas Buergenthal, Profile Books, London; 2009, 231pp.
These recollections, I am sure, are colored by the tricks that the passage of time and old age play on memory: forgotten or inaccurate names of people; muddled facts and dates…; and references toevents that did not happen quite as I describe them or that I believe I witnessed but may have only heard about. … Also, I have found it difficult, if not impossible…to distinguish clearly between some events I actually remember witnessing and those I was told about by my parents or overheard them discuss. All I can say is that as I wrote about them, I seemed to remember them clearly as firsthand experiences. (p. xv; italics added)
[I was sent] to one of the crematoriums… We had to pick up the gas my sauna boss needed for the disinfection of clothes. … When we got there, we were greeted by inmates who worked at the crematoriums. Their job was to remove the bodies from the gas chambers and burn them in the crematoriums. They were all strong young men who joked around with us, probably because they sensed that we were terrified to be so close to the gas chambers. … [T]hey gave us some containers of gas to take back to the sauna. The person who had accompanied me thought that we had been given the same Zyklon gas that was used to kill people in the gas chambers. I have no way of knowing whether that was true, although it made some sense, considering that we got it from the crematorium. (pp. 75-76)
Feb 23, 2010
New Holocaust Book: "A Luck Child" reviewed by Thomas Dalton
Hungarian lawmakers make Holocaust denial illegal
Hungarian lawmakers make Holocaust denial illegal
February 23, 2010
BUDAPEST (JTA) -- Hungary's Parliament has passed a bill making Holocaust denial a criminal offense.
The legislation, which would mandate prison terms of up to three years for those found guilty of publicly "denying, questioning or making light of the Holocaust," was approved Monday night in the presence of Jewish community leaders.
The law would bring Hungary in line with many other countries occupied by the Nazis during World War II.
President Laszlo Solyom must sign the measure into law or return the draft to Parliament for further consideration. Solyom has warned that he would approach any attempt at restricting the right of free speech with great caution. He upset the Jewish community when he declined to sign a similar bill in 2007.
The current proposal, which involves the changing of three lines in the criminal code, passed 197-1, with 142 abstentions by lawmakers from the center-right Fidesz Party and its allies after a Fidesz proposal to include the denial of Nazi and communist crimes in the bill was rejected. Polls indicate that Fidesz is heavily favored in the upcoming elections.
Hate speech and incitement to violence against minorities already are crimes in Hungary. Courts have thwarted other attempts to ban Holocaust denial as violating free speech.
The proceedings were observed from the visitors' gallery by Peter Feldmajer, president of the Coalition of Hungarian Jewish Religious Communities, and several Jewish-Hungarian Holocaust survivors including Gusztav Zoltai, the coalition's managing director.
ReporterNotebook@
Ahmadinejad & Bollinger: When the First-Amendment Scholar Runs the University
February 21, 2010
When the First-Amendment Scholar Runs the University
By Carlin Romano
Champions of the First Amendment come in many guises, with as many differences and frictions (if not shaved heads) as you might find among WWE wrestlers.
Alexander Meiklejohn, for instance, the seminal author of Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (Harper, 1948), originally placed protection of "hard core" political speech so far ahead of mere satisfying self-expression that he memorably declared, "What is essential is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said."
Faced with withering criticism on that score from Zechariah Chafee, no slouch himself in First Amendment jurisprudence, Meiklejohn later backed off from a view that, current scholar Rodney Smolla tartly remarks, "could not have been more wrong."
Chafee, for his part, boldly insisted in Free Speech in the United States (Harvard University Press, 1941) that the framers, when it came to the First Amendment, "had no very clear idea as to what they meant," a notion designed to trigger apoplexy among "absolutists" and "original intent" true believers sure that all First Amendment doctrines depend on the intentions of the men who drafted it.
Indeed, the greatest First Amendment historian of his era, Leonard W. Levy, didn't even agree with himself. In his remarkable introduction to Emergence of a Free Press (Oxford University Press, 1985), a revised edition of what most in the field considered a masterwork, Legacy of Suppression (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 1960), Levy repeatedly castigated himself for being "wrong" about the origins of the First Amendment.
First Amendment theory may thus not be rocket science, but neither is it mere top-of-the-head tweeting (except, perhaps, for those still annotating Justice Alito's now famous mouthing, "Not true!," in response to President Obama's State of the Union Supreme Court commentary).
The real stuff abounds with doctrinal complexity, and a history of pronounced fits and starts in reaching its current unsettled state. It contains multitudes—of insider terms and vying premises—and continues to generate pitched disagreement. Case in point? The stunned reaction to the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, broadly upholding corporation-
Lee Bollinger's distinctive place in First Amendment theory stems from two different sources. One is his own innovative scholarship, from The Tolerant Society (Oxford University Press, 1986) to Images of a Free Press (University of Chicago Press, 1991) and Eternally Vigilant (University of Chicago Press, 2002, edited with Geoffrey R. Stone). He has now added to it with Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open (Oxford University Press, 2010), an incisive new study—make that hybrid study and manifesto—creatively urging a projection of America's free-speech culture across our globalized world. (See accompanying essay by Bollinger on page B6.)
