Israel and Palestine: Is There a Solution?

     Author's Note:  I know this essay will be read by everyone, including those of the Jewish and Muslim faiths.  Please do not be angry should you read a passage in which you are in great disagreement.  The purpose of this essay is to help solve a decades long problem, that has an effect on the entire world, not in just the region in which you live.  I hope to present a solution that will be acceptable to all, with no further reason to be hostile.

     As we all know, the U.N. voted to recognize Palestine as a “state,”  in quotation marks.  Not a real state, but a place that has the right to become one.  Of the votes casted, 138 nations approved, nine opposed, and 42 abstained.  Israel, the U.S., and Canada were among those voting against it.  It makes us look bad, and perhaps, with me writing this article, you might think that anyone who supports a Palestine, or the Palestinian people, do not care about the Jews, or Israel.

     Wrong!  Israel is one of the most valuable allies we have, and we, the U.S. desperately need them now and in the future, perhaps forever.  I am totally supportive of Israel, and recognize their need, as a country and a people, to be safe and secure.  However, there has to be a Palestine.  A two-state solution is the only way there can be peace in that region, if that is possible.

     For decades, both sides have been pounding each other, committing massacres, from the killing of 11 Israeli athletes in the 1972 Olympics in Munich to the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza (2012).  There is Hamas, along with other extremist groups, devoted to destroying Israel, and there is Mossad, a special unit of the Israeli Defense Force, killing leaders of these groups, and for good reason, I might add.  All of this has been happening since 1948, when Israel become a nation.

     Both sides have grievances that can match the other, and both sides can accused the other of genocide.  

     In order to understand the situation, we must listen to both sides, consider their wants and needs, and try to work out a viable solution, a win-win situation where both sides exist side by side in peace.  Is this possible?  I believe that it is.  

     Lets give both sides their due, starting with Israel.  From Biblical times, the Jews, being God’s chosen people, did have a rough time at it since their very existence.  They have always had to fight to survive, and like any race, they had times where they would win and be prosperous, and other times, lose, and the be forced to submit to the victor.  In 70 A.D., they were finally driven out of their homeland by the Romans and forced to wander the Earth.  They would settle in a country, spend a few centuries or so there, and then be expelled.  This went on up to World War II, where the Nazis herded them into ghettos, then death camps, where they were forced to go to the ovens like sheep to the slaughter.  A few rose up and fought back, like in the Warsaw Ghetto, but, in the end, six million Jews were murdered.  That is quite a scar for any race of people to handle, and it made succeeding generations determined never to let this happen again, and if they have to fight fiercely to prevent this, they will, and they do.  Can you blame them?  I certainly can’t.   When they finally settled, or resettled in what is now Israel, they became determined to keep their God given homeland, and never lose it again.  You can see that the Israeli army is one of the fiercest armies in the world.

     However, we cannot forget the Palestinians.  They have lived on the lands of Judea and Israel for millennia, occupied by other empires, but was never a country themselves.  After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the rule of the British, becoming the British Mandate of Palestine.  It was here that the Jewish race started to return in droves.  In 1948, after the war, Palestine was divided, giving lands to both the Arabs and the Jews.  When Israel was formed, many Palestinians had their land confiscated and were kicked out of their homes, many leaving for other parts of the Arab world, some becoming Nomads, but never assimilating into these other societies.  

     So the Palestinians became displaced by the Jews, and the Palestinians have resorted to violence to get their lands back, while the Israelis are fighting to keep their lands, and through four wars, have expanded, though not by much, but did reacquire Jerusalem and the West Bank (formerly Judea in Biblical times), and Gaza. 

     Now we have two distinct races of people each claiming the same plot of land as their own.  Both sides have their story, their reasons for fighting each other, and are now in what seems to be an eternal war.  Is there a way which we can settle this matter once and for all, where both sides win?

    From the Israeli side, there are six million Jewish citizens, but 1.6 million Arabs in Israel proper.  The West Bank is populated by 2.3 millions Palestinian Arabs and 311 thousand Jews.  Gaza is populated by 1.7 million Palestinians.  Israelis continue to build settlements in the West Bank.  Their ultimate scheme is to literally crowd the Palestinians out of the West Bank completely, so the Israelis will completely occupy it and eventually annex it to Israel.  The Palestinians, however, aren’t going to go quietly, if at all.  Ironically, many of these settlements are being constructed by Palestinians, paid employees of these construction companies, as a means to make a living.  

