If you have two neighbors A and B, and if you tolerate A but
detest B, you cannot sue B for mistreating A because you have no standing to do
so. Only A can sue B, and if he or she will not do it, you can only watch from
the sidelines and wonder all you want.
Having standing is a legal concept that was fashioned not
from thin air. Rather, it was shaped from real-life observations that
demonstrated it was wise to intervene only when someone mistreats a defenseless
human child or even an animal. In our society, intervening means having
recourse to the legal process unless the situation is time-critical. But if two
adults are locked in a dispute with one constantly having the upper hand and
misusing it, you cannot intervene to defend the underdog unless asked to do so
by the victim. If you take the case to court on your own, the court will reject
your suit on the grounds that you have no standing.
Because what is true in the law was inspired by real life,
we find that even if our natural impulse is to side with one party or another
in any dispute that we happen to witness, we tend to stay out of the quarrel
because another natural impulse forces us to respect the need to have standing
before intervening. These two impulses create inside us a tension that pulls in
opposite directions.
All in all, most people tend to stay out of somebody else's
quarrels because that is the natural order of things. However, some people are
drawn to intervening in every case they see, thus make matters worse for the
others or get hurt themselves. The worst part is that they often discover they
sided with the wrong party because they judged the situation by its appearance
and not through understanding or analysis. Still, instead of learning their
lesson, and staying out the next time, these people repeat the same mistake
each time they witness a new dispute. What could be their motivation?
To explore that question, we may review the article that
came under the title: “Iran 's
ominous alliance with Russia ,”
written by Abraham H. Miller and published on February 23, 2017 in the New York
Daily News. What we see in this article are two trends of the kind we almost
never see expressed by one author in the same breath. What makes Abraham Miller
unique is that he is an extremely fanatic Jew, thus sees life through the
Zionist lens. At the same time, however, he is attuned to the echo-chamber
through which he keeps in touch with his peers, thus could not avoid being
colored by them.
As a fanatic Jew, Miller chose Barack Obama to represent the
evil incarnate around which everything that is destructive to Israel and the Jews, has gathered.
Thus, he sees that the mainstream media are not doing their job of revealing
the danger that Iran poses
because such work would expose “Obama's Iran deal as the worst fiasco in
history.” In addition Obama has allowed “the growing alliance between Russia and Iran
which has ominous consequences for Israel ”.
He names Obama seven times, accusing him of helping Iran so much; you would think that in the eight
years of Obama's tenure, Iran
got more than Israel
ever did in seven decades of American pampering. But instead of following in
the footsteps of Israel by
pursuing a benevolent Jewish agenda, Iran is carrying on with a Muslim
evil agenda ... according to Miller's logic.
As to what Miller is doing in response to the influence that
the Jewish echo-chamber has on him; it is that he takes up the cause of others
whether or not they like it; whether or not he or Israel have standing. What
follow are three examples of this kind of performance:
First, Miller says that Iran has hegemonic ambition, thus
tries to counter Turkish influence in the region. Second, he says that a
rejuvenated Iran has
embarked on fulfilling its dream of a Shiite crescent, thus endangers the
communities between Iran and
the Mediterranean Sea . Third, he says that the
Gulf Sunni states are worried about Iran 's rise.
This view of the two parts that represent Miller's
character, tells us what his motivation has been all along. He only cares about
Israel , always Israel and no one but Israel . The reason why he, at
times, invokes the welfare of others, is to buttress his argument. In reality,
he could not care less about anyone else.