WHO AM I TO PONTIFICATE, ANYWAY? WHAT CREDIBILITY DO I HAVE? and THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO ISRAEL

                                                              


                                                                   

What Do I Know, Anyway?

Who am I, anyway, to pontificate about such demanding subjects as the government's deficit?  What credibility does what I say carry?  Admittedly, my thoughts are based primarily on my "gut" feeling seasoned by what I read in  newspapers, in magazines and see on television.  My last official contact with the “science” of economics was Economics 101 and 102 back at Rutgers University well over half a century ago.  I do, however, now want to reprint a letter which I wrote to the Palm Beach Post and which was published by them on December 1, 2007.   Perhaps it will give me some "cred," as they say on the street in the 'hood where I once lived.

"To the Editor

  According to the article “HSBC to rescue troubled funds,” (Tuesday, Business), “Structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, sell short-term debt such as unsecured commercial paper to hedge funds and other investors.  The banks use the proceeds to buy longer term assets such as mortgage-backed securities."

  Unsecured commercial paper, hedge funds, mortgage-backed securities: Balderdash! (used in lieu of a more feisty, unprintable expletive).  Investing in money as a commodity never will replace the economic growth that manufacturing and harvesting of natural resources produces.  It may make millionaires out of some bankers and investors, and create some liquidity in the financial marketplace, but it does not create jobs and consumer spending, without which our economy will continue its slide down the tube.

Jack Lippman

Boynton Beach"

We all know what happened to our economy over the next few years following the publication of my letter.  The "recession" was just then starting but I was able to see worse things coming down the pike and voiced my warning.    Apparently, many of those in the financial world were far less astute.

    Employees leaving bankrupt Lehman Brothers in 2008

And if you question my credibility when I voice an opinion on foreign affairs, another area about which I occasionally comment, check out what appeared on this blog on September 16, 2011, shortly after a Taliban attack on our Embassy in Kabul.  We just don't seem to learn.  Here is an excerpt from that day’s posting:

“The following is the text of an Email I sent to President Obama and my Congressman on September 13, 2011.  I am not bothered in the least by the fact that the only Presidential aspirant who apparently agrees with me is Ron Paul:

In view of today's headlines, I see no purpose in leaving one single American in Afghanistan at this point.  Once our scheduled departure takes place in a year, there is no question that Afghanistan will be under the rule of those we now call "insurgents."   Karzai will be history.  So let's avoid any further American casualties there.  I suggest the following plan.

Enough American air travel must be cancelled over the next week or so in order to make available sufficient airliners to fly into Afghanistan and return all of our troops to this country immediately.  Equipment left behind should be destroyed.  This will amount to something like the Berlin Airlift, but we ought to have all of our troops home by the weekend.  This would be a great use of an "Executive Order" to get it done."

Okay, it is now a year and a half later and   

Afghan President Kharzi is now accusing the United States of working with the Taliban against him!  Wow!  What unmitigated gall!  We well know he will be chased out of office once we leave, with the Pakistani-supported Taliban taking over.  We should have done what I suggested eighteen months ago and many lives would have been saved;  President Obama’s plan to have us out of Afghanistan by 2014 is stupid.  There is no need to wait.  We should now proceed exactly as I suggested in the Email quoted above, getting out now, right now! This week, starting today!

Jack Lippman

                                                                                                       
                         
                                                                       

Items for the President to Read on Air Force One

There were a couple of columns in the paper the other day dealing with President Obama’s forthcoming trip to Israel.  Both are worthy of mention, if you have not read them. 

  Thomas Friedman’s column, originally in the New York Times, describes the President’s visit to Israel as that of a “tourist,” pointing out that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has shifted from a necessity to a hobby for U.S. diplomats.”  Why?  Friedman cites that the danger of that conflict erupting into a superpower confrontation with Russia has abated and that growing petroleum resources in Canada, Mexico and the United States have lessened our dependency on Middle East oil.  But he goes on to point out that while this “status quo” might be very acceptable to the United States, it should not be for Israel.  He hopes the President asks the Israelis about their “long term strategy,” if they even have one, for resolving the dispute with the Palestinians, and infers that if they do not have one, continuance of the “status quo” can ultimately “undermine Israel as a Jewish democracy and delegitimize Israel in the world community.”  This is a typical Tom Friedman column, containing his usual well thought out analysis of the problem, but offering no real solutions.  Friedman rarely does.

More to the point is an op-ed piece originally appearing in the Los Angeles Times, offering four suggestions to the President, made because the writer fears that Israel “is on a suicidal path” and that “it could cease to be the democratic home of the Jewish people,” language not unlike that appearing in the Friedman column.  His suggestions to the President may be summarized thusly:

First, avoid ambiguity, making it clear that maintaining the existing "status quo" can only lead into an abyss.

Second, espouse a “two-state” solution with borders based on the 1967 lines with land swaps to accommodate settlements on the West Bank, Jerusalem as an open city serving as capital of both states with Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods, joint administration of holy sites, a demilitarized Palestine with international security guarantees, return of Arab refugees only to the Palestinian state or resettled in third countries with some compensation and finally, a declaration of the end of conflict by all sides. 

  

Third, make sure the parties talk about an agreement and not merely a negotiating process, concentrating on the “ends” rather than the “means,” a shortcoming which has stymied earlier negotiations.

Finally, although bilateralism is the only way to reach an agreement, the U.S. should not hesitate to support unilateral actions even if not agreed to by both parties, if they indeed amount to a step closer to the “reality of two states for the two peoples.”  Examples of such “coordinated unilateralism” might be support of Palestinian statehood in the United Nations, endorsing a Hamas-Fatah unity government if committed to a two state solution and any Israeli evacuation and compensation program to encourage settlers to move from the West Bank.  Of course, the U.S. should oppose any unilateral steps that take us further from a two state solution. 

In the eyes of many, probably more so in the United States than in Israel, these are wild suggestions.  There are many Israelis who do not believe in a two state solution, some on a biblical basis, and many who will not trust the Palestinians to live up to any agreement they sign.  Some would consider these ideas to be no more than clever Arab propaganda, urging the President to take a pro-Palestinian stand on his forthcoming visit to Israel.  That is not the case.    

  Their author is Ami Ayalon, who served for five years as commander-in-chief of the Israeli Navy and later as head of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security agency.  He is one of the former Shin Bet directors featured in the currenl documentary film, “The Gatekeepers.”  His article nicely complements that of Tom Friedman, and does offer the long term strategy about which Friedman wonders.  The full text of Ayalon's article can be found at  http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/08/opinion/la-oe-ayalon-israel-obama-20130308    Study it carefully; I welcome your comments.

     Jack Lippman

                                                                  

                                                                                                                              

Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com. 

Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

Jack Lippman

                                                    * * *   * * *   * * *

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search” box can also be used to find older postings.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.