Dark Mode
The Wasp Alloy

Critical Thinking Fundamentals - Conditional Reasoning: Seminar

by Sufian M′Barki

Critical Thinking Fundamentals - Conditional Reasoning

We previously explored the core principles behind Conditional Reasoning in the Critical Thinking Fundamentals series. You may revise the material here, as the knowledge from the lecture is required for this seminar.

Conditional Reasoning in Hasbara

I believe that the greatest strength of Hasbara activism is its ability to ground itself in formal logic. Writing conditional syllogisms offers different rhetorical possibilities compared to categorical ones, which serves to fortify our case even further.

Defining Zionists via a Sufficient Condition

The simplest syllogism we can explore is defining what Zionists are via Modus Ponens. Using an example individual named Jonathan:

  1. Major Premise: People who support the independent self-determination of Jews in Israel $(P)$ are Zionists $(Q)$.
  2. Minor Premise: Jonathan supports Jewish self-determination in Israel ($P$ is true).
  3. Conclusion: Jonathan is a Zionist ($Q$ is true).

Online rhetoric often tries to overcomplicate what being a Zionist entails. It does not involve being an advocate or dedicating large blocks of time to Hasbara activism. What makes one a Zionist starts and ends with their support of Israel's existence as the Jewish state, which is a Sufficient Condition.

Necessary Conditions in Statehood Support

Another example involves bringing up one of the necessary conditions to be a Zionist, which is supporting statehood as a concept.

  1. Major Premise: It is required to support the existence of nation-states $(K)$ to be a Zionist $(W)$.
  2. Minor Premise: Jonathan supports the existence of nation-states ($K$ is true).
  3. Conclusion: Jonathan meets the prerequisite to be a Zionist ($W$ is true).

But supporting statehood alone is not sufficient to make someone a Zionist $(Q)$ - it is merely a Necessary Condition. In other words, the letter $W$ represents the potential to be a Zionist.

Case in point - all antizionist activists chant "Free Palestine" while reveling in the idea of destroying Israel. Meanwhile, anarchists (who oppose statehood) can never be Zionists because Zionism is antithetical to anarchism.

Nested Antecedents

Instead of writing multiple Modus Ponens operations, it is possible to present all of the above via a single syllogism:

  1. Major Premise: It is required to support the existence of nation-states $(K)$ to be a Zionist $(Q)$.
  2. Major Premise: People who support the independent self-determination of Jews in Israel $(P)$ are Zionists $(Q)$.
  3. Minor Premise: Jonathan supports the existence of nation-states ($K$ is true).
  4. Minor Premise: Jonathan supports Jewish self-determination in Israel ($P$ is true).
  5. Conclusion: Jonathan is a Zionist ($Q$ is true).

Logical Operations in Conditional Syllogisms

Conjunctions

What if several conditions are necessary in order for their combined truthfulness to be sufficient for a consequent?

This is called a Conjunction. In general, a conjunction is the combination of multiple items, and in formal logic, it is an operation that combines multiple premises, antecedents, etc.

Let's say that in order to drink water, it must be clean and at a reasonable temperature (not frozen or boiling hot):

  1. Major Premise: Water must be clean from contaminants $(C)$ to be drinkable $(D)$.
  2. Major Premise: Water must have a safe temperature $(T)$ to be drinkable $(D)$.
  3. Minor Premise: Jonathan has a water bottle containing water that is both clean ($C$ is true) and cool ($T$ is true).
  4. Conclusion: Jonathan's water is drinkable ($D$ is true).

The logical formula for this Conjunctive Modus Ponens is as follows:

$$C \land T \rightarrow D$$

With text: C conjunct T leads to D.

One could say that the combined condition of the necessary conditions $C$ and $T$ is sufficient. Or, the conjunction of the necessary $C$ and $T$ is sufficient for $D$. But in isolation, neither are sufficient. You cannot safely drink contaminated water, nor can you drink water that is going to burn your entire mouth.

Disjunctions

If there are multiple sufficient conditions that fulfill the truthfulness of the consequent by themselves, combining them in a logical operation is called an Inclusive Disjunction.

Like conjunctions, disjunctions are the combination of multiple items, premises, etc. The difference is that conjunctions stand for AND, while inclusive disjunctions mean OR.

