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.

Concerning Richard Nixon

     Just as he resigned from office, President Richard Nixon said to his White House staff in his farewell address, “Remember, always give your best.  Never get discouraged.  Never be petty.  Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win, unless you hate them.  And then you destroy yourself.”  These are not only good words for anyone to follow, they also sum up his career, and I feel that this may be the real reason why his presidency failed.

     I have always had a soft spot for Nixon.  I remember Watergate clearly, and I have seen his presidency from the very beginning, and I knew he wanted our involvement in Vietnam to end, so he hired a brilliant diplomat, Henry Kissinger, to accomplish this task.  While he did this, he slowly reduced the number of troops from half a million in 1969 to under 100 thousand in 1972.

     What has largely been forgotten is that in his first term, he set up a vast network of federal grants to social programs to state and local governments, for them to help the less fortunate in their own localities.  As for the environment, he helped to establish the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate air and water emissions, for pollution was a very serious problem back in the late sixties and early seventies.  Another agency, OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, was set up to protect workers from the hazards of their jobs.  Back then, “Nixon Republicans” meant working class people, as opposed to the Republican party of today representing the wealthy.  

     Nixon tried to go further in similar programs, but Congress wouldn’t support him.  Nixon tried to establish a living wage for all working families, so they can earn a decent living.  He even tried to establish a national health care plan before the concept was popular, by proposing to provide government insurance for low-income families, require employers to cover all their workers, and set standards for private health insurance.  Today, he would be considered a radical, supported by Liberals and despised by Neo-Conservatives, quite the opposite of what he was during his administration.

     Nixon had a foreign policy, one of the best in his time, that commanded the respect of leaders world-wide, and his crowning achievement was to open up China, then closed, to the world.

     As a politician, he was a man of great resilience who never let a defeat finish him, as he won the presidency in 1968 after suffering a defeat against Kennedy in 1960 and another defeat for governor of California in 1962.  No one can debate the fact that he never quit.

     How will history judge him?

     I believe that now, 20 years after his death, all the facts about him are now available, and in spite of Watergate, people will no longer be able to think of him as a liar, a scoundrel, a hater, a bigot, or just another politician.  He was all these things, yet so very much more that his life became one of the great tragedies of his time.

     It was a tragedy because Nixon had many enlightening qualities that could have taken this country on a road avoiding the many problems that are prevalent in our society today, such as health care and poverty, had Congress allowed him to proceed with his proposals.  Had Nixon decided to make peace with his opponents and win them over, he might have accomplished more of what he wanted.   He simply had to be willing to see eye to eye with more of these people.

     Early on in his career, Nixon was hard working, studied Law diligently and received all A’s in his academics.  He was very dynamic, and had high contacts with many other political figures, including John Kennedy.  

     How then, after Watergate broke out, did he allow himself to become involved with such corrupt men like Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, Dean, Colson and the rest of the White House “plumbers”?  He knew the law and the consequences for breaking it, yet he allowed his staff to lie, cheat, and bribe people into silence, and cover up a burglary, even when the courts and Congress started to look into the matter.  How could he have revealed that he had tape recordings of the cover up, and not destroy them to protect himself?  Most of all, how could he have allowed all this to happen in the first place, in order to win an election that he was going to win anyway? 

     Had Watergate not occurred, Nixon would have won in a landslide, which he did, against any opponent, including Ted Kennedy.  Nixon, during his first term, had an obsession about Ted Kennedy, fearing that he would run and defeat him.  This fear was unnecessary.  Ted Kennedy slipped when Chappaquiddick occurred in 1969, where he drove off a bridge, drunk, resulting in the drowning of his secretary, Mary Jo Kopechne, and then running away from the scene.  In 1972, Ted Kennedy decided that he would not run for the office.

     Nixon had his faults, his racial prejudices, and was very paranoid.  In spite of all this, he managed to accomplish a great deal.  He had enemies, many of whom protested his handling of Vietnam, but he went ahead and withdrew troops, 25,000 in 1970, then 35,000, 50,000 and 100,000.  He sent troops into Cambodia and Laos to counteract the Viet Cong and their supply lines.  He used all this as bargaining chips to withdraw, get the South Vietnamese to fight the war themselves, and have the U.S. save face, leaving Vietnam without appearing to be defeated.

