finance government budget deficits, but, in support of our mandate of maintaining price stability, to remove the risk of a break - up of the euro area. we took a lot of precautions when designing omt that demonstrate that the programme has nothing to do with monetary financing. for example, we would only buy on the secondary market ; only buy bonds with short maturities and not necessarily keep the bonds until maturity. but the most important thing is that omts are bound by strict conditionality. this conditionality makes sure that countries put their own houses in order as far as budget financing is concerned. a country that is supported by omt would have to have a reform programme, agreed by the eurogroup. if a country no longer stuck to the requirements of the programme, omt purchases would automatically be stopped. how come you were unable to convince the german public of this? even germany ’ s federal constitutional court is dealing with omts. one of the fears in germany was that this would in the end cause inflation. but this has not been the case up until now, and i get the impression that, as a result, we have been able to allay the concerns of german people somewhat regarding omts. indeed, the risks for germany have decreased since the announcement of the programme. bis central bankers ’ speeches yet people had the impression that, on many decisions taken by the ecb ’ s governing council during the crisis, a small number of northern european countries which are possibly more stability - oriented were outvoted by the rest. do you not find it problematic if a minority are always outvoted? it was not like that at all. the three - year financing operations for banks, ltros, were approved by the overwhelming majority of the governing council, including most of the members you are hinting at ; omts were approved by all members of the governing council except one ; the various interest rate cuts during the crisis were mostly unanimously supported, or with an overwhelming majority. for the last interest rate cut in november, the difference was not so much about whether to do it, but when. up until now, there has not been the same minority constantly opposing the rest of the governing council and, in my view, there will not be in the future. you stress again and again that the ecb has many other instruments at its disposal. but it has already done so much – what else could the ecb do as things stand? we do indeed have many other instruments at

stanley fischer : challenges facing the israeli economy remarks by professor stanley fischer, governor of the bank of israel, upon taking leave of the knesset finance committee, jerusalem, 4 june 2013. * * * i would like to thank the members of the committee for their wishes. it was an honor for me to serve as governor of the bank of israel. it was not readily apparent that they would offer the position to someone who was not a citizen of israel. but in the end, that is what happened, and my wife and i are very happy for the extraordinary opportunity that we had. many people on the professional team at the bank of israel helped me during this period, contributing much to the work at the bank during my term of office. we must not forget that i arrived in 2005, when the economy was in the midst of a period of impressive growth, and one of the reasons for the fact that we made it through the global crisis was that the economy entered the crisis in good condition : the government budget was balanced in 2007, the current account was in surplus, the banks were strong — everything required for a country to successfully get through the crisis was in place in israel before the crisis. i would also like to thank the former chairman of the finance committee, mk rabbi moshe gafni, who contributed much to the system ’ s stability, and to the legislation of the new bank of israel law, which was also helped along by former knesset speaker mk reuven rivlin. i recognize the fact that you cannot work alone — it is necessary for there to be people who agree to work with you, and in this context, i also note the opposition leader who is here, who was then in the coalition and who assisted with the passage of the law. if i compare the situation of the economy today to what it was in 2005, the debt - to - gdp ratio is much lower, although the government deficit is higher. we moved to a situation where the current account is balanced compared to the surplus we were in before the crisis. the unemployment rate today is very low in an historic perspective, and the employment rate is higher. the incidence of poverty remains more or less at the same level as it was. the exchange rate is more appreciated today, which to a large extent is a result of the strength of the economy — people want to live in a strong economy with a weak exchange rate, but this is a situation that generally does not happen. the foreign exchange reserves are obviously much higher