Blinken’s Five “Nos”

Is it my imagination or are people energetically pursuing solutions to the problems they wish they had rather than the problems they actually face? Consider this characterization Sec. Blinken’s remarks last week by the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

Speaking in Tokyo last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken laid out five “Nos”: “No forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. . . . No use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or other violent attacks. No reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. No reduction in the territory of Gaza.”

Assuming that’s a fair characterization, it certainly appears to me that all parties are solving the problems they want to solve rather than the ones they have. Sec. Blinken is trying to achieve amity between an Israel different than the one that exists and a Hamas different from the on that exists, Israel is attacking a Gaza that does not exist while Hamas attacks an Israel that does not exist. The editors are criticizing a Biden Administration that does not exist:

While Biden Administration pessimism led it to withdraw from Afghanistan and surrender the territory, 6,000 miles away, to the Taliban, Israel doesn’t have that option. Gaza is next door. Ensuring “no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism” will require a decisive Israeli victory and more flexibility than “Nos” and “Musts” allow.

What exists? The agenda in Israel is controlled by a minority that believes that not only do they have a right to all of the land of Palestine (including present Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and more) but a religious obligation to those lands. Hamas believes that they have a right to all of the land of Palestine and a religious obligation to kill Jews and expel them from Palestine as “colonizers”. And the Biden Administration, rather than being pessimistic or soft on Iran, thinks in terms of nostrums and platitudes with an eye focused unswervingly on the next election.

I wish I saw a benign realworld solution to all of the problems but I don’t. I suspect that either the problems won’t get solved or the solutions won’t be benign.

2 comments… add one
  • steve Link

    Some people have linking to Yglesias who has been writing some nice stuff on this. It’s basically a hard problem and every proposed solution assumes beliefs/behaviors not held by the parties involved. There is no easy answer or good answer.

    Also, OT, but even though inflation seems to be the only economic number that matters to you we are seeing a surge in new business formation. Any idea why?

    https://jabberwocking.com/why-are-people-starting-so-many-new-businesses/

    Steve

  • There are lots of economic subjects that interest me. Our economy is too lop-sided. Too much retail, healthcare spending, and education spending. Not enough basic production.

    As Bob keeps pointing out any job that can be done remotely can be done offshore. It’s hard to see a bright future for American workers in that environment.

    However, the most important economic issue of the day is inflation. It’s far off trend. And it affects a lot of Americans.

    I can only offer one speculation about new business formation. The rate of new business formation has tended to be correlated with the personal savings rate.


    As you can the savings rate skyrocketed during the lockdowns. If there’s an actual correlation between personal savings and new business formation, it would imply an increase in new business formation with a rapid fall-off and return to trend. That seems to be what Kevin’s graph depicts.

Leave a Comment