AN AMERICAN JEWISH – GERMAN INFORMATION & OPINION
July 9, 2013
Germany is in its “Urlaub” (vacation) hiatus. The Bundestag members have hightailed it
out of Berlin for most of the summer in order to rest up in anticipation of the national
election which comes up in late September.
Though Germany’s economic situation remains relatively strong, many of the EU
countries show continued lack of growth, deep unemployment and burdensome debt.
This has its effect on the Germans as well. There is little question that Germany is
Europe’s leader but that situation does not appear inviting to them. The Economist
refers to it as “Europe’s reluctant hegemon”.
It could be stronger in many more ways than it is, but their history tells them to stay
away from undertaking such a role. Their two attempts in the 20th
Century almost led
them to “the undertakers” and they’re not about to try a third shot at it.
That should not make the rest of the world unhappy.
Even at this time of sluggish warm weather activity things are still happening. So, let’s
get on with the news…
IN THIS EDITION
THE MOLOCH MESS & MALESTROM – Don’t know what a Moloch is? Try “ a new
way of being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic” That’s it! You got it!
SPYING–No one likes it. Everyone does it. Everyone is horrified. No one stops doing it.
THE OBAMA SPEECH – If there was a Wall or a war it would have been better.
THE ELECTION – It doesn’t look close – but – remember, it’s parties, not individuals
GRASS (NOT WEED) & MERKEL – The SPD must be smoking that stuff to include
Gunther as an election icon.
NAZI ART & THE MUSEUMS – To show or not to show. That is the question.
FINDERS KEEPERS? - Who does art looted by the Nazis belong to?
THE MOLOCH MESS & MALESTROM
When a well-respected German daily prints a cartoon that is disgustingly anti-Israel and
reeks of anti-Semitism one would not expect it to pass by without comment. |
It didn’t! It got plenty!
JTA reported, “A cartoon purportedly showing Israel as a greedy “Moloch,” published in
a major German daily, has set off a firestorm of protest, despite an apology by the
newspaper. [Ed. Note: If you‟re not too sure about Moloch, he was an ancient god to
which children were sacrificed.]
Artist Ernst Kahl said he was shocked to learn that the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily
newspaper used his drawing of a greenish, horned monster being served breakfast in
bed by a pale, plump maid - originally created for the German gourmet magazine “Der
Feinschmecker” - to illustrate a review of two new books on Israel, according to German
Heiko Flottau‟s review, with the headline “The Decline of Liberal Zionism,” dealt with
American author Peter Beinart‟s book, whose title in German translates to “The
American Jews and Israel. What is going wrong,” and German TV journalist Werner
Sonne‟s book “Raison d‟état? Germany‟s Liability for Israel‟s Security.” The article
appeared in the prominent paper‟s July 2 edition.
Under the lurid illustration, the caption reads, “Germany at your service. For decades,
Israel has been provided with weapons, partly free of charge. Israel‟s enemies consider
the country to be a voracious Moloch. Peter Beinert regrets that it‟s gotten this far.”
One day after the article came out, Editor Franziska Augstein issued a statement that
“the publication of the illustration in this context was a mistake.”
Dieter Graumann, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, decried the use of
the image. Likewise, Jewish columnist Henryk Broder, in his commentary in German
daily newspaper Die Welt, compared the drawing to the infamous “Sturmer” caricatures
published by rabid anti-Semite Julius Streicher during the Third Reich. The Simon
Wiesenthal Center also has weighed in. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the
Los Angeles – based organization, blasted the illustration in a comment to the
Deidre Berger, head of the Germany office of American Jewish Committee, lodged a
complaint with the German Press Council over the pairing of the article with the
drawing, and Israel‟s ambassador to Germany, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman protested in
a letter to the paper‟s editor in chief, Kurt Kister.
Meanwhile, artist Kahl told Germany‟s main Jewish weekly, the”Jüdische Allgemeine,”
that his illustration for the gourmet magazine was among his drawings that had been
available for use by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. But he said he wished the
Sueddeutsche editors had asked him before using it in this context. “I would
have absolutely said „no,‟” he told the Allgemeiner.
The matter might have passed with a few negative comments had not Deidre Berger
lodged her complaint. Being a former journalist herself (NPR Correspondent in
Germany) she knew exactly to whom to complain. GPR hit the nail on the head.