     Nixon had a great love for his country, and did not want to see it suffer it’s first defeat and humiliation.  He had many qualities which amazed both his friends and foes alike.  He stood up to his enemies, near and far, was very anti-Communist, yet was able to reach out to those leaders from behind the Iron Curtain and win them over as friends.  He played the China card against the Soviet Union, and opened up a closed and isolated giant to the world.  He no doubt changed the course of the Cold War for the better, commanding world-wide respect for the U.S.  

     No future historian can argue that even after Nixon left office, he managed to overcome his disgrace of resigning from the presidency, write books on foreign policy, and revisit China, six times, along with Russia, again to promote U.S. leadership, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Many important officials did listened to his views of events that were unfolding after the Cold War.  One journalist quoted that “Nixon is running for elder statesman, and winning.”  This may have been his supreme victory.

     But, for all his accomplishments, there is one vice that Richard Nixon suffered that will prevent any history book from accepting him as a great man.  It was not the vice of vanity, which, when all is said and done, many a great man has suffered.  It wasn’t his hard driving and ruthless ambition, for that has carried many leaders to the top in times gone by.  It wasn't his political tactics, or “dirty tricks,” that outraged so many of his contemporaries, but is common practice in campaigns today.  It wasn’t even his talking to portraits of past Presidents in the White House late at night and drinking heavily in the last days of his presidency while sinking into defeat, because what else was there to do?

     The vice which Nixon suffered, in which all history books will undoubtably blame him, was his sheer hatred and his strong desire and attempts to destroy any and all of his political opponents.  That was his great crime.  It was this hatred, and paranoia, that led to Watergate, the cover-up, and the creation of his enemies list.  It was this hatred that led him to authorize the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, before Watergate, in order to obtain information to embarrass Ellsberg.  Most of all, it was Nixon’s hatred that caused his enemies to turn on him, leading up to his downfall and forcing him out of office.

     During the Cold War, Nixon was staunchly anti-Communist, yet he went over to China in 1972, shook hands with Chou En Lai (who remembered being snubbed by John Foster Dulles when he offered to shake hands) and became friends with Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, and visited him again in 1976.  He did the same in the Soviet Union with Leonid Brezhnev, along with other leaders behind the Iron Curtain.                   

      Nixon was once a close friend of John Kennedy, and even in 1960, John Kennedy’s father, Joe, decided that if his son didn’t win the Democratic nomination for president, he would go over and support Nixon.  Kennedy, however, won the election, and Nixon had never forgiven him, even though he himself won the presidency in 1968.  In addition, he was determined to “get even” with those who did not support him during his elections.  He simply would not let go.

     George McGovern, Nixon’s opponent in 1972, once stated in an interview that two days after his landslide victory, Nixon flew into a rage over his opponents.   McGovern was amazed how Nixon could have felt like that after winning his greatest victory in his career.

     We will never know why he could not have simply try and win over his political rivals.  Had he done so, perhaps he would have accomplished much more of what he wanted, Watergate would never have occurred, he would have completed two full terms of office, and maybe even gone down as one of the great presidents in history.

     But, as it turned out, the man who could make friends with his enemies abroad would not reconcile with his enemies here at home.  So his very quote at the beginning of this essay was self fulfilling and when Nixon said it, he knew that it applied to him, but it was too late.

     It was his hatred and attempts to destroy his opponents, to retaliate against those who did not support him, all of which finally led to his own self-destruction, for which history will not forgive him.   

Author’s Note:  I got the inspiration to write this essay from the epilogue of another biography, “The Reich Marshal: A Biography of Hermann Goering,” by Leonard Mosley, Dell Publishing Company, paperback edition, New York, 1975, pp.  431-434.  Some of these lines in this essay were taken out of context.  I have read this epilogue many times, and have always felt inspired, that I wanted to write something similar about Richard Nixon.  Mostly, this is in my own words, but a few lines were copied because I couldn’t say it any better.  All these facts I’ve pointed out about Nixon, however, are true.

