Photo credit (edited), property of CBS, fair use
I recently watched an episode of 60 Minutes in which it was alleged that weapons of the United States (U.S.) have been found in Gaza. I wasn’t surprised by this information, as I’ve written quite a bit about my objection to U.S. involvement in the Israel-Hamas war.
Before I proceed with this blogpost, I think a unique disclaimer is warranted. First, a “Semite” is defined as a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
Thus, Semites are not solely comprised of people belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people. Per my understanding, people from Gaza (i.e., Palestinians) are Semites, as are their Hebrew neighbors.
Second, criticism of Israel as a nation state isn’t synonymous with anti-Semitism—hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. The same holds true if I were to critique the government of Mexico, as I wouldn’t be guilty of bigotry toward all Mexicans.
Last, I value thinking which is rational—based in accordance with both logic and reason. Thus, when teaching people about rational living through the method of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I use psychoeducation to illustrate rational thinking by way of syllogisms:
Form (modus ponens) –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Premise 1: If p, then q.
Premise 2: Affirm p.
Conclusion: Conclude q.
Bear in mind that the premises in an argument, proposition, or belief of this form will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t true.
Equally important, in order to be considered rational the argument, proposition, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Now, consider the following example which is comprised of three statements made by Israeli officials:
Example –
If Israeli officials maintain that Hamas members are “human animals,” then “flattening Gaza” is an absolute must—even if men, women and children unassociated with Hamas or the conflict are killed, because “Gaza should be erased.”
Israeli officials maintain that Hamas members are “human animals.”
Therefore, “flattening Gaza” is an absolute must—even if men, women and children unassociated with Hamas or the conflict are killed, because “Gaza should be erased.”
Depending on one’s moral, ethical, or legal perspective, these premises and resulting conclusion may be deemed rational. Clearly, the proposition follows logical form. However, I reject the proposal on the grounds of unreasonableness.
Unlike individuals who morally, ethically, or legally maintain that the (arguably) unjustified killing of men, women, and children who are neither directly nor indirectly associated with Hamas is a necessary action, I maintain that the slaughter of unarmed civilians is a war crime.
If one’s objection to a position that I consider to be rational is merely, “You’re an anti-Semite,” then that ad hominem attack isn’t a rational response to my argument, as Palestinians are Semites. Unique disclaimer to this post having been sufficiently expressed; let us move on.
I find it highly curious that within relatively the last five minutes of legacy media coverage related to the U.S. involvement in what is considered by some to be genocide or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, only now are journalists, pundits, and others brave enough to accurately discuss Gaza.
I’m grateful for not lacking the intestinal fortitude to call out oppression when I see it. For context, one may simply visit my website, type “Israel” into the search bar, and discover for oneself what I’ve expressed about both the U.S. and Israel’s participation in the war.
As rapper Denzel Curry boldly said, “Tell it like it is, ‘cause I don’t st-st-stutter […] And I said what I said, bitch, you scared; bitch, you scared.” In any case, I suppose that a broken analog clock is right twice a day, so I appreciate that 60 Minutes now calls out oppression.
Presuming that one is capable of rational thinking and understands the use of syllogisms in order to apply logic and reason, what may be the inevitable end to the U.S. and Israel’s ostensible aggression against generations of Gazan people? Without advocating the conclusion, I suspect the following:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If generations of a religious or ethnic group are targeted by Israel through use of U.S. weapons, then countries perpetuating or supporting oppressive force can expect retaliation.
If countries perpetuating or supporting oppressive force can expect retaliation, then future generations of Palestinians will likely attack Israel and the U.S. due to a perceived sense of justice.
Therefore, if generations of a religious or ethnic group are targeted by Israel through use of U.S. weapons, then future generations of Palestinians will likely attack Israel and the U.S. due to a perceived sense of justice.
Even if one disagrees with the proposed justification of future attacks on Israel and the U.S., the syllogistic proposition follows logical form. Likewise, it may be deemed a reasonable response to the ongoing atrocities in Gaza, depending on one’s moral, ethical, and legal framework.
As though I’ve not already tortured a disclaimer enough, allow me to preemptively issue a final point of repudiation herein. I don’t condone political violence or terrorism. Therefore, making a perceivably rational argument for the sake of psychoeducation isn’t an endorsement of violence.
In any event, when considering the (at minimal) logical outcome of continued aggression against the Palestinian people, I’m reminded of the 2002 album Universal Solider by rapper Pastor Troy. In particular, I think of the song “If They Kill Me.”
It’s the sort of track that would’ve fit well within the drive-by shooting era of the ‘80s and ‘90s. The rapper begins the song by expressing similar sentiment that I heard some of my gangbanging friends use back in high school:
This song right here is for all them fuck niggas talkin’ that bullshit
(That fuck shit, that pussy shit)
They gon’ touch [kill] a nigga, they gon’ see about a nigga; all that bullshit, ho
(We see you, nigga, we hear ‘bout you, nigga; move [do] somethin’)
Umm, ain’t nothin’ but one way I can say this shit, nigga
(Ain’t nothin’ but one way to say it, well say it, Pastor)
If you motha’fuckin kill me…
(Say it, Pastor)
…you betta’ be ready to move
(Tell ‘em, Pastor)
‘Cause my folks comin’ back to motha’fuckin kill you
(Say it, Pastor)
Through the lens of REBT, I recognize the word “betta’” as a prescriptive form of demandingness that relates to a derivative of a should, must, or ought-type belief. One other form is the word “best.” Such irrational beliefs are addressed through use of the ABC model in REBT.
As an example, “If you kill me, you best [should, must, or ought to] be ready to move, because my friends, family members, partners in crimes, sisters and brothers of my religious faith, or fellow citizens of my nation will retaliate due to a perceived sense of justice.” Sound familiar?
Although I’ve explained herein that the logical and reasonable propositions of group X may be considered illogical and unreasonable by group Y, I’m specifically referring to demandingness as an irrational belief. This is because, even in regard to righteous indignation, the proposal is worthy of disputation.
For instance, when I was in high school, a suspected thug (“T-Bone”) sold me a BMW. Despite the fact that I made regular payments to the man, he one day “repossessed” the vehicle. T-Bone’s explanation for doing so was that I allegedly fell behind on monthly payments. That was a lie.
Apparently, T-Bone found a teenage boy upon whom he could run a con job (scheme to swindle or deceive someone). I was essentially allowed to rent the vehicle until a time when he had other plans for the car, though this was never our expressed agreement. I believed I was buying the car.
When I threatened legal action, T-Bone paid a visit to my home and threatened me with physical violence. I then informed my gangbanging friends about the matter and one of the gang members devised a plan to murder the man. I objected and pursued other means to an end.
Now suppose that I had agreed to the plot to set fire to T-Bone’s home and shoot him along with whoever fled the flames during the cover of night. I imagine that if word got out to T-Bone’s “folks,” as expressed by Pastor Troy, I best [ought] to have been ready to move.
This is because T-Bone’s folks would likely retaliate against me and my friends. That was how street scores were settled (punishment for past wrongs). Yet, beef like that was bad for business in regard to my friends who (allegedly) sold drugs for an international criminal organization.
Still, that was my mind frame at the time. Notice that consideration regarding the loss of life was never a factor in my moral or ethical mindset. After all, perceived justice was that I was wronged and the appropriate consequence of that action included any response up to and including death.
In my young mind, it was okay to commit criminal homicide. In fact, I could’ve rationalized the matter if asked to do so. “T-Bone threatened to kill me, so I’m just gettin’ to him before he kills me,” I likely would’ve said with use of “just” as a qualifier to justify my behavior.
Noteworthy, rational thinking isn’t the same process as rationalization—an ego defense in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior that is motivated by unconscious instinctual impulses. This is an important distinction.
Presuming that you understand my personal anecdote and how justification for violent behavior may seem logical and reasonable to an individual, even if it disputationally isn’t, then you may be able to understand – even if disagreeing with – the chorus of “If They Kill Me”:
If they kill me, they best to be ready to move [x3]
‘Cause my folks coming back, my nigga, to kill you
Can you place your cognitive framework into the mind of a Gazan child? Are you able to envision the perceived sense of justice from one who’s been directly or indirectly impacted by action from Israel and U.S. aggression?
Can you set aside your justification for the bombing of men, women, and children who aren’t part of Hamas – even if these individuals are subject to rule of the Islamic Resistance Movement – so that you can comprehend how the West writ large is creating our own enemies?
I think this is a fairly obvious matter, especially when considering the historical behavior of the U.S. and how a number of Islamic groups have claimed vengeance upon our nation due to imperialism – and not because “they hate our freedoms.” GTFOH with that nonsense!
Thankfully, for some reason about which I can only speculate, media sources of ill repute are finally starting to call out U.S. support of Israel’s warmongering for what it is: morally, ethically, and (likely) legally (if not only constitutionally) wrong. Enough is enough already.
Unfortunately, it may be too late to prevent the catastrophe our nation has funded and supported in other ways (e.g., the provision of armaments). Because so many Palestinians have been (arguably) unjustifiably killed, I suspect that their folks are coming back for justice in the future.
If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As the world’s foremost hip hop-influenced REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
60 Minutes. (2025, January 12). Dissent within the State Department over U.S. role in Israel-Hamas war | 60 Minutes [Video]. CBS. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/video/us-gaza-policy-60-minutes-video-2025-01-12/
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Rationalization. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/rationalization
Conley, J. (2023, November 1). Israeli MP says it clearly for world to hear: ‘Erase all of Gaza from the face of the Earth.’ Common Dreams. Retrieved from https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-genocide
Da Silva, C. (2023, November 13). ‘Nakba 2023’: Israel right-wing ministers’ comments add fuel to Palestinian fears. NBCUniversal Media, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-nakba-israels-far-right-palestinian-fears-hamas-war-rcna123909
Denzel Curry. (2024, July 18). Denzel Curry - SKED ft. Kenny Mason & Project Pat (Official audio) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Hx_Y7268DX8?si=IEYKPjz2hR7RBcN2
Discogs. (n.d.). Pastor Troy – Universal Soldier. Retrieved from https://www.discogs.com/master/398482-Pastor-Troy-Universal-Soldier
Gooberschnot. (2003, October 29). GTFOH. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 15). Ad hominem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ad-hominem
Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 27). Genocide. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/genocide
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Invalid rhetoric. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/invalid-rhetoric
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2024, November 6). Media. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/media
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Rationalization. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rationalization
Hollings, D. (2024, June 30). Righteous indignation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/righteous-indignation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2025, January 2). The distinction between law and justice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-distinction-between-law-and-justice
Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2024, April 24). What’s beef? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/what-s-beef
Karanth, S. (2023, October 9). Israeli Defense Minister announces siege on Gaza to fight ‘human animals.’ The Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-defense-minister-human-animals-gaza-palestine_n_6524220ae4b09f4b8d412e0a
Pastor Troy. (2018, September 15). If They Kill Me [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/dfUax8xMXrk?si=j54Q_wt7gJiwWKJU
White House, The. (2001, September 20). Address to a joint session of Congress and the American people. Retrieved from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Denzel Curry. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denzel_Curry
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Drive-by shooting. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_shooting
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Israel-Hamas war. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Pastor Troy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_Troy
Commentaires