The other is his role as president since 2002 of Columbia University, where free-speech controversies seem to erupt more spectacularly and frequently than on other campuses. One writes "seem" because it can look that way when two local tabloids, the New York Post and New York Daily News, report First Amendment spats on Morningside Heights so constantly you wonder whether they share a free-expression bureau up there. It also helps when the town you operate in includes the U.N. and serial hate-speech visitors like the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
On the theoretical side, Bollinger, despite his leadership posts over the years (he's also been president of the University of Michigan and provost of Dartmouth College), has steadily built upon the foundational ideas he first articulated in The Tolerant Society. There, proceeding from the "extremist speech" issues involved in Skokie and other Supreme Court decisions that he described as "the anvil on which our basic conception of free speech has been hammered out," he had already begun his attention to "social functions of the free-speech idea." Now, in Uninhibited, it has evolved into his real-world focus on how free-speech values operate and should operate in a globalized world.
In The Tolerant Society, Bollinger warned that we should not allow the "continuity of language" in First Amendment jurisprudence to disguise how the meaning of free speech, its "symbolic significance," shifts over time. Like Levy, who berated himself in Emergence of a Free Press for concentrating excessively on what 18th-century Americans said about free speech instead of what they did, Bollinger resists an overly legalistic understanding of free speech while simultaneously trying to synthesize Supreme Court doctrine.
So, in Uninhibited, Bollinger internationalizes the conception of free-speech jurisprudence embedded in his first book, describing it now, in the spirit of Justice Holmes, as "a great social experiment" that "trains us in the art of tolerance and steels us for its vicissitudes." In contending that the United States, through instruments as varied as Supreme Court jurisprudence, international trade law, and international human-rights treaties, should export its free-speech values to the world, Bollinger merges his core First Amendment jurisprudence with the empirical savvy and worldly wisdom he's picked up as Columbia's roaming ambassador around the globe.
Pondering the dilemmas of being a committed free-speech advocate while also running an Ivy League university in the world's 24/7 media capital, Bollinger, chatting in the handsome wood-paneled library of his official presidential home on Morningside Drive (as well as in a follow-up conversation on the phone), rejects the idea that he must regularly compromise his free-expression values with other values important in a university.
"I've never thought of them as clashing," he says. "I have always felt that there were certain fundamental principles—freedom of speech and academic freedom in the context of universities—
And so he briefly lays out out his thinking on Columbia's free-speech controversies of recent years after they're quickly listed before him. The 2006 interruption by students, for instance, of a speech by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an immigrant-unfriendl
All his actions, explains Bollinger, must be understood within the principles for which a great university exists.
"We don't do diplomacy," he asserts. "We're not engaged in having a foreign policy. We do education and research. We are also a forum in which ideas can be expressed, and we try to understand the world." Great universities, in short, already tilt in favor of free speech, but Bollinger notes something many of his critics ignore—that universities must also abide by their own procedural rules.
At Columbia, he says, "students can invite anybody they want and can say whatever they want, basically. ... But faculty and the university, there are limits on what we can do. We don't have the same degree of freedom that students have. We do as citizens, but not as officers or faculty of the institution. We can't, in other words, use the university for political purposes."
"We are an educational, research, scholarly institution," he emphasizes, "and we make decisions about who to invite in the context of that basic mission. ... People don't have a right to come to Columbia or a university and speak."
Much of the time, Bollinger notes, when he's criticized for allowing some controversial speaker at Columbia—Ahmadinejad being the most prominent case—he hasn't issued the invitation himself but is standing up for the right of someone else in the Columbia community to do so. "It is," he states, "absolutely my responsibility to defend that."
In the case of Ahmadinejad, which sparked international headlines praising or condemning Columbia for its decision, Bollinger explains, during the conversation in his house, that he knew he had to engage more directly, acknowledging the behavior of a past tenant of his Columbia mansion. (Nicholas Murray Butler, Columbia's president from 1902 to 1945, has been roundly criticized by scholars for inviting Nazi officials to the campus and treating them courteously.
"I believe that the price of free speech," Bollinger elaborates, "is the responsibility to answer and speak out oneself." He maintains that "the context in which the speaker is going to be permitted to speak is really important. I felt that given the positions Ahmadinejad had taken in the world, the behavior he had engaged in, and the future capability of a person who was prepared to deny the Holocaust in a world forum, it was incumbent upon us to speak to those issues."