What FOUNDATION is, and what FOUNDATION is NOT:

FOUNDATION is:

1. A think tank, that hopes to put its ideas into action.
2. Inclusive, and welcomes any and all people who share our ideas, regardless of race, creed, nationality, or political and religious outlooks.
3. Hopes to improve society, any society, through creative uses of new ideas, be they political, economic, or technological, and through peaceful means.
4. Advocates strong research in the advancement of science and technology, and improving education in these fields to encourage young people to take up these disciplines.
5. Believes in a strong space program, and hopes to someday get humanity into space.
6. Believes in energy independence, hopefully with clean and plentiful energy.
7. Believes in improving the environment.
8. Hopes to find ways to improve and maintain the quality of life for all.
9. Believes in resolving international problems without violence and achieving win-win situations.
In fact this is the only way they can be solved.
10. Does see the world for what it is, good and bad, but also believes that a hopeful future is possible.
11. Respects and laws and customs of all societies, and only that society has the right to change them if they so desire.
12. Open to any and all ideas pertaining to the goals of this organization.


FOUNDATION is NOT:

1. A political party, nor does it lean to any political affiliation.
2. An extremist nor radical organization.
3. A cult, a religion, and we do not refer to any deities.
4. Does not advocate creating a civil disturbance, anywhere.  Should any society decide to form massive protests against what they feel is an unjust government, it is their decision to do so, no one else's, and it is to be done at their own risk.  Again, we do not share in the responsibility for it.
5. Does not advocate breaking the laws in any society, nor does it promote violence or destruction for any reason.
6. Does not go against any political party, religion or any specific groups of people, ethnic or otherwise.  We believe that each individual has a right to his or her own political or religious beliefs, and no one has the right to change them.
7. A for-profit organization.  We do not ask anyone for any money for any reason, nor do we encourage anyone to donate to other organizations we may support.  Should any individual choose to do so, it will be his or her decision alone, and of their own choosing.
8. A hate or anti-ethnic group.  ALL ethnicities are to be treated with equal respect, and we recognize that each person has the right to be in this world, regardless of who he or she is.
9. Exclusive.

What FOUNDATION is All About

     This blog is a connection to my facebook page Foundation.  To access that, click on www.facebook.com/foundationandstate.  Note the word "state."  Here, I don't mean American states such as Colorado or Louisiana, but countries, such as Mexico or China, or any other country, for they are also referred to as "states."  I'll discuss this shortly.  (I could not use the single word foundation for my addresses, so I had to come up with something just as relevant).
     To continue.  First, the name.  I took this name from a science fiction novel titled "The Foundation Trilogy," written by Isaac Asimov.  It is a series of three books, set far into the future, of a galactic empire, where man has long forgotten his origins.  One man, Hari Seldon, forcasts its fall, with 30,000 years of barbarism to follow.  Dr. Seldon sets up two foundations to narrow the time to 1000 years before a new society takes its place.  This novel, or series of novels really, is based on Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."  What I am doing is taking the Foundation novels, and applying them to the present time in the present world, especially in the United States.
     This brings me to the theme.  The United States is falling.  That's all there is to it.  The U.S. is declining!  But it doesn't have to stay that way.  We, as Americans have the potential to bring this country back up again.
     It will not be easy, however.  Other countries have already surpassed us in education, industry, science and technology, and they are working out their own relationships with other countries in many of these fields without our help.  A lack of interest on our part is a major cause of it, and they are showing that they do not need us.  They may need us politically and militarily, but that too can change.  China, Japan, India, Germany and other countries have gone up.  Whether these countries will replace us remains in question, for they have problems of their own.  Perhaps nobody will.  Perhaps, as in the time of Rome, after our fall, should it occur, a new Dark Age may descend upon us.  The signs are there: pollution, a bad economy, depletion of natural resources, and wars.  Wars over the acquisition of natural resources loom on the horizon.  These will be extremely bloody wars, something of which I am entirely opposed.
     This is where Foundation comes in.  I do not believe that the above warnings have to occur. In fact, they can be prevented and we, not only as Americans, but humanity as a whole, can deal with our present problems, move on, and prosper.  Note, this is not "pie in the sky," nor is it a plan for a Utopia.  That will never happen.  We will always have problems.  But I feel our present problems are growing in leaps and bounds and are getting too big for us to handle.  This has to change!

     For all of your members from the rest of the world presently on my Facebook page, this blog and fb page is for you too!  Many problems the U.S. has, the rest of the world has also, and what ever ideas I propose on this page can be applied in your countries as well.

     THIS PAGE AND BLOG IS FOR EVERYBODY!

