What is good about old sayings is that they always have something to tell about human nature. So here is an old saying that has something useful to tell: “Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.” It sounds like a German saying but you never know. In any case, Roger Cohen of the New York Times has dabbled in something that may or may not clarify a few things but it gives us the opportunity to start a good discussion. In an article he published on March 3, 2011 under the title “Go to Jerusalem” Cohen urges the US President Barack Obama to go to Israel and “...spell out all the ways America will guarantee Israel's security.” Cohen does not say it outright but he apparently means to convey the notion that this act will solve the Middle East crisis even though it is one that has festered for decades despite all attempts to solve it by appeasing Israel. Of course, going to Israel will be regarded by some as the ultimate in appeasement. And given that this will constitute doing the same thing while expecting a different result, the question to ask is this: Is Cohen serious or insane or what?
The author lays out his ideas and those of Daniel Ben-Simon who is a member of the Israeli Knesset. What is missing from Cohen's discussion, however, is the background against which the ideas should have been put in relief, and the context that would have given meaning to the narrative. And because the background and the context are the keys that can clarify the intent behind the ideas, I shall paint the background myself and give shape to the historical context in which the narrative is played out before I analyze the ideas of Cohen and Ben-Simon. To help me do this work, I shall quote sayings whose origin I ignore but which are so descriptive of human nature, it does not matter where they originated because we are all human beings after all.
One useful saying goes this way: “Give a man a fish and he'll eat one day; teach him to fish and he'll eat everyday.” This is an astute saying, and like all sayings it reflects the wisdom of the culture in which it arose. However, like all sayings, the origin of this one is difficult to pinpoint because you meet it in every culture anywhere you look on this planet. Still, a saying tells only part of the story, not all of it. This one assumes that the man is passive and waiting for you to decide whether he will eat today or eat everyday. But the fact is that most people are more resilient than that and they share in the decision as to whether or not they should take your fish, learn to fish or do both. Notice the use of the term “take your fish” because it means to convey one of several choices that the man has which you don't know exist: Either he will choose to accept the fish you give to him or he will con you into giving him the fish or he will steal it from you or he will cheat you out of it.
Also, when we think of teaching a man to fish, we assume that he does not know how to fish. In reality, however, most people know how to fish or they can learn it fairly quickly if they so decide. It is just that some people are too lazy to bother fishing or learn to fish because they prefer to spend the energy they have to grab what is not theirs instead of doing something for themselves. In addition, there are the greedy people who wish to acquire everything they see whether they do it legitimately or do it through shady means. And so, they will accept the fish you give to them at the same time as they will con the next guy into giving them his fish, swindle their grandmother out of her retirement savings and steal what they can from a neighbor that trusts them. In short, these people will let nothing stand in their way as they accumulate wealth -- something they will do by hook, by crook and by every trick in the book.
It should be obvious by now that the above description applies to people who are not down on their luck. But it can happen that someone will be down at some point in their life because they made a decision that did not work as well as expected or they were hit with a perfect storm that was devastating to their finances. If and when this happens to someone, he or she deserves to have a helping hand alleviate their pain because we are obliged by our common humanity to look after each other in such a circumstance. What we are not obliged to do, however, is help the well to do who enjoy a relatively high standard of living whether they have amassed what they own by honest means or they did it by engaging in activities that exploit other people. In fact, individuals of the latter type acquire the image of a parasite because they take advantage of every opportunity that comes their way to enrich themselves at the expense of the people they know and the people they don't know.
Why such people live the way they do and acquire a bad image can be traced to a human nature gone awry. It all begins with the fact that it is essential for our survival to gather and to keep material things called commodities. People have done so throughout the ages by developing a number of methods, some of which were ingenious and some devious. As long as the supply of commodities remained ample compared to the demand, no one bothered to check how much the neighbor was gathering, and humanity got along well for thousands of years. But when the populations began to increase and the demand on commodities exceeded the supply, people began to develop awareness as to how much the neighbor was taking.