So he did it himself, calling the Iranian president "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," accusing him of exhibiting "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," and expressing his own "revulsion" for what Ahmadinejad stood for. A fresh contingent of critics then excoriated Bollinger for his incivility, his violation of standards of courtesy, as if Bollinger had simply channeled his inner Khrushchev. (Some earlier critics against the invitation, in turn, applauded him.) But after reading Bollinger's always thoughtful and respectful prose, sensitive to other points of view, and witnessing his almost reflexive courtesy in the daily functions of a university president, from a luncheon talk honoring an alumnus to how he balances his scheduled phone calls, one senses it must have taken an enormous act of sheer will—not to mention courage—for him to depart from his customary good manners and verbally smash Ahmadinejad in the face.
Some of the principles Bollinger follows in keeping with his free-expression commitments are predictably common-sensical, tolerant, and human. They arguably parallel the New York Times vs. Sullivan opinion he celebrates—the one that declared that an "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" free-speech culture simply must allow people to make mistakes, to get things wrong. He mentions one of those principles in commenting on criticism he received from the New York Post when Columbia's months-long investigation of students who shut down Gilchrist's talk resulted in what the newspaper felt were slaps on the wrist.
"This is an environment in which young people need to be able to make mistakes," Bollinger says, "and not to suffer the full consequences of those mistakes. People don't like to think about universities as having a special parental responsibility for students. But there is clearly, in my view, a nurturing kind of role that universities must and should have in respect to young people who come into our communities. I think that is very much part of the free-speech issue."
Rodney Smolla, author of Free Speech in an Open Society (Knopf, 1992)—now apparently mirroring Bollinger's career path in ascending to president of Furman University—wryly and aptly titled a key chapter of his magisterial book "The Shortcomings of All Simple Answers." Bollinger plainly agrees with the point, but that hasn't kept him from launching bold prescriptions for how a globalized world might adopt the free speech too many Americans take for granted.
Sophisticated and well traveled, Bollinger knows that his appeal in the new book to extend the same wide-ranging free expression that Supreme Court jurisprudence of the last 90 years has provided the United States is likely to call forth predictable criticisms: that it's a new form of American imperialism, that Americans are already too outspoken for the tastes of others (making "American" free speech an export other countries don't want), that it violates the norms of other cultures.
Bollinger grants that such responses may amount to "a powerful point of view," but is unapologetic: "First of all, we have spent at least a century debating this issue ourselves. ... At the end of the day, we've opted for a society organized along a principle of extraordinary openness. And we believe, I think, that it is rooted not only in a desire to find the truth, and to keep the government honest, but also in a sense that that kind of extraordinary openness will lead to a much more tolerant and creative society."
So he concedes that, yes, in line with free expression, he is saying to others that this "is a good way to live." But that's not his only answer. Bollinger insists that we can no longer think in isolationist terms, that in the modern era "we are utterly dependent and integrated with a broader world." What happens "there" affects us "here," and vice versa. "Censorship anywhere," as he puts it, "is censorship everywhere." In the same mode, he writes in Uninhibited that "when the rights of foreign media are curtailed, our rights are threatened. That's what globalization means ... Americans must, therefore, see the foreign press as our press, as important to the United States as it is to the society in which it resides."
"We need to start from a premise that we believe in something," Bollinger concludes, "open to argument and change, willing to make our case for it, and trying in the context of processes like law and debate and so on to advance that."
Memo to President Ahmadinejad: Remember that American university president who harshly criticized your politics, character, and intellectual courage? Probably just a dim memory at this point, with all the unpleasant things people say about you these days. But he's back, and his new book contains a message for you about the world of globalized media best capsulized by that noted American thinker Joe Louis (though you may be more of a Muhammad Ali fan):
You can run, but you can't hide.
Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle Review, teaches philosophy and media theory at the University of Pennsylvania.
--
The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
Secret AIG Document Shows Goldman Sachs Minted Most Toxic CDOs
| | Secret AIG Document Shows Goldman Sachs Minted Most Toxic CDOs aletho | February 23, 2010 at 9:18 am | Categories: Corruption, Deception | URL: http://wp.me/ |
By Richard Teitelbaum | Bloomberg | February 23, 2010
When a congressional panel convened a hearing on the government rescue of American International Group Inc. in January, the public scolding of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner got the most attention.
Lawmakers said the former head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank had presided over a backdoor bailout of Wall Street firms and a coverup. Geithner countered that he had acted properly to avert the collapse of the financial system.
A potentially more important development slipped by with less notice, Bloomberg Markets reports in its April issue. Representative Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought $62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG.
These were the deals that pushed the insurer to the brink of insolvency -- and were eventually paid in full at taxpayer expense. The New York Fed, which secretly engineered the bailout, prevented the full publication of the document for more than a year, even when AIG wanted it released.
That lack of disclosure shows how the government has obstructed a proper accounting of what went wrong in the financial crisis, author and former investment banker William Cohan says. "This secrecy is one more example of how the whole bailout has been done in such a slithering manner," says Cohan, who wrote "House of Cards" (Doubleday, 2009), about the unraveling of Bear Stearns Cos. "There's been no accountability."