     This main themes FOUNDATION covers are proposed ideas in dealing with major problems the world has, and how we can deal with them.  Note: we not only point out our major problems, we provide ideas for solutions, or how to best deal with them.  Most of all, how we as Americans and Humans can prosper beyond our problems.  The main theme is this:

The entire U.S. needs to be overhauled from the government on down.  In our present situation, we can no longer afford to do nothing.  But it’s not as hard as it seems, and it does not have to be miserable for us.  We do have the potential to go up again.  Here’s how:

1. Senators and Congressmen must put an end to earmarks - funding their pet projects at home to please their constituents.  This is NOT what federal tax money is for, it is to fund our national interests only!  If these people want money for their own local projects, they can get it from their own local revenues.

2. We must greatly cut down on government waste and government red tape.  This drains our resources and slows things down.  This also means eliminating the federal budget deficit, which we did during the Clinton administration,  but it came back under the administration of George W. Bush.  We must again find another way to eliminate the deficit, and eventually, the national debt.  It will take great sacrifice on all of us, but it can be done.   Note:  with the present economy (2012) in the state that it is, I am aware that we must still borrow money to stimulate it, but we need to spend this money wisely, and without regard to our own local interests.  The bottom line, we need to completely and totally overhaul our budget.  It will be long and hard, but in the end, it will be worth it.  I know this is easier said than done.

3. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of the U.S. - repair roads and bridges and the like.  In this area, quality must come first, not price.  Too often, we “award to the lowest bidder,”  but this may end up being the most expensive, not only in repairs, but in human lives if a disaster, like a bridge collapsing, occurs.

4. We need to improve our educational system - encourage more education in Math and Science.  This is why other countries have gotten ahead of us in technology and industry.  There are ways to do this.  Read further!  (Incidentally, space exploration and development is a good catalyst for doing this, for it will inspire many of our young people to get into these fields).

5. We need a health care system available to all citizens.  This has been done to death, but we need to take after models like that of Canada and France, even the United Kingdom and Scandinavia.  It is possible, if we look at the advantages and disadvantages of each country that has it, we can take what is best and correct the flaws that they do have.  We are getting there.  “Obamacare” has been passed.  It may not be perfect, but if it survives, it can be improved with the test of time.

6. We need to invest in the field of scientific research, such as stem cell research, high energy physics, and other programs.  Other countries are getting ahead of us in these fields and are reaping the benefits, while we are getting left behind.  

7. We must be better stewards of the environment.  We need to protect sensitive areas, improve the soil of farms, replant forests in denuded areas, improve the air and aid in the fight against global warming.  We can even take this overseas to Africa and South America, replanting jungles.  It’s hard, I know, but it can be done.

8. We need the ability to aid in disasters that occur in our own homeland, with speed and accuracy, and to rebuild what has been destroyed.  This time, we must know where to rebuild and where NOT to rebuild;  i.e.  don’t rebuild homes in fire or flood prone areas.

9. We need to get rid of the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.  If there is any country willing to help us with something that we need, or if someone else offers us a useful idea, we should take it.  For example, after Hurricane Katrina broke the dikes and flooded New Orleans, the dikes needed to be repaired.  We have made use of the Army Corps of Engineers but suppose we had called in the Dutch?  They are experts in flood control and we can learn a thing or two.

10. With that, quality must be emphasized in all products manufactured in the U.S.  This is another reason why the world is getting ahead of us economically, they are making better quality products, which people, including us, are buying.  So we in the American industry face a choice - either make a better quality product, or get out of the market.

11. We need to improve our military.  Listen to what they have to say and not  force them to buy weapons they neither need nor want.  Eliminate the waste, and trim it to only what they need.  Also, train it to our needs today; train them to fight the present war on terror and not previous wars that have long ago ended.  Eliminate interservice rivalry, and have a system which they can communicate, and cooperate with each other.  Eliminate duplicate programs that the each branch of the military has, but is not needed in every branch.  They also need to protect themselves from computer hackers. Foreign hackers are stealing our technology and using it against us, to undermine our military.  More protective measures need to be taken.  If this means hiring computer hackers, so be it.  We could even use hackers to infiltrate other militaries.  Fight fire with fire.

12. Foreign policy needs to be improved drastically.  The U.S. has a bad foreign policy.  We must respect each government, even if we do not agree with the way they govern.  If any country, no matter who they are, is willing to extend their hand in friendship to us, we should accept.  Most of all, we should accept each country for what it is and not try to mold it in our image.  (This may be one of the main reasons why we have such a problem with terrorism.)  Another side of the coin is to not let other countries take advantage of us, which many of them do.