     The West Bank, let alone Gaza, is a difficult place for Palestinians to live.  There are check points, manned by Israeli soldiers, that make it difficult for Palestinians to travel from one place to another, literally taking hours to travel a short distance.  There are separate roads for each ethnic group, i.e. Palestinians aren’t allowed to travel on roads built for Jewish settlers.  Many Palestinian villages are in extreme poverty while Israeli settlements are opulent with the most modern surroundings, protected by barbed wire.  These settlements take up most of the water supply, using it for even swimming pools, while there is a severe water shortage in many Palestinian towns and villages.  Note well:  these statistics originate from a Jewish writer, Rabbi Michael Lerner, who lived in Israel and did research on this subject, and wrote books about it.  Is it any wonder why the Palestinians are so angry and filled with hate?

    In order to solve these problems permanently, there are only four options, as far as I can see.

1. Maintain the status quo.
2. Completely drive the Palestinians out of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and if they refuse to go, kill them.  
3. Establish a bi-national state.
4. Grant the Palestinians their wish, giving them the West Bank and Gaza and make East Jerusalem their capital.

We shall go over these one by one.

The first isn’t working.  It has caused wars and will continue to do so.

As for the second, the world will take a very dim view of that, and Israel will lose the respect that they do have.

The third option will not work, because the birth rate among the Palestinians is much higher than that of the Israelis, and the Jews will become a small minority very fast, setting them up for eventual expulsion; and it will happen.

     This leaves us with the fourth option.  Give the Palestinians a homeland, a country they can call their own.  Give them the West Bank.  They already have Gaza.  Make East Jerusalem their capital.

Most of all, considering the settlements already in existence, don’t have the nation of Palestine look like a piece of Swiss cheese on the map.  They are not going to want that.

     Whatever traditions and history the Jewish people in Israel and Judea may have had in Biblical times no longer applies today.  They are going to have to leave the past behind and look at the situation as it is now.  Sacrifices will have to be made on both sides, and some traditional lands will have to be forfeited.

     Also, past wars need to be let go.  Palestine has had their people killed by Israelis in massacres, but Israeli can match that with their own victims.  Both sides have grievances against the other, and that, with respect to all victims, has to be put aside.  The past has to be left behind; period.

     Most of all, when an agreement is reached, the existence of both countries need to be recognized by the other;  Palestine must recognize Israel and Israel must recognize Palestine.  Whatever borders are drawn must be final.

     The rest of the Arab world will also have to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, their right to exist, and be willing to treat it like any other country, no more, no less.

     Gaza, the Palestinians already have.  Israeli settlements there have been disbanded, and all the Israelis have left.  Trouble is, extremists are using it for a base to launch rockets into Israel.  It is only natural that the Israeli army is going to come in and bomb it.  If the inhabitants of Gaza want this to stop, they need to end their aggression toward Israel.  It will be up to the new Palestinian government to enforce the new treaty and stop any faction from making any aggressive moves towards Israel, and use force if necessary.  This could be done with a joint Israeli/Palestinian force, and they would enforce ALL parts of the Palestine-Israeli borders, and in Greater Jerusalem.

     As for East Jerusalem, that city is a separate entity from Jerusalem.  East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel, and considers it part of a united Jerusalem, but the harsh reality is, it isn’t.  East Jerusalem is a separate city, occupied mostly by Arabs, with a few Israeli settlements.  Giving up East Jerusalem would be, in reality, no loss to Israel.  In fact, it would be beneficial, because they will no longer have to deal with a hostile population (Arabs) who do not want to be a part of Israel in the first place.  Israel would still have historic and traditional Jerusalem.  Perhaps they can allow Palestinians to patrol the Dome of the Rock.  