CDOs Identified
The document Issa made public cuts to the heart of the controversy over the September 2008 AIG rescue by identifying specific securities, known as collateralized-
The public can now see for the first time how poorly the securities performed, with losses exceeding 75 percent of their notional value in some cases. Compounding this, the document and Bloomberg data demonstrate that the banks that bought the swaps from AIG are mostly the same firms that underwrote the CDOs in the first place.
The banks should have to explain how they managed to buy protection from AIG primarily on securities that fell so sharply in value, says Daniel Calacci, a former swaps trader and marketer who's now a structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases, banks also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans bundled into the CDOs, he says.
'Too Uncanny'
"It's almost too uncanny," Calacci says. "If these banks had insight into the underlying loans because they had relationships with banks, originators or servicers, that's at the least unethical."
The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A, and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured -- more than any other investment bank. Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created $13.2 billion of the CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion.
These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so much under wraps, Professor James Cox of Duke University School of Law says: "They may have been trying to shield Goldman -- for Goldman's sake or out of macro concerns that another investment bank would be at risk."
Poor Performers
Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment.
Schedule A also makes possible a more complete examination of why AIG collapsed. Joseph Cassano, the former president of the AIG Financial Products unit that sold the swaps, said on a December 2007 conference call that his firm pulled back from selling swaps on U.S. subprime residential CDOs in late 2005. The list shows that the $21.2 billion in CDOs minted after 2005, mostly based on prime and commercial mortgages, performed as badly as or worse than the earlier subprime vintages.
A lawyer for Cassano declined to comment.
As details of the coverup emerge, so does anger at the perceived conflicts. Philip Angelides, chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, at a hearing held by his panel on Jan. 13, questioned how banks could underwrite poisonous securities and then bet against them. "It sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars," he said.
'Part of the Coverup'
Janet Tavakoli, founder of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc., a Chicago-based consulting firm, says the New York Fed's secrecy has helped hide who's responsible for the worst of the disaster. "The suppression of the details in the list of counterparties was part of the coverup," she says.
E-mails between Fed and AIG officials that Issa released in January show that the efforts to keep Schedule A under wraps came from the New York Fed. Revelation of the messages contributed to the heated atmosphere at the House hearing.
"What date did you know there was a coverup?" Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray of California demanded of Geithner. Lawmakers used the word coverup more than a dozen times as they peppered Geithner with questions.
Geithner said that he wasn't involved in matters of disclosure and that his former colleagues did the best they could. In a Jan. 19 statement, the New York Fed said, "AIG at all times remained responsible for complying with its disclosure requirements under the securities laws."
The government has committed more than $182 billion to AIG and owns almost 80 percent of the company.
Document Withheld
In late November 2008, the insurer was planning to include Schedule A in a regulatory filing -- until a lawyer for the Fed said it wasn't necessary, according to the e-mails. The document was an attachment to the agreement between AIG and Maiden Lane III, the fund that the Fed established in November 2008 to hold the CDOs after the swap contracts were settled.
AIG paid its counterparties -- the banks -- the full value of the contracts, after accounting for any collateral that had been posted, and took the devalued CDOs in exchange. As requested by the New York Fed, AIG kept the bank names out of the Dec. 24 filing and edited out a sentence that said they got full payment.
The New York Fed's January 2010 statement said the sentence was deleted because AIG technically paid slightly less than 100 cents on the dollar.
Paid in Full
Before the New York Fed ordered AIG to pay the banks in full, the company was trying to negotiate to pay off the credit- default swaps at a discount or "haircut."
By March 2009, responding to a request from Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, AIG released the names of the counterparty banks. In a filing later that month, AIG included Schedule A, showing bank names while withholding all identification of the underlying CDOs and the amounts of collateral each bank had collected. The document had more than 800 redactions.
In May 2009, AIG again filed Schedule A, this time with about 400 redactions. It revealed that Paris-based Societe Generale got the biggest payout from AIG, or $16.5 billion, followed by Goldman Sachs, which got $14 billion, and then Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch. It still kept secret the CDOs' identification and information that would show performance.
'Right to Know'
"This is something that belongs in the public domain because it was done with public money," Issa says. "The public has the right to know what was done with their money and who benefited from it." Now, thanks to Issa, the list is out, and specific information about AIG's unraveling can be learned from it.
At the Jan. 27 hearing, the New York Fed was still arguing that the contents of Schedule A shouldn't be fully disclosed. Thomas Baxter, the New York Fed's general counsel, testified that divulging the names of the CDOs could erode their value: "We will be hurt because traders in the market will know what we're holding."
Tavakoli calls that wrong. With many CDOs, providing more information to the market will give the manager a greater chance of fetching a realistic price, she says.
Jack Gutt, a spokesman for the New York Fed, declined to comment, as did AIG's Mark Herr.