In fact, no consideration was given to the number of animals that a neighbor hunted or the amount of fish they caught until the shortages began to develop. When this happened, the people got together and agreed to share the available commodities among all the groups and all the families. This is how things are done today in the remote areas of the Canadian North when a native catches a big seal or a whale, and shares it with the entire village. But it must have happened at some point in the past that differences arose as to how the people could share something equitably when the villages were varied and each group and family had a different need. Situations like these must have led to disputes that were not resolved by discussion. And this may have prompted a few individuals to think of other ways to proceed. The worst among them could have invented devious means – in practice today -- to acquire and stash away huge amounts of wealth for personal use while pretending to work for the welfare of all.
After centuries of such interactions, the groups and the races that inhabit the planet began to develop traits and behaviors that were unique to each for, this is how the different cultures are formed and how social evolution progresses. The result was that with the passage of time, most of the groups came to be identified by the uniqueness of the traits they had acquired. This manner of identification persists to this day and what is unfortunate about it is that the objectionable traits of some individuals are thought to reflect the character of the entire group to which they belong. On the other hand, there are times when a group is identified in a more rounded way by mentioning the good traits of its members. We call this the stereotyping of people. Why we do things this way may be explained by the fact that our brain prefers to simplify matters in order to store them in the memory more efficiently. For example, it is easy to remember the Irish as being hot tempered, the Germans as being hard working and the Jews as being greedy.
The stereotyping of Jews as a greedy people, however, did not happen without a reason. These people have acquired the reputation because it is what most of them have become inadvertently or by choice. The reasons are there and they are well known. Historically, the Jews were nomadic tribes that lived by raiding their neighbors and robbing them. This was the hard life they lived in the deserts of the Middle East, and because they could not always count on having enough to keep them going until they raided the next neighbor, they hoarded what they possessed and were careful how they spent it. With time, the habits of hoarding and of spending miserly became a culture that developed rituals of its own and took on the force of religion. They called it the Jewish religion.
The religion was then etched in stone together with the claim that God chose for the Jews to live the way they do until he promised them a land of milk and honey where they could settle and have something to eat everyday without robbing someone. But this is not what they did ultimately. What they did instead was that they made it known to everyone the Jews had divine rights. They claimed that God gave them the right to own everything they see and covet even if it belongs to someone else. And they worked to let everyone know that they are authorized by divine decree to take what belongs to someone else, a reputation they cherish and are proud to live with. Not only that, they want the world to know they even have the religious obligation to take what they desire, something they will do by hook, by crook and by every trick in the book. And in case, this escapes you ordinary mortal, to dislike this trait about the Jews is to be anti-Semitic. So get on with it and love the Jew that schemes to rob you like says televangelist John Hagee or be prepared to go to jail like says the Jewish Anti Defamation League.
This brings us to the Roger Cohen article. The question was asked as to whether the man was serious or insane or what? Well, he says that the member of the Knesset, Daniel Ben-Simon, told him Israel's policy has been up to now not just a tragedy but almost criminal. And it is upon this discovery that the two of them have concluded Mr. Obama should go to Israel and try to do what America has failed to do for decades by appeasing Israel yet again and expect a different result. Does this define insanity?
The point that someone is trying to make here is that the more criminal the Jew gets to be, the more he should be rewarded for his troubles. And now you know why the Jews have acquired the image of parasite, something that did not escape a Jewish man I knew who worried deeply about the fate of his people. To respond to this kind of mangled logic, he used to throw his hands up in the air and scream: “Light up the oven!.” Aware of what happened to members of his family during WWII, this Jew put the blame squarely on the shoulder of the self appointed leaders of the Jews who keep sending the little guys to their holocaust then step out of danger by converting to another religion at the last moment.
The man recognized how mutilated and dangerous that mentality was but he could do nothing about it except cry out his sorrow. And so, it is to express my sympathy with him that I call on Roger Cohen and the New York Times to put an end to the conspiracy they have embarked on by which they pave the way for the annihilation of the Jewish people while pretending to help them. The author and the publication may or may not have known what they were doing but they do now. If they do not cease and desist, they will prove that they are doing it on purpose not out of ignorance.