     In the West Bank, taken from Jordan after the 1967 war, which Jordan later relinquished at its own free will, there are hundreds of Jewish settlements, the majority being at the border of Israel proper.  I notice that regardless of any truce between Israel and Palestine, the Israeli government continues to build settlements in the West Bank.  Obviously, the REAL goal here is to have the Israeli people build up enough settlements, with a population to match, to literally push the Palestinians out of the West Bank completely.  When that time comes, Israel will be free to annex the West Bank to Israel proper, and have a bigger nation.  However, the Palestinians are resisting and are willing fight to the last man to prevent this goal.  I predict that it will be a blood bath before Israel succeeds in this goal.  Is it worth it? 

     How will the world look upon this should a goal like that is achieved?   My answer is, “not good.”

     The harsh reality is, neither the Jews nor the Palestinians are going anywhere!

     There has to be a Palestine.  There is just no way around it.  If there is any chance for the people of Israel to live peacefully, there has to be a Palestinian state.  That’s all there is to it.  

     I have already covered Gaza and East Jerusalem, so here is my view on the West Bank in general.  The West Bank becomes Palestine, with a few adjustments.  All the settlements along the Israeli border can go to Israel, but East Jerusalem, the Palestinian capital, will, of course be connected to the rest of the West Bank.  Whatever land from the West Bank the Palestinians lose from this deal can be compensated by land from Israel in equal size and value, attached to the West Bank, that they can forfeit, being the exact same amount they gained - a one for one land swap.  The rest of the West Bank goes to Palestine, including remote Jewish settlements.

     Here, the Jewish people in these settlements can be offered a choice.  First, they can continue living in these settlements, but under Palestinian rule.  They might not like this, and they many find this unpleasant, even threatening.  The second choice is, they can move back to Israel proper, and Palestinians to move into these settlements.

     The Palestinians will have to give up any claims that they may have in Israel proper, including land their forbears lost back in 1948 when the Jews came in to settle.

     In this new state of Palestine, there would be a police force, a Palestinian Authority, but no military, modeled after Costa Rica, in Central America.  This may not be a bad thing because since Costa Rica gave up their military in 1949, it has been a peaceful and stable country.

     Palestine can have a new Jordanian connection.

     All countries in that region, including Palestine, must recognize the existence of Israel and their right to defensible borders.

     There may be a cold peace between Israel and the new nation of Palestine, even a wall (there is in some parts), but perhaps in a generation or two, relations between the two countries may start to thaw and perhaps a new peace may finally be established.

     This, I feel, is the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.  It is the only way for hostilities to cease and for a peace to finally come.  Everyone has to make sacrifices, and everyone must respect everyone else’s right to exist.

    

Note:  This essay was not based on any book, but there is a book on this subject that I highly recommend:  “Embracing Israel/Palestine:  A Strategy to Heal and Transform the Middle East” by Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkum Books/North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, 2012).  This book is from an objective point of view, and gives justice, and proper balance to both the Israelis AND the Palestinians, but also tells of the guilt of both sides, leaving no stone unturned.  Solutions are presented that are both fair and just in order to end this problem once and for all.  It is greatly detailed, tells of little known facts, and I recommend this book to ALL races and religions of people.

How The Rich Can Help Rebuild America

“I may not like the rich, but I would be a little ambivalent about that statement should the same opportunity ever fall to me.”