We can use Israeli citizenship legislation as an example of an inclusive disjunction, and myself as the example. I will limit the syllogism to three sufficient conditions for simplicity's sake:

  1. Major Premise: One can be Jewish $(J)$ to be eligible for Israeli citizenship $(I)$.
  2. Major Premise: An individual can marry a Jewish person $(M)$ to be eligible for Israeli citizenship $(I)$.
  3. Major Premise: A person can marry any Israeli citizen, non-Jewish included $(N)$ to be eligible for Israeli citizenship $(I)$.
  4. Minor Premise: Sufian will marry an Israeli Jewish man ($M \land N$ are true).
  5. Conclusion: Sufian will be eligible for Israeli citizenship ($I$ is true).

Whether it's $J$, M, or N, one of them being true makes the consequent I true as well, making this operation an inclusive disjunction:

$$J \lor M \lor N \rightarrow I$$

With text: Either J, or M, or N leads to I.

Antizionism is Antisemitism

This particular thesis can be proven using both categorical and conditional reasoning, but we will only explore a conditional syllogism for the time being.

Like before, we must begin by establishing all objective definitions of the terms we are using.

The American Jewish Committee remains one of the few sources that correctly describe Zionism as a liberation movement. More specifically, it is an ideology to re-establish and support the existence of a Jewish state in the Biblical Land of Israel. Likewise, a Zionist is someone who supports Jews' right to self-determination in their historical homeland, and Israel's right to exist.

We can use Applied Epistemology to prove this definition is correct.

In short, epistemology is the philosophical discipline of studying knowledge, and its principles can be used to confirm why anything we believe to be true is genuinely true. It is completely immune to handwaving and other fallacious rhetorical tactics.

In an upcoming lecture-seminar pair on epistemology, we will dive much deeper into this branch of philosophy.

The Various Narratives on Zionism

The prevailing narrative on the definition of Zionism is that, allegedly, it represents an ethnonationalist movement that seeks to establish a Jewish State in the historical land of Palestine, ensuring the population is as Jewish as possible with as few "Palestinians" (Arabs) as possible.

The glaring problem is that this description does not match reality. Quoting directly from the previous seminar:

Since these healthcare providers are explicitly stated to practice their treatment in Arabic and Turkish, as well as Hebrew, this immediately points to the fact that all patients speaking those languages can visit the Sheba Medical Center all the same. In an apartheid regime, individuals of varying ethnic backgrounds who spoke different languages would not be treated in the same medical center, nor would that center's healthcare providers accommodate the languages patients speak.

This showcases that Arabic and Turkish speakers are able to occupy incredibly important medical positions. Khaled Assaf is an especially important example, as his name is completely Arabic.

Within the Knesset, which is essentially Israel's government, numerous political parties exist, most notably the Ra'am Party - an Arab party with roots in the Islamic movement. Their leader is Mansour Abbas, which is a traditional Arabic name as well.

In case of doubts, Mansour Abbas' Wikipedia page states that he was born and raised in Israel, and has attended the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

We have established that there exist Arab political parties in Israel's Knesset, and that they have Muslim Arab politicians born and raised in Israel with equal rights. And given that Israel is the Jewish State, the existence of Arab political parties within its government render it pluralistic and democratic.

Given the comprehensive evidence of Arab presence in Israel, as well as their possession of full rights alongside Jews, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain the idea that Zionism is an "ethnic cleansing" movement.

Jews are also indigenous to Israel, as proven by the categorical deductive syllogism in that same seminar:

Secondly, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah are ancient. They have existed for about 3000 years, and their Jewish population has been ever-present in the region up until this day. Jews have preserved their religion, their language, and all of their traditions.

(...)

In any case, with the facts established, let us begin writing our argumentation:

1. Premise: Indigenous Peoples are the original inhabitants of a region with cultural, social, and historical ties to their ancestral lands.
2. Premise: The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah housed Jews for thousands of years before being conquered, and Jewish presence in the region remained constant to this day.
3. Conclusion: Jews are an Indigenous People, and the original inhabitants of Israel and Judah.

This argument is sound. Its premises lead to a truthful conclusion, which can be verified. As I explained in the lecture, the category of indigenous people is the general, and Jews are the particular case. This is what makes our argument deductive.