Bad to Worse
Tavakoli also says that the poor performance of the underlying securities (which are actually specific slices or tranches of CDOs) shows they were toxic in the first place and were probably replenished with bundles of mortgages that were particularly troubled. Managers who oversee CDOs after they are created have discretion in choosing the mortgage bonds used to replenish them.
"The original CDO deals were bad enough," Tavakoli says. "For some that allow reinvesting or substitution, any reasonable professional would ask why these assets were being traded into the portfolio. The Schedule A shows that we should be investigating these deals."
Among the CDOs on Schedule A with notional values of more than $1 billion, the worst performer was a tranche identified as Davis Square Funding Ltd.'s DVSQ 2006-6A CP. It was held by Societe Generale, underwritten by Goldman Sachs and managed by TCW Group Inc., a Los Angeles-based unit of SocGen, according to Bloomberg data. It lost 77.7 percent of its value -- though it isn't in default and continues to pay.
SocGen spokesman James Galvin and TCW spokeswoman Erin Freeman declined to comment.
Documentation Needed
Ed Grebeck, CEO of Tempus Advisors, a global debt market strategy firm in Stamford, Connecticut, agrees that more digging is necessary. "You need all the documentation and more than that, all the e-mails," he says. "That would allow us to understand what went wrong and how to fix it going forward."
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who delivered a report on the AIG bailout in November, says he's not finished. He has begun a probe of why his office wasn't provided all of the 250,000 pages of documents, including e-mails and phone logs, that Issa's committee received from the New York Fed.
Schedule A provides some answers -- and raises questions that need to be tackled to avoid the next expensive bailout.
To contact the reporter on this story: Richard Teitelbaum in New York at rteitelbaum1@
--
The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
Feb 22, 2010
Rebel News and the libel of Anti-Semitism
Dear Reader,
Earlier this morning, I received a message voicing concerns that the Rebel News site respectively of its contents was anti-Semtism. Whoever made that comment obviously has no clue what anti-Semitism actually is. I therefor send out a link to some essential reading on this matter. Some people are trying to avoid being accused of anti-Semitism by restricting their criticism of what I'd call the 'Jewish problem' to 'Zionism'. Needless to say that I consider that approach as flawed, if not hypocritical. Zionism is just a symptom of a much bigger underlying problem, which is Jewish supremacism.
Kind regards,
Your Rebel Team
An Open Word About Anti-Semitism
Accusing an opponent of anti-Semitism is probably the most powerful political weapon that exists in Western society. Its destructiveness equals – if not surpasses - the label of paedophilia. The whole topic has developed over time to such a powerful taboo, that there is hardly an open discussion of anti-Semitism, without the participants scrambling to uncritically condemn it as utterly evil. Anybody suspected – or worse - publicly accused of anti-Semitic views or activities, becomes automatically – without trial and conviction – a societal leper. He can kiss his job and career good-bye, and will loose, more often than not, most of his friends and family, in many cases even his freedom.
The Jewish Problem
Jews have a huge problem and it will not go away by ignoring it. Or blaming others. Denial causes the problem only to become bigger. It has been around for more than two thousand years, and if we don't fix it now, the consequences will be catastrophic.
I want to make it very clear: The problem is not anti-Semitism. The latter is just a symptom of the problem, not its cause. The problem is Jewishness itself.
Being Jewish does something to the human brain. It affects how we think, feel and act. It makes us feel both superior to and afraid of non-Jews. It makes us treat other human beings in ways that cannot be reconciled with universal human values.
The Jewish Holocaust and the New World Order
Jews are so vain. They think the Holocaust is all about them. Let me assure you it's not. One thing we all should have realised by now is that in history and politics nothing is what it seems.
The 'Battle for the Holocaust' - how the British Channel 4 documentary appropriately called it - is not about honouring the memory of the Jews perished during World War II. It is not about repeating the Jewish mantra of 'Never Again'. And it is certainly not about reminding us of how evil governments can get if they get out of control.
Subscription Notice
You have received this email because you are a registered user of Rebel News. To unsubscribe, please use the unregister function under the main menu of the site.
To receive our daily newsletters with the latest articles on the Rebel News site, please enter your email address in the subscription form below the red stop sign on our homepage (www.rebelnews.
Scattered in death as in life
| | Scattered in death as in life aletho | February 22, 2010 at 2:24 pm | Categories: Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | URL: http://wp.me/ |
By Nadia Hijab, The Electronic Intifada, 22 February 2010
| The Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem, 1854. (Wikipedia) |
I carried a handful of ashes from my father's cremates into the Occupied Palestinian Territories a few years ago, hoping to take them to his hometown, Nablus. At the border, the only available taxi was driven by an Israeli Moroccan Jew. Delighted I was an Arab, he immediately plunged into conversation and pointed out various landmarks along the way to Jerusalem.
"That road," he said at one point, "leads to Nablus," indicating the tarmac cutting through the rocky soil as we drove through a desolate area. I asked him to stop the car. Israel often kept Nablus under curfew for weeks on end and I didn't know if I'd be able to get there during my short trip. On the road to Nablus, I laid the ashes and paid my respects. Back in the car, the puzzled driver wondered what I had been doing. When I told him he asked hesitantly, "Don't you have rites like ours, including visiting loved ones' graves?"