   
     The wealthiest one percent of the U.S. population, holds about 33% of the nation’s wealth, leaving the rest of us, being 99%, holding the remaining 67%.  By this I mean corporate executives, owners of big businesses, heirs living off trust funds, self-made people, movie stars, rock musicians, sports figures, the idle rich, all kinds.
     In their defense, I will say that this top one percent pays 38% of the federal income
taxes.  Also, the top 10% of the U.S. population spends more money than the bottom 80. (All the above figures are from The Wall Street Journal, October 22-23, 2011, pp. C1, C2.;  Robert Frank, “The Wild Ride of The 1%,”).  This, in turn, benefits the economy as a whole.
     The big controversy today is that the tax rate favors the rich, and it started when then-President George W. Bush decided to lower taxes for this class of people.  This resulted in helping to wipe out the current budget surplus acquired under President Bill Clinton, bringing back the deficit, and raising the national debt extensively.  I myself never forgave Bush for this, never mind what he subsequently did.
     One fear from all this is the middle class being wiped out, some going to the upper class, but most descending to near poverty levels.  It’s the classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  As for the country, we are now deep in debt, other countries, like China, are well on their way of surpassing us on the economic ladder, while we become a second rate power.  America will soon be unable to afford anything:  rebuilding the infrastructure, funding much needed social programs, cutting back on public services, research and development, education, pensions for the retired, the military.  Everything is now on the cutting block, and it’s our own fault.  What’s really sad is nobody wants to sacrifice anything to help a community, and a country, that’s going broke.      
          What do these people do with all the money they acquire?   Some, I admit, do good and creative work, like help the environment, the poor, campaign for a worthy cause, even help those in poor countries and contribute to finding cures for diseases such as AIDS and multiply sclerosis.  These people are the models that everyone else should emulate.
     One example is Jon M. Huntsman (Kirk Johnson, “A Billionaire WIth Distinct Ideas of Philanthropy and Presidential Politics,” The New York Times, National Section, Sunday, October 16, 2011, p. 21).  Owner of a chemical company that he started himself, Huntsman is now a multi-billionaire.  He suggested to Warren Buffett, also a philanthropist, that billionaires give away 80% of their wealth to worthy causes and projects.  Huntsman founded the Huntsman Cancer Institute, dedicate to research for finding cures for cancer, in addition to helping patients with cancer survive.
     As for many other people, much of the time, their money simply sits in their accounts, doing little or no productive work.  These people can’t even begin to spend it, and some spend it foolishly.  Inheriting wealth from their parents who earned it can be detrimental to the heir(s) if they don’t know how to handle it.  Many do become spoiled, stifling their own creativity, thus becoming idle.  This can lead to self-destructive behavior, as we have seen in many of our celebrities.  There are exceptions, where the child learns the trade, uses his or her own creativity and improves the company the father created, but that is rare.
     I would like to bring up a book by Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth.”  This is a book I strongly recommend for anyone who handles money in any way, being just about everybody in business.  In fact I recommend it for everybody.  He has also written other essays pertaining to this subject, and they have been put together in a book titled “The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings.”                
     Andrew Carnegie, an immigrant from Scotland, started working in a cotton factory, at the age of twelve, for $1.20 a week.  He worked his way up as an apprentice, established Carnegie Steel (later U.S. Steel), becoming the second richest man in America, possibly the world, after John D. Rockefeller.  When he retired, he collected a pension of one million dollars a month.  Carnegie then proceeded to give away much of his wealth, a total of $350 million, benefitting communities all over the world.  For example, he donated (bought) pipe organs for churches worldwide, established over 2,500 public libraries in the English speaking world, and of course, you know of the famous Carnegie Hall in New York City.
     Carnegie’s book, “The Gospel of Wealth”  emphasizes all this, for he has stated, and I quote, “The man who dies rich thus dies disgraced.”  (Carnegie did leave his children enough money for them to last the rest of their lives, but no further.  The grandchildren had to start fresh.)  You must note that Carnegie didn’t have anything against wealth itself, only the administration of it.  A lot of it goes to waste.  Also, flaunting wealth is not only a bad idea, it’s dangerous.
     This essay is based of what Andrew Carnegie has written on this subject, and I will apply this to the present problems of this country, the United States, in the year 2011 as of this writing.  What I am trying to discuss here is not socialism, but philanthropy.  In a bigger sense, this is giving back to the community, to society, and to the nation as a whole.
     Carnegie did not advocate giving money to any individual having their hand out, for the majority of the times, he or she would spend it on their own pleasure, moral or not, or they would use begging as a substitute for work, and that he despised.  Many do make this mistake, but it can do more harm than good.  It’s easier to give than to refuse.
     What Carnegie does advocate is giving to communities something that could be of great benefit, such as a theater of a community center.  Once that theater or community center is built, however, it would be up to the people of that community to maintain it.  What is pointed out here is helping people who can help themselves without the gift.  Being a recipient here is not for the lazy or incompetent.  If one receives a scholarship, that person/student has to study hard and maintain a high grade point average and be active in school to show for it.
     In his book, Carnegie listed seven objects of philanthropy: universities, libraries and museums, hospitals and medical research, parks and recreation, theaters and community centers, swimming, and churches (here you can add synagogues, mosques, temples of any faith).  Here, the philanthropist would donate money to build these institutions, and the public, from then on, would use and maintain it.
     I would like to add it all this.  At present, we have a very serious problem with the U.S. infrastructure; it is deteriorating.  The roads, the highways, bridges, railroads, tunnels. all needed for not only private but also public transportation as well.  Commerce, and even global trade in this country relies on well maintained roads and bridges, as well as high paying jobs.  If global commerce cannot function here in the U.S., companies will take their businesses elsewhere, meaning no jobs, and no money for us.  New companies will not come in either, so the situation will only get worse.
     With the federal, state, and city/town budgets as they are, and with the country needing to rebuild and renovate its infrastructure, perhaps the rich could supplement or substitute for the government in rebuilding much of this badly needed base.  This would be a form of both serving one’s country and giving back to the community, the society that helped the person to build his fortune in the first place.  If the government cannot afford to build some parts of the infrastructure that so desperately needs it, perhaps the very wealthy, foundations, private sector could fill in for it.  They can all help donate bridges, roads, new sewer systems, power plants, flood control systems, replant forests, even fund public schools that are closing, perhaps even buy newly required books and computers for the school he or she is sponsoring.
     For example, if there is a small community, with a very wealthy person living there, and a new bridge is needed, and the government can’t afford it, perhaps that particular person could step in and pay for it.  Employment would be produced, and the new bridge would then be built.  The person sponsoring it would have the privilege of naming it, be it after himself, the street, the town, or any other name he so chooses.
     One urban problem is that badly needed public schools are shutting down due to lack of funding.  One can come in, sponsor one school, buying updated educational materials such as text books, computers, sports equipment, artistic materials, whatever that particular school might need.  The school can be more demanding of the students, and inspire them.  New programs for that school can be established, such as the performing arts, or a new sports team.  An incentive can be given for college scholarships.  The people in the community would benefit, crime would go down, and more productive citizens would appear.  If the school is in a dilapidated neighborhood, the neighborhood the school is in can be improved, such as building a community center, repairing streets and sewers, and more employment would be produced in restoring this neighborhood.
    This is a problem in Los Angeles right now, with badly needed schools closing down, and the youth having nothing to do but get into alcohol, drugs, and gangs.  A few miles up the road is Hollywood, with movie stars and other wealthy people living in Beverly Hills, a world apart from these slums.  If we can convince many of the wealthy to sponsor one school each, the communities in L.A. would greatly improve, with renewed schools, infrastructure, more productive citizens, and a lot less crime.
     In addition to the infrastructure, new technologies can be sponsored, such as space exploration and development, electric automobiles, new power plants with little or no pollution, new forms of electronics, new recycling plants, and new forms of public transportation, such as high speed rail.  Here, the sponsor can profit from this, making even more money for himself.  This could also mean more money for more projects.  Previously cancelled projects, such as the rail tunnel between between New York and New Jersey, can go back on the board.  Many good projects have been cancelled due to lack of funding.
   
