In the same way that there is a simple method by which we
can begin to understand economics, there is a simple method by which we can
begin to understand human relationships.
To understand economics, we first learn that anything which
constitutes wealth came to be what it is because labor went into it. For
example, a ton of iron ore in the ground has no value till it is extracted. The
value assigned to it will depend on the time that it takes a human being to do
the extraction. When more time is put into the ore to transform it into a
useful product, that length of time will determine the value of the product.
Thus, an entire system of economics can be constructed around that starting
point.
Likewise, relationships can be made sense of when we begin
with the understanding that human beings feel they have obligations towards the
others, and that the others have obligations towards them. Life consists of
human beings constantly trying to fulfill their obligations … or in some cases,
trying to evade them. At the same time, however, they try to collect on what
they believe the others owe them. And the younger they are, the more they try
to obligate other people to make commitments to them.
These principles apply to individuals, to groups of people
(however small or large they may be) and to nations ... all of which considered
to be players in the game of life. Thus, any incident that may happen between
two players can always be reduced to the notion of who owes what to whom, who
has fulfilled their obligations, and who is refusing to do so.
A good part of the game of life is spent arguing about those
obligations. There are people who constantly believe someone they dealt with
owes them something, and has not paid them adequately. And there are people –
especially the lovers – who constantly believe they owe their significant other
infinitely more than they received from them. Unfortunately, there is also a
third group that believes the world owes them much by virtue of who they are,
and that they owe nothing to anyone.
The editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune are of that last
category. They have adopted the Jewish point of view which says that the world
owes them and their allies everything they desire to have … simply because of
who they are. At the same time, they believe that they have no obligation
towards anyone except to give advice on how everyone should serve the Jews in
fulfillment of their obligations towards them; more importantly in fulfillment
of their obligations towards life itself.
Their latest foray into the realm of living that fantasy in
the open came under the title: “Placating Iran” and the subtitle: “Dubious
dealings,” an editorial they published on April 1, 2016 in the Pittsburgh
Tribune. What gives this sort of talk an asinine quality is that it seeks to
circumvent the safeguards that human beings have devised to prevent or at least
minimize the damage that would be caused by nations trying to settle their
differences outside the legal framework devised to regulate international
interactions.
Look what the editors are whining about: “The Obama
administration offer[ed] cash and artifacts to the Islamic Republic to pay off
a prior debt … the administration conducted talks regarding a series of legal claims
… It shipped back historical artifacts and paid $1.7 billion … more of these
payments are likely coming … settlement[s] stemming from an arms deal that
derailed. What was negotiated kept Iran from pressing for more costly
settlement”.
And so, the editors register a Jewish objection as to why it
was a bad thing for the Obama Administration to have done what it did, and to
continue doing it. They begin the objection with: “excuse us,” and explain
themselves like this: “but where's the quid pro quo from Iran ?”
What they mean is compensation for what happened in a war
situation. In such cases, you either setup a tribunal to adjudicate the claims
and counterclaims that arise from both sides or you negotiate a deal among
yourselves. The administration chose to do the later because it was the least
costly way.