Of course, Deidre’s complaint and other critical stories raised questions about the editor
of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Franziska Augstein.
An interesting piece by Petra Marquardt-Bigman in The Algemeiner noted, “…like many
members of the German elite, Augstein apparently prefers to believe that even the
harshest and most unfair “criticism” singling out the world‟s only Jewish state is not
antisemitic. One doesn‟t have to look far for another example, because it was exactly
this kind of “criticism” that got her half-brother Jakob Augstein a place on the Simon
Wiesenthal Center‟s list of prominent antisemites in 2012.
Given this fondness for the unfair double standards used to make Israel into a repulsive
monster, it is hardly surprising when an intelligent and highly educated German media
professional plays dumb and insists that there is nothing wrong with depicting the
Jewish state as a grotesque greedy Moloch if this reflects the view of Israel‟s enemies.
Of course, Nazi publications like Der Stürmer also depicted Jews as utterly repulsive
creatures only because that reflected their view of the Jews – who, the Nazis felt, made
the Germans “serve” them, voraciously taking advantage of German good nature to
continuously expand their evil power and influence.
Some Germans, it seems, still have the feeling that they are forced to “serve” the Jews,
who are now busy with “continuously expanding” their borders and abusing their
considerable power to threaten their innocent neighbors with totally unwarranted
attacks. In short: once it was the Jews who were only up to evil, now it is the Jewish
It is very difficult to get inside one’s mind and emotions. I do not think it’s right to accuse
someone of being an anti-Semite especially in Germany if the record is not entirely
clear. It is the worst kind of accusation. However, what sort of words can one conjure up
to cover the kind of “mistake” that a highly educated, experienced journalist like Dr.
Augstein made in this case? I’m at a loss.
To read the entire article by Petra Marquardt-Bigman click here.
Nobody is happy to find out that they’re being spied on. When a country becomes
aware that even a friendly nation is doing the spying the public posture has to be –
outrage! That’s necessary to show the voting public that you don’t take this kind of
illegal invasion lightly even if your own country is doing the exact same thing (though
maybe not to the same degree) to other countries. It’s a political necessity to show the
home folks that you’re safeguarding them (and their secrets) and, also, to ward off
attacks from your internal political enemies. In addition, there has to be some show of
support for your counter intelligence agents to show that they’re not totally incompetent.
That’s what happening between Germany and the U.S.
DW reported, “Germany has said the United States must work towards restoring trust,
following reports that US intelligence agencies spied on EU institutions. A spokesman
said the government learnt of the news with 'great displeasure.'
The comments come following a report on Sunday from Germany's Der Spiegel
magazine, which said the US National Security Agency (NSA) had bugged EU offices in
Washington, New York and Brussels.
Germany responded to the reports with shock on Monday, with the government
summoning the US ambassador in Berlin to a meeting. Government spokesman,
Steffen Seibert, said the government learned of the report "with astonishment, better
said with great displeasure, which was conveyed to the White House at the weekend."
Seibert said the message from Berlin was that Washington needed to work towards
restoring trust. The allegations came to light almost two weeks after a widely-praised
visit to Berlin by US President Barack Obama.
"Europe and the United States are partners, our friends, are allies. Trust must be the
basis of our cooperation and trust must be restored in this area," Seibert told reporters
"This is not the Cold War anymore," he added. Seibert pointed out that "as a basic
point, reports are not automatically facts and so we need to get to the bottom of this."
"But if it is true that EU institutions and individual EU countries were spied on then we
must say that bugging friends is unacceptable," said Seibert.
Spiegel On-Line reported, “While the Chancellery appears to be outraged by the NSA's
spying tactics in Germany, the opposition doubts the revelations came as a surprise to
Angela Merkel. Just how much could she have known?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel will have to be pretty clear with US President Barack
Obama the next time she has him on the line. At least that's a reasonable assumption,
based on the anger she has expressed about American spying operations in the
European Union and Germany.
"I demand an explanation, Barack," the chancellor might say. After all, the president
eloquently defended the Prism program on his recent visit to Berlin, but the Americans'
bugging, electronic eavesdropping and excessive data collection from allied European
countries, which came to light this weekend, was not part of the conversation. Merkel is
said to be quite rankled.