I stared at the back of his neck, as brown as my own, as I sought a response. We do have similar rites. It is rare for a Muslim to seek cremation, as in our father's case, part of the enforced modernity of exile. In fact, at no time is the loss of Palestine more piercing than at a loved one's passing, reinforcing the realization that, Muslim or Christian, Palestinians are as scattered across the globe in death as in life. But how could one explain 100 years of history in a cab ride? "Yes, but you've made it impossible for us to practice ours."
So it is with special poignancy that I have followed the latest twist in the battle over Jerusalem's Mamilla Cemetery, a Muslim cemetery known in Arabic as Maman Allah, where the US-based Simon Wiesenthal Center intends to build a Museum of Tolerance, a project stalled by legal and other protests since it began in 2004.
Mamilla is estimated to be over 800 years old and was in continuous use until 1948 when the Western part of Jerusalem was conquered as Israel was created. In the latest Palestinian challenge, representatives of 60 of the oldest and most prominent Jerusalemite families have petitioned several bodies at the United Nations to uphold the international legal obligation to halt the project.
The battle over Mamilla encapsulates many aspects of Israel's approach to Palestinian rights since the conflict began, and it is worth considering five here.
First, the use of legal garb to shroud illegal acts. In this case, for example, Israel's high court ruled in favor of the museum project in 2008. However, it turned out that the Israeli Antiquities Authority had withheld its own Chief Excavator's conclusion that the site should not be approved for construction. Calling the Authority's conduct an "archeological crime" the Chief Excavator noted, among other things, at least four unexcavated layers of Muslim graves dating back to the 11th century. However, the court has refused to reopen the case.
Second, the overreach. The move on Mamilla spotlights not just Israel's occupation of Arab East Jerusalem in 1967, but also its original takeover of West Jerusalem. The international community still does not accept Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem because the basis for the establishment of the Israeli state -- the 1947 United Nations partition plan -- provides for a corpus separatum for Jerusalem, as the European Community reminded Israel in 1999.
Third, the ongoing creation of facts on the ground to erase evidence of the indigenous inhabitants. As former Israeli leader Moshe Dayan told Technion University students back in 1969, "There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
Fourth, the Orwellian use of language to mean the direct opposite of what is intended: for example "tolerance" for "discrimination." Indeed, the plans for the Museum of Tolerance are replete with irony. At one point, it was suggested that a horizontal barrier be built to separate the museum and the graves to show "respect" -- a horizontal separation of the dead comparable to Israel's vertical separation barriers in the West Bank and Gaza.
Fifth, the delegitimization -- not of Israel, which is a secure member state of the UN -- but of the Zionist ideology that resulted in Israel's creation. These actions remind the world that one people was displaced by another. The project architect, the renowned Frank Gehry, has since withdrawn his plans. Further international attention to the Mamilla case can only add to the growing global campaign to boycott Israel until it upholds international law.
Mamilla is not just about family history but also a nation's history, as Dyala Husseini-Dajani -- who comes from one long-established Jerusalem families and married into another -- told a journalist while at the cemetery to say a prayer to her forebears. She added, "One day I want to be buried here. And I want my grandchildren to come and say this prayer for me." As I read those words, I wished the Moroccan Jewish taxi driver would read them too.
Nadia Hijab is an independent analyst and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.
The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website!
THE ISRAEL PROJECT’S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED
July 2009
THE ISRAEL PROJECT'S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED
Imagine for a moment you're a general about to embark on a decisive military campaign and your intelligence service secures a copy of your opponent's entire campaign strategy. You open it and you see his battle plans laid out before you, key forces, weaponry, lines of attack, points of weaknesses, etc. You suddenly understand just how weak his forces are and precisely how to mercilessly attack and eviscerate him. The plan makes you understand that his forces are largely based on artifice and sham. It gives you confidence that you are entirely on the right course and tells you how to stay on that course. Victory is assured, your enemy's defeat certain.
Douglas Bloomfield and Newsweek have done pretty close to that against the Israel lobby. Specifically, they've exposed a secret hasbara handbook written for The Israel Project by star Republican marketer, Frank Luntz. The oddly-named Global Language Dictionary (pdf) is a veritable goldmine of arguments, strategy, tactics. At 116 pages, it's not for the faint of heart. But anyone who wants to get inside the head of the Israel lobby must read this document.
I want to devote at least two or three posts to it so I hope you, dear reader, will bear with me. I know my enthusiasm will mark me as a real wonk, but this is the real deal and worth spending some time parsing and deconstructing.
