From the looks of it, Einstein solved one problem in
science, and later created a similar kind of problem in the humanities. In
science, he has shown that Classical Newtonian Physics is but a subset of
General Relativity.
As to the humanities, Einstein enunciated the definition of
insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Recent
events, however, have shown that this definition describes only a subset of
what happens in the larger context of real life. The challenge now is to find a
definition for the “thing” we see in the expression “doing the same thing,”
that will encompass as large a context as possible.
The situation highlighting that need manifested itself when
the Jews convinced the American administration to violate the international
laws it helped write by recognizing Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel .
The reason the Jews gave to force America
into action, was that failing to do so would constitute doing the same thing
and expecting a different outcome with regard to the never-ending Middle East peace talks.
As trained to respond when the Jews make a demand, the
American administration rushed to give them what they wanted without a public
debate or even a private one. The reason the Jews gave, and the administration
accepted, for making such a move, was that “taking Jerusalem off the table” was going to change
the thing that will change the outcome. But missing in all of this was a
definition for the “thing.” Consequently, the Jerusalem move not only failed to achieve its
purpose, it created a situation so nefarious; it magnified the wickedness of
the original problem.
Had there been a public debate, the reality of the “thing”
would have shown to be that America kept tightening the noose around the neck
of the Palestinian victims year after year by taking from them and giving to
the Israeli aggressors, thus causing no change at all. Consequently, insanity
would have been defined as recognizing Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel
and expecting the Palestinians to love the move and thank the Americans.
Absent a debate, America made the move anyway,
expecting to see what the Jews had promised will be a different and positive
outcome. Well, there was a different outcome alright, but it wasn't the result
that anyone sane had expected or hoped for. And this is why we need a
definition for the “thing” that will avoid a similar result from repeating
itself. How to do that?
An interesting but unrelated article may help us find a way
to define the “thing.” It came under the title: “Iran and Israel Could Go to War
Next Year,” written by Raymond Tanter and Ivan Sasha Sheehan. It was published
on February 25, 2018 in The National Interest.
What we see in that article is a method that applies generally
in every pro-Israel presentation. It consists of laying out three stages.
First, the presenter goes into the speculation mode. Second, he or she cites
true and/or false evidence to the effect that unprovoked Israeli aggression,
even against the innocent, constitutes self-defense. Third, the presenter
demands that America sends
more support to Israel
in the form of money, weapons and diplomatic cover. The following is a
condensed version of the article, highlighting those three stages:
“We ask: Will Israel and Iran go to war by 2019? Growing
tensions between them may heat up further between 2018 and 2019. A resurgent Iran is a new
player on the scene. Converging events are opening scenes of a wider war. As Damascus and Tehran
threaten Jerusalem , the State Department
indicates to Israel
it stands alone. Secretary Tillerson's Middle East tour included Amman , Ankara , Cairo , Kuwait
City and Beirut , but not Jerusalem . Tillerson should go to Jerusalem . The United States supports Israel 's right
to defend itself. The Pentagon asserted that we support Israel 's right to defend itself.
More than such expressions of support are necessary from State and Defense!
Studies indicate there should be an increase in arms to Israel ,
including replacement of the F-16 Syria air defense batteries shot down”.
We see in that passage how the Jewish lobbying has always
been responsible for maintaining the status quo. This has caused the “same
thing” to be done over and over again, and the result to always be the same.
The solution therefore is to define the “same thing” as “maintaining the same
direction whether or not other changes are made”.
The point is that if you want a different result, you must
change the direction of the current situation. In the case of the Middle East
peace process, it would have meant empowering the Palestinians by taking from Israel what
used to belong to the Palestinians and returning it to them. In other words,
reverse the status quo.