Begging Merkel to Save the Euro, the EU economies & maybe the world economy

UPDATINGs at bottom 6-15&7-9-2012

Some Europeans are feeling desperate. Their great project, the European Union, that was supposed to represent an advance of civilization and bring peace to Europe, and help bring peace to the rest of the world, is threatened by the tight German hand on its purse. Adriana Cerretelli begs Merkel --although Schaeuble has to be kept in mind just as much or more so-- to consider saving the euro, both the currency and the economies of the EU states and maybe most of the major world economies. But Germany doesn't seem to care --and it took most of the financial and political leadership of the EU more than two years to realize that their plan to "rescue" Greece was only making things worse for Greece [see our previous post]. Let's remember that Europe is not Israel's reliable friend and cannot be. The EU is made up --at best-- of self-righteous fools who feed their own Euro brethren to the sharks or behave as cannibals themselves. The EU does not stand for decency or morality in international affairs despite its expensive efforts to pretend. As far as Jews are concerned, Europe has on the whole been hostile to us for nearly 2000 years. Here is an Italian view on the EU and Germany:

Dear Chancellor, the House Is Burning by Adriana Cerretelli

While the euro house is burning and the fire is expanding to Greece and Spain, there aren’t any eager nor trustworthy firefighers in sight. There are, however, plenty of extremely efficient sharks ready to take advantage of someone else’s troubles. “Disperse this fog,” ECB President Mario Draghi said before the EU Parliament yesterday. Draghi warned that the structure of the EU’s monetary union has become “unbearable.” So were Draghi’s words powerful but nonetheless ignored? Certainly, since for now they are bouncing off the fog under which the markets are still attacking the countries in the most distress, while powerful governments are too busy worrying about internal politics and elections to focus on the problems of the EU. The truth is that well-respected technocrats can do very little when politics proves immature bordering on blatant irresponsibility. . .

. . . the euro zone countries grew further apart due to 11 percent unemployment (the highest rate since 1999), a 10-month-long drop in manufacturing production and decreasing economic confidence. The reason is that the markets seem to be betting against the survival of the euro, doubting that the common currency will survive this unending storm. How are Europe—and Germany, in particular, with its oversized role in EU politics—reacting to the increasing widening of government-bond yields? They talk idly and don’t do too much as German bond yields fell to a record low and their Italian and Spanish equivalents rose to 5.9 percent and 6.5 percent, respectively—dangerously close to the 7 percent mark that forced Greece, Ireland and Portugal to ask for bailouts from the EU and the IMF. The game is becoming extremely unstable for several reasons.

First, if the euro fails, no one would be safe from a disaster of incalculable proportions: according to some estimates, the cost would be at least 1 trillion euros; others say it would twice as much. Another point to keep in mind is that the failure of the euro would not only hit Europe in a time of recession but would also negatively affect the U.S. and several emerging economies, a clear indication that globalization is an all-encompassing phenomenon in today’s world. If Europe cries, nobody can really afford to laugh. In short, it would be a global disaster. It’s therefore no surprise that Barack Obama is extremely concerned about the events unfolding in Europe.

Germany, though not completely calm, is controlling its anxiety and pondering its reaction. For Berlin, it’s business as usual. In a way, that’s understandable, given that Germany is profiting from the crisis by funding itself at record low interest rates and shopping around for cheap resources and investments in countries in distress. Until when? “Berlin must reflect about the fact that if bond yields keep widening, Europeans won’t have enough resources to buy German products,” warned Martin Schultz, German president of the European Parliament, at the last EU meeting.

While the house is burning and the roof is about to collapse, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Germany’s minister of finance don’t seem to care: yesterday they rejected a Draghi-backed EU proposal [Mario Draghi is the ECB (european central bank) governor] for the creation of a banking union that would include a common bank-resolution framework, a joint-deposit guarantee and direct access to ESM loans. “This isn’t the right short-term solution for the crisis,” they said. Other proposals, such as euro bonds and the mutualization of euro-zone sovereign debt were also rejected by Germany because they similarly implied the Europeanization of risk among EU partners. Not a surprise, since Berlin seems to be better off the less it has to do with southern European countries. While that’s perfectly understandable, we should then tell the Irish, who yesterday passed the EU fiscal compact, that their sacrifices won’t be enough to keep them in the euro zone. Once that’s clear, they would at least be free to decide what they want to give up, instead of being forced to adopt austerity measures imposed by other countries. We should also explain that to the Greeks, who will vote on June 17 whether to stay or not in the euro zone (and perhaps they will decide not to leave), and to all those unemployment-ridden countries trapped in the grip of austerity with no growth. “We must find a European solution, if we want to prevent the Greek crisis from spiraling into the crisis of the euro.” It wasn't Draghi nor José Barroso who said that but Alexis Tsipras. How come even the leader of Greece’s far-left Syriza party understands that, while Angela Merkel doesn’t? More troubling for Europe, perhaps she doesn’t want to.[here in English, Il Sole-24 Ore, 2 June 2012]

After reading what an Italian explains about Germany, we learn some lessons. Adriana Cerretelli's article implies that for more than two years the other Euro states and political leaders have been going along with Germany, whether happily/willingly or acquiescing reluctantly, in their wrong-headed Greek "rescue" policy. This teaches us Israelis, us Jews, that the EU is unfit to give any advice to Israel about "peace." their advice is either hostile or stupid and that could include disingenuous. Meanwhile, despite its own shortage of money, the EU keeps on showering funds on genocidal terrorists in the palestinian authority, on Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies in Fatah. Shame on those in Israel who take EU funds for ostensibly humanitarian, pro-peace, pro-human rights purposes, whereas the funds are meant to use these useful Israeli idiots to undermine our state, Israel, and our very lives.

- - - More by Adriana Cerretelli on the European financial crisis- - -
Merkel ignores the growth emergency [here in English]

Saving Greece is worth the cost [here in English]

La UE tecnocratica soffoca la Grecia [qui in Italiano]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Iwan Morgan says that the Euro currency was a "mistake"| from the start [here]. And I agree. This implies that the EU doesn't know what's good for itself, let alone for Israel [or does not want Israel's well-being].

The EU scolds and disciplines Greece while showering funds on the "palestinian authority" [here]
Schaeuble's punitive attitude towards the Greeks, his fellow Europeans [here]

Caroline Glick sees the EU as fundamentally anti-Israel as personified by the ugly & evil Catherine Ashton [here]. She points out that the EU is not the only problematic power for Israel. There is the US Obama administration. She adds that "Turkey's bellicosity towards Israel as well as Greece and Cyprus has caused it no harm in Washington." Of course, the EU too does little for its European brethren, Greece & Cyprus. Maybe if the military alliance joining the US and most of western & southern Europe, NATO, warned Turkey not to interfere with Greek development of its offshore oil and gas resources, Greece might be in better economic shape and would also help its fellow Euros with a dependable oil & gas supply. But they don't for whatever reason. They don't stand up for Greece & Cyprus' rights to develop resources in their own maritime economic zones. To be sure, Turkey belongs to NATO but then both Cyprus & Greece are in the EU.
7-9-2012 Paul Taylor, writing for Reuters, sees the eurozone breaking up into creditor and debtor blocs of states. All of the eurozone measures so far to end the crisis, to solve the sovereign debt & related problems, have either failed to achieve their goal or have made things worse [Exhibit A is Greece]. Eurozone finance are meeting today but will surely fail again. The Germans & their closest allies in the eurozone are still calling for greater economic-cum-financial integration for the eurozone with greater centralized control. But agreement on a treaty for that purpose would take months at least. Meanwhile, Greece is sinking, while Spanish borrowing rates are rising. And the immediate problems are not taken care of.
CAN WE JEWS TRUST THESE EURO FOOLS & MANIACS?

The Obama Administration Moves into a Full Pro-Nazi, Judeophobic Position

When fascism comes to America,
it will be called anti-fascism.
[attributed to Huey Long]

Little comment from me is needed on Evelyn Gordon's short essay below on the Obama administration anti-Israel position. It is implicitly and fundamentally pro-Nazi. That is, it means to take away Jewish rights in the Land of Israel, national rights to govern the land, rights of residency throughout the Land, rights to Jewish religious and archeological sites, and so on. It means to set up a genocidal Arab terrorist state alongside Israel.

By implicitly rejecting Security Council resolution 242 of 1967 it means to throw Israel to the Arab wolves, without the "secure and defensible boundaries" that SC res. 242 called for. Mitchell is in fact rejecting any real negotiations. He is embracing the position of the Judeophobic Saudi wahhabite Muslim kingdom that actively spreads Islamic fanaticism around the world. Mitchell, Obama & Company are flouting the real international law that recognized the Jewish right to reconstitute the ancient Jewish state in the Jewish national home [Preamble to the League of Nations mandate].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Evelyn Gordon

HONEST BROKER, ANYONE?

Nothing in George Mitchell’s interview with PBS last week received more attention than the envoy’s implied threat to revoke American loan guarantees to Israel. That’s a pity — because far more worrisome is the goal he set for the negotiations, as highlighted by Aluf Benn in today’s Haaretz. “We think the way forward … is full implementation of the Arab peace initiative,” Mitchell declared. “That’s the comprehensive peace in the region that is the objective set forth by the president.”

The Arab initiative mandates a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines — every last inch of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. It also demands a solution to the refugee problem “in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194,” which Arabs interpret as allowing the refugees to “return” to Israel.

Later in the interview, Mitchell says this initiative requires “a negotiation and a discussion,” and that you can’t negotiate by telling “one side you have to agree in advance to what the other side wants.” Yet by saying his goal is “full implementation” of this initiative, he’s effectively saying, “You can have your negotiation and discussion, but Washington has no intention of being an honest broker: it fully backs the Arab position on borders, Jerusalem, and even (to some extent) the refugees.”

This is the administration’s clearest statement yet that it’s abandoning the position held by every previous U.S. administration: that Israel needs “defensible borders” — which everyone agrees the 1967 lines are not. Mitchell also thereby abandoned the position, held by every previous administration, that any deal must acknowledge Israel’s historic ties to the Temple Mount via some Israeli role there, even if only symbolic (see Bill Clinton’s idea of “sovereignty under the Mount”). The Arab initiative requires Israel to just get out.

And Mitchell effectively took Syria’s side on that border dispute: no Israeli government ever agreed to withdraw farther than the international border, whereas the Arab initiative mandates the 1967 lines — i.e., including the territory Syria illegally annexed pre-1967.

Even worse, the Arab initiative addresses none of Israel’s concerns, such as recognition as a Jewish state or security arrangements. That means Mitchell just announced support for all Arab demands without obtaining any parallel concession to Israel. Under those circumstances, why would the Arabs bother making any?

And his repeated demand that Israeli-Palestinian talks deal with borders first indicates that this was no slip of the tongue. After all, the only thing Israel has to give is territory; having once ceded that via an agreement on borders, it has nothing left to trade for, say, security arrangements — which, as a veteran Israeli negotiator told Benn, has actually proved one of the hardest issues to resolve in previous rounds of talks. Borders first, an Israeli minister summed up, is “a trap. We only give, we don’t get anything.”

George Bush’s Road Map viewed the Arab initiative as merely one of many “foundations” for talks. Mitchell’s adoption of its “full implementation” as a goal thus represents a deterioration in U.S. positions that ought to worry all Israel supporters.

- - - - - -end of article on Commentary's Contentions blog- - - - - - - -

This stance by Mitchell is Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter's dream. It fulfills their Judeophobic hatred. It was for the purpose of promoting such Judeophobic, pro-Nazi policies that the JStreet lobby was set up using the money of George Soros, the multi-billionaire. Mitchell of course is a flunkey not only for Obama but for the foreign policy establishment. No doubt the British partners in crime of the US foreign policy establishment will soon join in to support this position.

"Obama, Candidate of the Super-Rich"-- Michel Gurfinkiel

In Italy the fascists are divided
into two categories: the fascists and
the anti-fascists
-- Ennio Flaiano
[quoted by Oriana Fallaci in The Rage and the
Pride, Italian edition, Milan 2004, p 161]

Obama had a lot of rich folk, even very rich folk, on his side in the recent election campaign. That did not stop Obama, of course, from demagogically attacking John McCain for supposedly being on the side of the rich, of "billionaries," as Obama put it.

"We don't need four more years of the old tired economic policies that favor billionaires." [approximate quote].

The typical deceitful demagoguery of a sinister politician. Michel Gurfinkiel, an editor of the French weekly, Valeurs Actuelles, shows how Obama was deceitful:

But what may surprise some observers, is that Obama also benefits [besides from Blacks & the "Left"] from the support of Very Big Capital. According to the economic analysis agency, Prince & Associates, the "average large fortunes" of America, whose wealth is situated between 1 and 10 million dollars, mostly support the Republican candidate John McCain. But two-thirds of the "super-rich," whose wealth reaches or exceeds 30 million dollars, support Obama. Warren Buffet, the largest fortune in the United States and the world, according to Forbes magazine (62 billion dollars), has announced that he was voting for the Democratic candidate, just like the financier George Soros (9 billion dollars).

This is reflected in Obama having

the largest election budget in American history. . . [much] more than that of the Republican George Bush in 2004.

Obama gathered

four times more funds than McCain for his campaign on the national level....
The super-rich have not rallied to Obama out of opportunism. They have been betting on him since the beginning of his campaign. . . . Some of them even before he was committed [to running]. . . .
The tax raises proposed by the Democrats do not scare them, to the extent that their wealth is globalized and, thereby, escapes --at least in part-- American taxation.

Octobre 30, 2008
USA/ Obama, candidat des super-riches
-- Michel Gurfinkiel
. . . .
Mais ce qui surprendra peut-être certains observateurs, c’est qu’Obama bénéficie en outre du soutien du Très Grand Capital. Selon l’agence d’analyse économique Prince & Associates, les « grandes fortunes moyennes » américaines, dont le patrimoine se situe entre 1 et 10 millions de dollars, soutiennent en majorité le candidat républicain John McCain. Mais les deux tiers des « super-riches », dont le patrimoine atteint ou dépasse les 30 millions de dollars, soutiennent Obama. Warren Buffet, la plus grosse fortune des Etats-Unis et du monde selon le magazine Forbes (62 milliards de dollars), a fait savoir qu’il votait pour le candidat démocrate, tout comme le financier George Soros (9 milliards de dollars).

Cette mobilisation se traduit, en pratique, par le plus gros budget électoral de l’histoire américaine, estimé d’ores et déjà à plus de 200 millions de dollars, soit plus de 10 milliards de plus que celui du républicain George W. Bush en 2004. Obama aurait réuni quatre fois plus de fonds que McCain pour sa campagne à l’échelle nationale, selon le New York Times, et jusqu’à sept fois plus dans certains Etats. Le Washington Post observe pour sa part qu’Obama aurait dépensé 82 millions de dollars pour des spots télévisés pendant les deux premières semaines d’octobre, c’est à dire la moitié du budget global du candidat démocrate John Kerry pendant la campagne de 2004.

Les super-riches ne se sont pas ralliés à Obama par opportunisme : ils ont misé sur lui dès le début de la campagne, voire même, pour certains d’entre eux, avant même qu’il ne s’engage. Au début de l’été, ce soutien était déjà si important que le sénateur de l’Illinois a refusé l’aide publique – la bagatelle de 84 millions de dollars – à laquelle il avait droit. S’il l’avait acceptée, il aurait dû en effet accepter un plafonnement des autres sources de financement et publier la liste détaillée des contributeurs. Ce qui revenait à se lier doublement les mains, pour un résultat inférieur à celui qu’il était en droit d’espérer à travers les seules aides privées.

Les super-riches estiment que les difficultés économiques des années 2003-2008 (chute du dollar, hausse des matières premières et de l’énergie, bulles spéculatives) sont dues pour l’essentiel à un problème de confiance et que celle-ci ne peut être restaurée qu’à travers un changement d’administration à Washington. Les hausses d’impôt proposées par les démocrates ne leur font pas peur, dans la mesure où leurs patrimoines sont mondialisés et échappent donc, au moins en partie, à la fiscalité américaine.
[Michel Gurfinkiel est un des rédacteurs de l'hebdomadaire français, Valeurs Actuelles.]
- - - - - - - - - -
Everybody, American or not, has to ask himself whether a deceiver of this magnitude can be trusted in any way. Did any of the 200 million dollars that Obama collected for his election campaign come from Arab sources hostile to Israel?
- - - - - - - -
Coming: more on Obama, Emanuel, Zbig; Jews in the Middle East, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, etc; the fascism and Nazism of the so-called "Left," Arabs and Muslims as imperialists and allies of the "Left," propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.