The first thing to say is that the entire document is a pathetic piece of propaganda. While it ostensibly is addressed to TIP's leaders and advises them how to shape a pro-Israel message when they lobby Congress, the media and other critical power brokers, the entire thing reeks of desperation and a lost cause. It goes without saying that the arguments offered are not only devoid of truth, they're devoid of rigor or credibility. There is literally no substance to the claims offered on Israel's behalf. It's an empty exercise in every sense of the word. Reading this makes you realize that the entire Israel lobby edifice is a house of cards.
Perhaps I'm letting my shock at the shabbiness of the Dictionary get the better of me and overstating the case it reveals against the Lobby. After all, any political network that exists for six decades and achieves as much as this one has doesn't topple overnight. But I'll just have to let you be the judge.
One aspect of this I find extraordinary and entirely dubious is the choice of the Republican campaign pollster Frank Luntz to write this report. This indicates, as I've always maintained, that the Lobby is totally tone deaf to the political environment. We have a democratic president and two Houses of Congress under Democratic control for the first time in a few decades. Pragmatic liberalism is ascendant. Neo-conservatism and Bushian Republicanism are in retreat. And who does TIP chose to make the case for Israel? A right-wing Republican spinmeister. Remarkable. But one thing I must say is that this is a good sign for our side. If our opponents are as wooden as they appear, then they will topple themselves without needing much help from us.
The first chapter, 25 Rules for Effective Communication opens with:
The first step to winning trust and friends for Israel is showing that you care about peace for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians and, in particular, a better future for every child. Indeed, the sequence of your conversation is critical and you must start with empathy for BOTH sides first. Open your conversation with strong proven messages such as:
"Israel is committed to a better future for everyone – Israelis and Palestinians alike. Israel wants the pain and suffering to end, and is committed to working with the Palestinians toward a peaceful, diplomatic solution where both sides can have a better future. Let this be a time of hope and opportunity for both the
Israeli and the Palestinian people."
The first thing we learn is that this passage, as with everything else printed in the handbook, is empty meaningless drivel. It's a perfect example of political three-card monty in which there appears to be a card which isn't there at all. It's all a sham. There is no substance. The rhetoric here is even worse than that offered by spokespeople like Mark Regev on behalf of the Israeli government.
In the following passage, we can see that Luntz has lifted shamelessly lifted arguments from MEMRI and former Mossad officer, Itamar Marcus' Palestine Media Watch. Others before me have demolished these tawdry arguments, but it's instructive to read the lies and distortions that TIP instructs its representatives to parrot.
Throughout, the document drips noblesse oblige and fake concern for Palestinian children:
"As a matter of principle, we believe that it is a basic right of children to be raised without hate. We ask the Palestinian leadership to end the culture of hate in Palestinian schools, 300 of which are named for suicide bombers. Palestinian leaders should take textbooks out of classrooms that show maps of the Middle East without Israel and that glorify terrorism."
As a matter of principle, children should not be raised to want to kill others or themselves. Yet, day after day, Palestinian leadership pushes a culture of hate that encourages even small children to become suicide bombers. Iran-backed Hamas's public television in Gaza uses Sesame Street–type programming to
glorify suicide bombers.As a matter of principle, no child should be abused in such a way. Palestinian children deserve better."
As a matter of principle I believe that no child (Israeli or Palestinian) should be raised in fear that their mother, father, sister, brother, grandmother or grandfather could be killed for no other reason than they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and a frightened, trigger hungry 18 year army recruit decides to make an example of them.
As for maps, before Frank Luntz or Itamar Marcus make their specious claims about Palestinian textbooks, I'd like them to show me a single Israeli textbook that features a map of Palestine. You will certainly find Judea and Samaria. But will you find any acknowledgement of the millions of Palestinians who live in the Territories?
Further, the arguments are entirely dated. Suicide bombings were a serious phenomenon in years past. But Palestinian militants have largely abandoned this tactic, at least in part due to its unpopularity among average Palestinians. You certainly wouldn't know this from Frank Luntz's agitprop. It's like he's living in a time warp and its still the first Intifada (circa 2000).
Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership. Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support.
Another characteristic of the Dictionary is the dubious distinctions it draws, as in this example. There is no way to distinguish between the Palestinian people and their leadership. In effect, the passage concedes the illogic of its argument with this phrase: "even though they elected Hamas." Of course they elected Hamas. That's precisely the point. They had an election and chose who they wanted to represent them. So for the lobby to say they sympathize with Palestinians, but not with the leaders they chose is an empty statement.
Yet another example of noblesse oblige (and it's entirely dubious to claim that these words "work"):
WORDS THAT WORK
We know that the Palestinians deserve leaders who will care about the well being of their people, and who do not simply take hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance from America and Europe, put them in Swiss bank accounts, and use them to support terror instead of peace. The Palestinians need books, not bombs. They want roads, not rockets."
Clearly passages like this are designed to score debate points but are entirely devoid of accuracy. The claims of embezzlement, of course, go back to the days when Yasir Arafat ran things and tolerated rampant Fatah corruption. But Arafat has been dead for lo these many years. Someone ought to roll over and tell Tchaichovsky and Frank Luntz the news.