More importantly, the term "Palestine" (or "Syria-Palæstina") was invented by the Roman Empire who had colonized Israel and Judah at the time. After the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–136 CE), which attempted to liberate the Jewish homeland from the Romans, Emperor Hadrian renamed the entire region to "Syria-Palæstina".

This replaced an ethnically Jewish name (Judaea, "Land of the Jews/Judah") with a geographic term linked to the Philistines (Palæstina), Israel's ancient coastal enemies, who no longer existed as a distinct polity. My historical research into the indigenous name of Azzah provides extra details on the matter, which could not be more relevant:

Philistines were an Ancient Greek tribe, and their colonial settlement was situated around the city of Azzah in the form of a pentapolis. As it has been previously established, they were far from a benign, peaceful tribe. In fact, Philistia was Ancient Israel and Judah's adversary, and they waged aggressive conflict against Jews on numerous occasions.

(...)

Once David defeated Goliath in battle, the Israelites managed to retrieve the small piece of land previously occupied by Philistines, defeating their ancient adversary.

(...)

The city of Azzah is over 5000 years old, and it belonged to the Ancient Canaanites (including Israelites). It began in the Early Bronze Age as an indigenous Canaanite cultural and agricultural hub with major archaeological sites like Tell es-Sakan. The term "Philistine" (and thus the Roman term "Palestine") originates from the Hebrew "פלשת" - or, the Semitic root "פ-ל-ש," which means invader.

Not only does "Palestine" refer to the Jewish homeland of Israel, but the term quite literally comes from the Semitic root for an invader.

Now, since the re-establishment of Israel in 1948 all the way up until today, Israel has granted full rights to all ethnic groups, which matches its Declaration of Independence[1].

The conclusion is inescapable: Zionism cannot be an ethnic cleansing movement given Israel's Ancient history, present-day reality, and its explicit Declaration of Independence that is based on Zionism. Instead, it is a liberation movement that seeks to re-establish Israel and grant all Jews worldwide safety and security from foreign oppression.

Resuming the Conditional Syllogism

Now that we have proven beyond any doubt that Zionism is a Jewish movement for self-determination and sovereignty, we can continue our conditional syllogism.

The definition of antisemitism is hatred and bigotry against Jews as an ethnic and religious minority. Coined in the late 19th century to give anti-Jewish hostility a modern political veneer, it ultimately culminated in the horrors of the Holocaust (the Shoah).

Examples of antisemitism $(L)$ include:

  • Ridiculing traditional Jewish garments based on preconceived notions $(A)$.
  • Making broad generalizing statements about Jews, especially if they are offensive $(B)$: "All Jews have big noses."
  • Denying services to Jewish people based on their identity $(C)$: "We do not treat Jewish patients here."

In other words, either one of these prerequisites, which are sufficient on their own, make one an antisemite. That is an inclusive disjunction:

$$A \lor B \lor C \rightarrow L$$

Thousands of people proudly declare that they are "antizionist," attempting to sell an insidious illusion of "nuance" as their justification: "We don't hate Jews, we just hate Israel! We are antizionists, not antisemites! It's not rocket science!" $(Z)$

Being against Jewish sovereignty and national independence is antisemitism, and mistreating Jewish Israelis because of their identity is antisemitism as well.

  1. Major Premise: If an individual or group of people express any kind of hatred and bigotry against Jews (Sufficient $P$), they are antisemitic $(L)$.
  2. Minor Premise: Antizionists express hatred and bigotry toward Zionism, which is Jewish self-determination and freedom ($P$ is true).
  3. Conclusion: Antizionists are antisemitic ($L$ is true).

And because we marked antizionism with Z, the updated inclusive disjunction becomes:

$$A \lor B \lor C \lor Z \rightarrow L$$

Only one of them needs to be true in order to trigger the truthfulness of L (antisemitism).

Moving Forward

In the next lecture-seminar pair, we will explore the various logical operations that can be used in conditional reasoning.

Sufian M'Barki

Citations

[1] Israel's Declaration of Independence from 1948 explicitly confirms that all ethnic groups, including Arabs, are to receive equal rights in their participation in Israel:

Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and the restoration of their national freedom.

(...)

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and the representation in all its bodies and institutions, provisional or permanent.

We offer peace and amity to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.

Loading witnesses...