But others say that the chancellor will probably be friendly to Obama during their next
talk, and not because this is what diplomatic conventions call for, even amid tensions.
No, it's because there is some question as to whether Berlin's dismay about the
espionage by the National Security Agency (NSA) is really as great as it claims. Could
some of the indignation be feigned? Did the revelations really shock the chancellor?
And if it did come as a surprise, has German counterintelligence failed miserably?
The opposition doesn't believe that Merkel was unaware of the situation. In an editorial
for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this week, Sigmar Gabriel, chairman of the
center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), openly aired the suspicion that Merkel was
familiar with at least some of the spying activity. The government has vehemently
rejected this accusation as crude campaign bluster. This isn't totally unjust -- the
opposition has seized on the opportunity to portray Merkel as a traitor to citizens'
freedoms, a strategy that could gain support among a population particularly sensitive to
data protection issues.
One reason that the Government reply might be muted is that it appears that they
themselves receive important information from the U.S. spying operation. A DW article
reported, “Public outcry has emerged over British and American monitoring of global
communications. But the German government has so far been reserved in its criticism,
partly because the country receives data from such monitoring.
"Merkel has reason to limit her criticism on the topic. Although the fact that large parts of
Internet communication are being monitored was known necessarily known to the
general public, the chancellor was unlikely to have been surprised.
German spies have also been sniffing around online - and on a large scale, not just in
cases of concrete suspicion. The German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) is legally
allowed to rifle through up to 20 percent of the communication between Germany and
other countries, and monitor certain Internet search terms.
Compared to the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), however, Germany's intelligence service is
weak. German Intelligence Service expert Erich Schmidt-Eenboom said the scope of
the personnel responsible for data make this clear.
"The NSA has 60,000 workers and also employs many external firms, while experts
estimate that altogether 15,000 people work for the GCHQ," Schmidt-Eenboom said. He
pointed out that, in contrast, the external electronic message department of the BND
includes about 1,500 workers.
Since intelligence services of allied nations share information with each other -
particularly in the field of terror defense - Germany also profits from the eavesdropping
measures of the US and Great Britain.
This is especially the case with regard to German citizens, who are largely protected
from the BND by a ban on gathering information within Germany. The German
Constitutional Protection Office is responsible for any domestic spying, and even stricter
national privacy regulations apply to it.
"Of course, it can't be ruled out that American intelligence services have gained
information through means we are not aware of and wouldn't use in Germany," said
Hartfried Wolff, a center-right parliamentarian and member of the control committee, in
an interview with DW.
So, now the worst kept intelligence secret is out – everybody spies on everybody. Of
course there has to be anger, outrage and the pointing of fingers between countries.
However, down deep the real anger is focused on the whistle blower who upsets this
secret (and necessary) inter-nation agreement.
Spying is a national security imperative and besides, it keeps Allan Furst and John Le
Carre in business turning out great spy stories.
BTW, I noticed that the EU-U. S. trade talks weathered the furor over the spying
controversy and are going forward. After all is said and one – “The business of business
THE OBAMA SPEECH
By this time it’s ancient history! In this world of instant total information what happened a
few weeks ago is usually relegated to the history books or, at least the “Week in
Review” columns on the back pages of your daily newspaper. It has completely
disappeared from your computer.
If our President had been standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate at a time of
international crisis his speech might have been of critical importance. But this is not a
time of “Tear down this Wall Mr. Gorbachev” or “Ich bin ein Berliner”. With both the Wall
and the USSR gone and the relationship between the U.S. and Germany about as good
as it can get (in spite of the spying matter), no matter how brilliant the President’s
speech was, it was destined for a quick trip to the archives section.
Of course, he had to say something so he focused on reducing the number of nuclear
weapons nations should have. O.K., that’s important but no one in Germany or the U.S.
feels any threat from nuclear devastation at the moment.
The German press, of course, had to say something and being a wordy and highly
intelligent bunch they were able to grind out a presentable report. For instance, Der
Spiegel International reported, “US President Barack Obama managed to achieve his
primary goal during his one-day visit to Berlin on Wednesday: charming his hosts. But
German commentators argue he was unable to bridge a growing gap between the two
He…. managed to remind Germans why they are such big fans of this president. Even if
Tuesday and Wednesday marked the first time Obama had visited Berlin as president --
after fully five years in office -- he was able to make it seem as though Germany and the
Germans were near and dear to him. He casually embraced German President Joachim
Gauck, he referred to German Chancellor Merkel as simply "Angela" and he quickly
took off his jacket at the beginning of his keynote speech in the blazing sun, saying: "We
can be a little more informal among friends."