As for Palestinians wanting roads, they do. They'd like some of those wonderful Israeli bypass roads that run directly through former Palestinian farmland and whisk settlers from their settlement homes to their jobs inside Israel proper. The same apartheid roads which are off-limits to Palestinians.
One thing you've got to give Luntz, he's not above stealing ideas from anyone, even Israeli peace activists (see italics):
MORE WORDS THAT WORK
"The obstacles on the road to a peaceful and prosperous Middle East are many. Israel recognizes that peace is made with one's adversaries, not with one's friends. But peace can only be made with adversaries who want to make peace with you. Terrorist organizations like Iran-backed Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are, by definition, opposed to peaceful co-existence, and determined to prevent reconciliation. I ask you, how do you negotiate with those who want you dead?"
There is an amazing insularity in the arguments presented here, with absolutely no conception that Palestinians feel precisely the same emotions as Israelis. In other words, they too ask how and why they should negotiate with a state of Israel that would just as soon kill them as live with them in peace.
More obliviousness, with no awareness of the dark irony of this statement:
"We may disagree about politics…But there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death."
Do I hear any concern here for the "innocent women and children" of Gaza who were slaughtered in their hundreds during the Gaza war? No, of course not.
Of course, there is unintentionally comic discourse:
Don't pretend that Israel is without mistakes or fault. It's not true and no one believes it. Pretending Israel is free from errors does not pass the smell test. It will only make your listeners question the veracity of everything else you say.
Admit Israel make mistakes. Don't specify them. Change the subject as quickly as possible and hope no one notices what you've just conceded. And then point out how much more guilty the Palestinians are than the Israelis for the conflict.
Use humility. "I know that in trying to defend its children and citizens from terrorists that Israel has accidentally hurt innocent people. I know it, and I'm sorry for it. But what can Israel do to defend itself? If America had given up land for peace – and that land had been used for launching rockets at America, what would America do?
Use fake humility. Pretend that Israel is the U.S. and that there has been no Occupation and no injustice perpetrated against Palestinians. Pretend their lands have not been stolen. Pretend they have not been turned into refugees in the hundreds of thousands. Pretend that Israel has a right to expect Palestinians to behave like Canadians or Mexicans, who have not had a border dispute with the U.S. in 150 years.
Here is more fakery in the guise of concern. And note the conflation of American Jews with Israelis as if we are them (a little identity confusion?):
WORDS THAT WORK
"Are Israelis perfect? No. Do we make mistakes? Yes. But we want a better future, and we are working towards it.
And we want Palestinians to have a better future as well. They deserve a government that will eliminate the terror not only because it will make my children safer—but also because it will make their children more prosperous. When the terror ends, Israel will no longer need to have challenging checkpoints to inspect goods and people. When the terror ends we will no longer need a security fence."
There is virtually no terror on the West Bank, yet 500 checkpoints remain there. Why? Tell me why, Mr. Luntz.
If there is a money quote in this document that reveals that the lobby is now running scared it is this:
We're at a time in history when Jews in general (and Israelis in particular) are no longer perceived as the persecuted people. In fact, among American and European audiences—sophistica
ted, educated, opinionated, non-Jewish audiences—Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending.
More unintended irony:
WORDS THAT DON'T WORK
"We are prepared to allow them to build……"
If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.
What is the Occupation if not "subordination" personified?
Here's right back at ya, buddy:
WORDS THAT DO WORK
"Achieving peaceful relationships requires the leadership…of both sides. And so we ask the Palestinians … Stop using the language of incitement. Stop using the language of violence. Stop using the language of threats. You won't achieve peace if your military leadership talks about war. You won't achieve peace if people talk about pushing others to the sea or to the desert."
Israel's military and political leaders speak the language of violence, incitement and war virtually every day. No acknowledgement of that, of course, by Luntz. As for "pushing Jews into the sea," I haven't read a real live Palestinian resident of the Occupied Territories make such a statement in several decades. So this argument is circa 1970 or so. Nice try though, Frank.
"Israelis know what it is like to live their lives with the daily threat of terrorism.
As do Palestinians.
Remind people – again and again – that Israel wants peace. Reason One: If Americans see no hope for peace—if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of "Family Feud"—Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their President's clout on helping Israel.
Bingo. Here Luntz inadvertently speaks the truth. Israel wants peace in the same vague way that a 13 year old girl may want to be whoever the teen idol of the moment happens to be. Israel has no plan. No means of getting to peace. So to say that Israel wants peace is, once again, meaningless.
And the fear lurking in the hearts of the lobby is that some day Israel will be exposed and Americans will abandon it because they will come to understand that whatever Israel may claim it wants, there will never be peace under terms acceptable to Israel. That will be a day of reckoning that the lobby wants to avoid at all costs.
To be continued…See part 2 in yellow highlight below:
Related posts:
