Reading for Treasure: Israel and Gaza

There is so much news coverage about the current conflict in the Middle East. Over and over, I find that my heart is broken. I read an article, see video, and then I cannot take it anymore. I realize that only my distance gives me that privilege, so I face again the horror both in Israel and Gaza and the reverberations around the world. 

It is not a straightforward situation. I chaff against the use of words like “simple” or modified by “just,” or preceded by, “all that needs to…” as if this is a knot that any casual observer could easily untangle. I wish it were so. Who am I to tell people half a world away how to solve problems that are centuries old? 

One way I have found to deal with this situation with integrity is with a “both/and” approach: The Israelis suffered a horrible pogrom and their response to it is causing another horror. The Palestinians have been treated dreadfully and Hamas is not moving them in a good direction. The hostages must be freed and all of Gaza is hostage to Hamas. Some of the criticism against Israel is valid and some is antisemitic. 

I do not see this situation objectively. As an American Jew, I empathize with my Israeli family. Yet, as a Jew, I identify with the downtrodden and see Gaza as another ghetto. Both/And. 

So here are some articles from The Atlantic, a publication I have come to both trust and admire. I am not advertising their publication, rather it has become a mainstay of my reading and understanding of a variety of issues. These articles represent several perspectives and were written through this awful time of war. 

My wish for this season, as we head to Thanksgiving, is for peace for all of us, a return of those held hostage, and an opportunity for voices like the writers below to be heard. Please give them a read. 

“My Message of Peace”

“Even the Oppressed Have Obligations”

“Hamas Must Go”

“The Children of Gaza”

“When Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic”

“America’s Most Dangerous Anti-Jewish Propagandist”

I am currently reading Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky

Twenty Years Ago: November 2003

 I must have had a cold for all of 2003!  November in 2003 was rainy and my son had a cold, too. While later in his life, I would wish for rain to cancel baseball games, in 2003, I dreaded rain because it did not cancel his soccer games. Can you see how much I loved sitting outside watching my children’s sports? 

My elder child was trying to battle her way into the school’s gifted program. She was upset that she was not selected and I had to hide my relief, “There are so many problems with that program. If she was selected there would be more issues than if she was not. Let her do her “gifted” thing in high school. I do not see that those who have been TAP’d have any advantage over those who do not. Often, they are more arrogant and more concerned with grades. Some are brighter, most are not. This is a blessing in disguise.” Of course, my child did not agree – until she got herself into the program in middle school. Then she understood what I was talking about. Oh, well. 

In November of 2003, I was phenomenally busy, “I am fighting the overwhelmed feeling. This weekend, I’ll take my Sunday School class to Willowcreek. On Monday, I’ll get essays. I need to get a Shabbat service ready for 12/5. Mango Street and the Book Circle unit are coming up and I don’t feel like either is fully developed. I am feeling like a ton is on the horizon. My grades are done, the parent notices are due. Get me to the end of the year.” 

I was also preparing our yearly holiday card. Prior to digital photography, getting a good picture could take months: shoot a roll or two, have it developed, reject the results, rinse and repeat. Fortunately, in 2003, I had my first digital camera. However, my three editors/critics could be very demanding; they wanted only their finest images on our yearly greeting card. It took a while to come to an agreement. 

Like this year, November meant a Saturday at Windycon. Since I was preparing to officiate at a bat mitzvah, I was debating whether to see one more mitzvah on a Saturday or travel to the convention. I made the healthy choice and gave myself a wonderful Saturday of celebrating science fiction and fandom. 

It was in 2003 that I integrated my Sunday School curriculum. In 2001, I taught comparative Judaism and in 2002, I taught comparative everything else. Why it wasn’t clear to me that was out of balance then, I am not sure. Perhaps because I was out of balance, too. So, I reorganized religions by theme and philosophy, had five field trips per year, and acknowledged that, since my students were going to many of their friends’ mitvzahs, we didn’t need to go to Reform and Conservative services. They were getting more than enough of those. 

In November 2003, I took my Sunday School class for our first trip to the megachurch in Barrington, Willow Creek. It was a foundational experience for them – and for me. We have been going back to Willow Creek every other year since then. 

The dog’s issues amped up in November. It was clear that the dog was now blind. I joked, “We have decided that we need to hire a seeing-eye person for the blind dog. Well, not really, but poor PJ is really struggling and it will be a few weeks at least until he gets better, if he gets better. It is really tough.”

I took my new Humanities class on a field trip to the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. This raised my level of busyness to a brand-new pitch, “Teach until afternoon, meet with the team, come home, go back for the faculty meeting, come home for dinner and give PJ his meds and then go back for the field trip. I’ll be home again around midnight! But it will be a good day, even if it is an exhausting one.” My optimism must have substituted for my lack of sleep. 

If I was questioning the value and manner of grading my own students, the grades my children were earning furthered that process, “Over and over, I question the value of these report cards. In the short story we discussed in Power Reading today, ‘Tom Edison’s Shaggy Dog,’ Edison invents an intelligence analyzer and predicts that we will be able to ‘grade people as easily as we grade oranges.’ Isn’t that what it is all about? I read my Humanities kids’ self-evaluations. One thing that came up a few times was their resistance to our grading system. Kids want to be graded. What a shame.” 