The audience ate it up. Sure there is concern in the country about Obama's drone
attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is widespread disgust with the mind-
boggling extent of online surveillance undertaken by the National Security Agency.
There is also a good bit of disillusionment stemming from Obama's inability to close
down the Guantanamo detention camp. The US president was asked about all of those
issues during his stay in Berlin.
But Germans like nothing better than to be taken seriously -- and they are open to being
charmed. Obama made a convincing show of doing both. He avoided subjects that
might be difficult for his hosts, shying away from asking Germany to supply weapons to
Syrian rebels and avoiding mention of Berlin's abstention on the United Nations Security
Council vote to intervene in Libya. In his speech, which focused heavily on history, he
even managed to turn World War II and the Holocaust into a rhetorical side note.
Instead, he opted to focus on nuclear arms reduction. One could, of course, see his
decision to highlight such an issue -- one that everybody can agree on -- as an
indication that the US does not see Germany as a foreign policy partner when it comes
to more controversial issues. But coming from a president that most in Germany
continue to revere despite the shortcomings that have by now become obvious to all,
Berliners were more apt to see the logic of proposing cuts to the nuclear arsenal in a
city so marked by the Cold War.
That, of course, was Obama's intention. And he left the city having achieved the primary
goal of his visit -- that of putting a feel-good coat of paint on a trans-Atlantic relationship
that had recently begun to show its age.
Not all the reporting was “happy”. Die Weltopined, “...The indifference with which
Obama was received is not an indication that Germans don't like Obama anymore. ...
Rather, the American president himself signaled with all of his appearances on
Wednesday that the moral and emotional chapter of the Cold War is finished. We are
now getting into the fine print."
"America has become more foreign to us, too, and it doesn't help to evoke the great
period of bonding during the Cold War. But Europeans have also become more foreign
to Americans. How should Americans know and understand that which we ourselves
don't know or understand? There is still a great lack of clarity about where the partially
unified, partially divided continent of Europe is headed politically”
I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of opinion. There is more but I think the
above quotessummarizethe presidential trip fairly well. To read the rest click here.
I would put the Berlin expedition as good, but not important, when it came to critical
issues. They just were not dealt with. The Obama family visited The “Holocaust
Memorial” and that got some coverage.
Perhaps the visit was of some importance to Chancellor Merkel who is running for re-
election in September. However, surveying the polls, etc. she doesn’t seem to need
much help was of little real assistance. Keep reading…
Back in the middle of June, The Local.de reported, “It's been a tough few days for
Social Democrat chancellor candidate Peer Steinbrück[Ed. Note: Running against
Chancellor Merkel]. At the weekend he made headlines for crying at a party event and
just three months before the election, support for his party is at an all-year low.
Support for the center-left Social Democrats is now at 22 percent, lower than in 2009,
when they suffered their last heavy election defeat, a poll carried out by the Forsa
Institute for Social Research and Statistical Analysis revealed on Wednesday.
Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats and its Bavarian sister party, on the other
hand, are riding on a solid 40 percent. Merkel's pro-business junior coalition partner, the
Free Democrats have inched up to six percent, clearing the crucial five percent hurdle
necessary to get into parliament.
A potential but unlikely coming-together of the Social Democrats, the Green Partyand
the Left Party still trails a percentage point behind the current Christian Democrat and
Free Democratic coalition.
The newly-formed anti-euro Alternative for Germany party (Alternative für Deutschland)
has failed to steal much support from the Christian Democrats, contrary to what some
analysts had predicted. Along with the pro-internet freedom Pirate Party, it has garnered
just two percent support.
Reports of strife between Steinbrück and party leader Sigmar Gabriel have done little to
inspire confidence in the party. And Steinbrück's communication style, which has at
times been called belligerent, has done him no favours either.
That said, standing against Merkel is a daunting task for even the most polished
politician. Her unflappable style, and what's perceived in Germany as smooth handling
of the euro crisis, convey an image of calm in the face of volatile global financial
markets and soaring unemployment elsewhere in Europe.