     According to Forbes, there are about 414 billionaires in the U.S., with a net worth of $1.53 trillion.  This is more than enough to sponsor projects that this country so desperately needs, and these people are a good resource to tap.  (Charles Landow and Courtney Lobel, “How Billionaires Can Build Bridges to the Middle Class,” The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2011, p. A17).
     Much of the wealth is thrown into the hands of the few.  It is given to him to administrate it.  If this society, by its laws, freedoms, and laborers helped this person obtain the wealth he or she has, then he or she should give some of it back in the form of institutions, infrastructure, and facilities their community, society, and country badly needs but could no longer afford because of its present economic crisis.  It is up to them to help this country, since this country help him achieve the position he is in today.
     It is of no value to hoard his wealth, or leave it to heirs who will simply use it to remain idle and bask in luxury.  It would be a great disservice to his family should he decide to do so.  He should be able to use it to help others while he is still alive, not after he dies.  Doing so will earn him good standing while he is still living rather than after he dies.
     Obviously, he is entitled to keep much of his wealth for the lifestyle he so desires.  However, the vast majority of the wealth that has been given to him, that would otherwise be hoarded, where he can’t even begin to spend, should be put to good use to benefit society, especially at a time like this where it is badly needed, where the government itself is in financial trouble and cannot continue to carry out its duties in serving the American people.