It is interesting to look back twenty years and see who was important in our lives then and now – and who we no longer see. We used to spend a great deal of time with neighbors who had kids the same age as our children. There were several families with whom we had both family and couple dates. We don’t see any of them anymore. However, there are folks with whom we were close that we see regularly. Yes, there is a message there: relationships based entirely on the kids didn’t last.

So, teaching, Sunday School, running Shabbat services, getting ready for a Bat Mitzvah, the neighborhood homeowner association (the annual meeting had to be planned), planning winter and spring break travel, taking care of a sick and blind dog, and the kids’ activities made November of 2003 a very long month. I am tired just writing that list. Oh! I noted that I joined the school crest committee at school. Did I ever say, “NO?” 

“Logic is a Wreath of Pretty Flowers Which Smell Bad:” Skills of Thought, Part 2

In my first year teaching high school, I was required to include a logic unit in my public speaking class. The idea was that, when students wrote and delivered persuasive speeches, they had to actively demonstrate that their reasoning was logical. 

Explaining logic to fifteen-year-olds was challenging. However, it turns out that learning it myself was just more difficult. The first time I taught syllogisms, I got things mixed up and had to reteach it the next day. I vividly remember a student who regularly came in for help, arriving by gleefully saying, “Mr. Hirsch, today NOBODY understood what was going on!” He was right. 

Logic is difficult. Logic can be manipulated. Some forms of logic are particularly prone to misinterpretation. Here is a very simple explanation: 

In deductive logic (like that which made Sherlock Holmes famous), a syllogism has two premises. One of these states a general rule, the major premise: All cats have whiskers. It makes a broad factual statement about a group of things or ideas. The second or minor premise makes a claim that is more specific and focused: Harold is a cat. We can use our Venn diagram to reveal that if the group of cats all have whiskers and Harold exists inside the circle of cats, Harold has whiskers. Simple enough! Well…not exactly. 

Of course, we have to be sure that both of these claims are factual. Are there cats that don’t have whiskers? Do we know that Harold is not a dog or a man who has a beard? Things can get muddy when the Venn diagram is related, but not overlapping. 

Try this one: All cats die. JFK is dead. Does that mean that JFK was a cat? This is a silly example and I am sure you were a step ahead of the very young speech teacher and his students. JFK is never shown to be a cat. We cannot reach a conclusion just because two things share a characteristic - and you can’t create a general rule from one example. 

This is where we often go wrong in our political discourse. We hear from many people that a single example proves a general rule. That is where inductive logic comes in; we draw a general rule by drawing conclusions from patterns we observe. This is the scientific method. 

In class, I used a simple example: I looked at the students’ footwear. I would point out that the boys in the front row were all wearing athletic footwear. Then I would note that the boys in the second row also had athletic footwear on. From these fifteen or so examples, I would conclude that all male students in the high school wear athletic footwear. 

Of course, I would be wrong. There would be a student out there in sandals (we were in Illinois, of course, and some kids would be in sandals and shorts well into the winter). I could make the statement (and be correct) that a majority of boys in school were wearing athletic footwear. Of course, many (usually most) of the women in the room were also wearing athletic footwear. 

That is why it is so challenging to create new generalizations inductively. It is why scientists doing research have a very high burden of proof and why their studies are so carefully scrutinized. 

Too often, in our public conversations, we think we have a general rule and are using deductive logic (although we may not use those labels) when we are in fact using specific examples that may or may not be enough to prove a generalization. 

Just because some people cheat on their taxes, does it mean that everyone does that? Just because some people who came from another country got in trouble with the law, does it mean that every immigrant is going to cause problems? Of course not! 

But politicians and advertisers will try to persuade people with powerful anecdotes and examples. They don’t explicitly say that their story represents EVERYONE or applies ALL THE TIME, but they want their listeners to make that logical leap – incorrectly. One testimonial doesn’t mean much. Ten testimonials are more powerful, but still may not be enough. 

Human beings want things quickly. We have learned, sometimes, that a few examples are all we need. I ate pizza two or three times and had terrible stomach aches afterward. So, I stopped eating pizza for years! Eventually, I had pizza again and found it was delicious and I had no ill effects. What a shame that I missed out on all those pizzas! 

We come to incorrect conclusions when we fail to think logically – and plenty of folks benefit by leading us down this illogical path. Fear and anger can make us less likely to think things through methodically. Lack of time can rush us into drawing poor conclusions. If we are invested in the conclusion or have high hopes that something is true, we may change our thinking to reach conclusions that please us. There are many logical fallacies (which we can discuss later) that can trip up our reasoning. 

In times when people debate what is and is not factual, we must slow down and use the tools that thinkers centuries ago developed. We must be like Mr. Spock and use logic to come to reasonable conclusions – and not be suckered into accepting seductive falsehoods that often benefit those who have a vested interest in fooling us!