If Germans could vote directly for their chancellor, 58 percent would choose Merkel,
while just 18 percent would vote for Steinbrück
There are still three months to go before the German election but the history of German
polling is that once the polls have solidified they don’t move much,. If the Social
Democrats had a great candidate there would be more of a question about the
outcome. However, Steinbruck is no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. With his own party in
disarray – well, you know where to put your money.
However, I don’t want to totally discount him. The SPD has picked up on the spying
issue and is riding that. It does have some “legs”. Whether it can carry the party into the
middle of September is another story. Stay tuned!
GRASS (NOT WEED) & MERKEL
If you are going to be criticized by someone and that someone wants to make the
criticism stick, the criticizer should be careful that he (or she) has a clean slate on the
subject in question. This time around it didn’t happen and the criticizer wound up with
egg on his face.
Spiegel On-Line reported, “Nobel laureate Günter Grass has become a master at
stepping on his tongue lately. This week, he did it again, casting aspersions about
Chancellor Merkel's East German past. Critics have blasted Grass, pointing to the
author's own prior membership in the SS.
Grass is no longer the moral authority that he once was. Ever since 2006, when he
admitted to having been a member of Hitler's feared SS as a 17-year-old, his words
have lost much of their weight -- and his benefit to the SPD has become questionable.
In a Wednesday appearance with this year's SPD candidate for chancellor, Peer
Steinbrück, Grass took it upon himself to blast Chancellor Angela Merkel and, in a
verbal assault not without irony, to criticize her past as a member of the East German
youth organization FDJ, the Communist Party's version of the Boy and Girl Scouts.
Grass' comments, to be sure, are hardly of the scandalous variety. A recent book, after
all, went even further, suggesting that Merkel may have been closer to the communist
apparatus of East Germany than previously thought. But given Grass' own past, and the
fact that he was speaking at an SPD event, Merkel's conservatives proved unable to
resist the urge to attack.
To have Grass on his side is just another nail being hammered into Peer Steinbruck’s
political coffin. He should have stuck to the kind you smoke.
You can read the whole story by clicking here.
NAZI ART & THE MUSEUMS
I think it's well known that during the Nazi period in Germany "decadent" art was
destroyed or confiscated and a new form developed. (Wikipedia) “The Nazis viewed the
culture of the Weimar period with disgust. Their response stemmed partly from
conservative aesthetics and partly from their determination to use culture as
propaganda. Upon becoming dictator in 1933, Adolf Hitler gave his personal artistic
preference the force of law to a degree rarely known before. In the case of Germany,
the model was to be classical Greek and Roman art, seen by Hitler as an art whose
exterior form embodied an inner racial ideal. It was, furthermore, to be comprehensible
to the average man. This art was to be both heroic and romantic.
Following World War II Nazi art disappeared and like many of the elements of Nazi life it
was not talked about. Now, according to a DW article, "It's still a highly sensitive issue in
Germany: What to do with art that was commissioned by the Nazis between 1933 and
1945. More German museums are beginning to confront their own role during the
Should Nazi art be exhibited? For a long time in post-war Germany, the answer was a
clear and unequivocal no.
Many people didn't want to deal with the propagandistic art of a murderous regime
because it reminded them of their own complicity. Others didn't want it shown because
they themselves had been victims of the Holocaust.
Another argument for not publicly displaying Nazi art was that is was pure propaganda
with no artistic value whatsoever. The result was that National Socialist art wasn't dealt
with during the 1950s and 60s. Then, by the end of the 1960s, more people began to
call for an open - and above all, scholarly - handling of such works.
Exhibitions in Frankfurt, Munich, Essen, and Berlin provided a critical examination of
Nazi art. Later, state museums began to investigate how their own regional institutions
had behaved between 1933 and 1945 - often resulting in emotionally charged debates.
Such debates ultimately crystallized around one question: Should this type of art be
exhibited or locked away in depots?
Currently, a new attitude towards Nazi art in Germany can be observed in the city of
Würzburg in south-eastern Germany.
Over the past few weeks, around 90 works of art purchased by the city during the Nazi
dictatorship have been on show as part of an exhibition titled "Tradition and Propaganda
- a Review" at the Museum imKulturspeicher.