13. We need an robust energy program.  We need to be fully independent of oil exporting countries and completely self-sufficient in energy production.  What if we spent all that money from the Iraqi War into alternate energy technology instead?  How much would we have accomplished?

14. Last of all, we need an ambitious space program - for the education of our citizens, to give them a dream, a frontier, and hope for humanity to spread out beyond the Earth.  This is just as important as the other steps I have just mentioned, even more so.  Space is not a luxury to be pursued when all other needs are met, but the most important key to the survival of our species.  As for the U.S., we cannot afford NOT to pursue this venture.  Oh, there will be hardships, but they can be dealt with, and would improve our quality of life as a whole.   

Obviously, other mentioned programs are equally as important, and space exploration and development should be incorporated in this list as a component to science and technology, as well as the economy and an important step to getting America moving again.  If we don’t invest in this venture, other countries will and we will become a backwater country, on the outside looking in as other nations prosper, and we struggle.  Note that China plans to send a man to the Moon before the U.S.  

Most importantly, all these improvements must be done ALL AT THE SAME TIME, not one at a time.  Each one is equally important, and we have enough people with their combined interests and expertise to work in any and all of them.  We can educate them and provide job opportunities.  In doing all these projects, we would have one massive effort in completely rebuilding this country.  We also have the money to do so, regardless.  We just have to wisely allocate our resources without wasting anything.

These steps will get the U.S. running again, restoring our prestige in the world and making them pay attention to us again.  We will also be a much better country for this, and the quality of life here will greatly improve.

      More can be added to this list, but these are the basics that are needed to improve our society.  To put it in plain English, we need to clean up our act.
      I feel that this blog and the Facebook page (www.facebook.com/foundationandstate) is a way to start, promoting new or old but good ideas in which to do so.
      Again, it will not be easy, it will not always be popular, and it will cost a lot of money, much of which will have to be paid for in taxes, and hopefully, with the help of businesses, corporations, even philanthropists.  But it can be done.                  

     This page is not only for the society as a whole, but also individual people who share these interests, and that means YOU.  Are you a visionary?  Do you have an interest in space exploration, energy, engineering, business, and any other field that will contribute to helping society?  Are you even an artist, a writer, an economist?  ANY interest at all, be it art or science, no matter what, and you want to help improve society?  Are you different from the crowd?  Are you a young person in your teens not knowing exactly what you want to do?  This page is for YOU!

     I believe that all individuals have certain abilities that can be used for the good of the world, as well as making a good decent living.  (One does have to eat, and have a place to live).  Today, too many young people don't know what to do with themselves, resort to crime, or hang around parks and street corners doing drugs and drinking alcohol, ruining their lives.  If they had the chance to find their talents and to discover what to do with them, they can contribute to society in a big way.  They just have to be guided.
     Do you not have the money to go to college, art or tech school, or whatever you need to go?  There are scholarships available, from every entity from organizations to philanthropists.  One needs to discover their talents and interests.  Being on this page can help by showing you the world's problems, what needs to be done, and what you can do to help.

     If you are one of these individuals that shares our interests, and want to go out and contribute to solutions, be it in energy, economics or any other discipline, perhaps we can advise you on where to go for college, what to major in depending on your interests, even how to help pay for college through scholarships should you lack the funds.  If you don't know what you want to be, but have interests here, perhaps we can guide you in finding yourself.  We are unable to provide money, but we can help steer you in the right direction.  Of course, what will happen is mostly up to you!


     The U.S. and the world has many problems that we all know about.  The real question is, "What are you going to do about it?"  These sites attempt to answer that question.

     There you have it.  Foundation is about politics, economics, science and technology, problems and possible solutions, and what individuals, organizations, and whole nations, even groups of nations, can do to help.

     This Blog is supplemental to my Facebook page, both called FOUNDATION, both being one organization.  This is not only a think tank, it's a call for people like you to go out and do something.  This is a think and do something about it site.

     Join my Facebook page, www.facebook.com/foundationandstate, and read all the posts that I put in daily.  Come to this blog and post your opinions, suggestions, even complaints pertaining to all this.  Post a topic of your own!  Agree with me, disagree with me, come up with something better, something I never imagined.  This post is for YOU.  Please contribute in whatever way you can, and perhaps, we can all find a way out of this mess and move on the more prosperous times.

     This is what FOUNDATION is all about!