"Now there is a generation that is taking responsibility for an objective, sober handling of
the subject. It's a generational shift and it can be applied to the whole issue of National
Socialism in general," curator Bettina Kess told DW.
It's no coincidence that the Bavarian city is choosing to deal with its past now. No other
German community purchased, collected and exhibited as much art during the Third
Reich as Würzburg did.
It is, Kess explained, "on the one hand a piece of regional history, on the other a sign of
societal change far beyond the examination of art."
The city leaders, Kess and her fellow campaigners refer to German historian Norbert
Frei, who several years ago began calling for a new handling of the subject.
"For most of us, the Hitler era is not a past we experienced, but history: History, not
memory," wrote Frei in his 2009 book "1945 und wir" ("1945 and Us").
He argued that not only a willingness to remember, but also to know, was necessary
and he criticized the instrumentalization of the German culture of remembrance as part
of the search for a political identity.
There's more but by this time I'm sure you understand the issue and the questions it has
For me art is not the most important question –its history and how it's handled is. If the
showing and interpretations point out what can happen to art and culture in a
dictatorship then I'm all for them. Anyway, it's useless to try and hide away the art of any
period. It will come to the surface eventually. The more transparency and light shown
upon what was produced in the 1930's and '40.s the better. There's really a great deal
to be learned not only about art but what can befall a country and its culture when bad
people come to power and the people acquiesce to their will..
Since I’m on the subject of art, The New York Times ran an interesting article by Patricia
Cohen about art stolen by the Nazis 70 or more years ago, the museums (many in the
U.S.) that now (claim to) own the paintings and the attempts of relatives of the Nazi
victims who are trying to retrieve ownership.
Not until 1998, when 44 nations including the United States signed the groundbreaking
Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, did governments and museums
formally embrace the idea that they have a special responsibility to repair the damage
caused by the wholesale looting of art owned by Jews during the Third Reich‟s reign.
Now, 15 years later, historians, legal experts and Jewish groups say that some
American museums have backtracked on their pledge to settle Holocaust recovery
claims on the merits, and have resorted instead to legal and other tactics to block
survivors or their heirs from pursuing claims.
In recent years judges have dismissed several cases after museums argued that
recovery claims had been filed too late.
In some of the cases, museums …have tried to deter claimants from filing suit by
beating them to the courthouse and asking judges to declare the museums the rightful
Critics also charge that museums have not followed their own guidelines, which urge
them to be forthcoming with provenance information that could help people trace the
history of a contested work of art.
Of course, there are always two sides to a story.
Both the Association of Art Museum Directors and the American Alliance of Museums
insist that their members consistently follow ethical guidelines requiring them to respond
“quickly and scrupulously” to restitution requests.
Christine Anagnos, executive director of the museum directors association, said its
members were committed “to resolving questions about the status of objects in their
custody.” Most cases, she said, are resolved through negotiation before claimants feel
compelled to file suit.
Museum officials also say they turn to procedural tactics like invoking time limits only
after they have carefully researched a claim and concluded that it is unfounded.
But Stuart E. Eizenstat, a former special State Department envoy who negotiated the
Washington Principles, said museums have adopted a harder line in the last seven
years or so, partly in response to some court victories by art institutions and waning
pressure from the government.
“The essence of the Washington Principles comes down to one sentence,” he said. “Let
decisions be made on the merits of the case rather than technical defenses.”
No one disputes that, even with databases that list looted art, it takes considerable effort
and money to track artworks from Nazi-occupied countries, which typically have gaping
holes in their provenance.
There is also agreement that not all claims are valid, which requires that museum
directors respond cautiously to safeguard their collections.
Mr. Eizenstat is among those who have long argued that the courts are inherently ill
suited to resolving restitution cases and that to avoid litigation the United States should
create an independent mediation board, as several European countries have. This
spring, a New York chapter of the Federal Bar Association put forward a resolution
calling for the creation of an American commission along those lines.
The article goes on to say that the establishment of such a board is unlikely even
though, at least to me, it appears to be a sensible middle ground. However, with nothing
like that likely, it looks as if we’ll continue to have litigation for the foreseeable future.
Not every story ends with a positive conclusion.
To read the whole story click here.
See you again in August.
DuBow Digest is written and published by Eugene DuBow who can be contacted by
Both the American and Germany editions are posted at www.dubowdigest.typepad.com