Goals:

To encourage participants to explore the range of possible reactions that people may have to acts of terror;
To integrate a central Jewish value in reaction to adversity;
To draw a distinction between feeling, thinking, and acting in the wake of terror.
 

NB: This activity should immediately follow the activity entitled, "Reacting to Terror"  and the same staff should be available; extra counselors are needed for large groups.

Materials: Quotation from "Ethics of the Fathers"; Dictionary page; poster board and whiteboard; several colors of markers.

Length: 45 minutes

Group size: 20-30

Staffing: 1 senior counselors; specialist and extra counselors should circulate among buzz groups

Preparation: Make Quote Sign:

"Who is strong? The person who conquers his impulses (drives)."
- Ethics of the Fathers 4:1
[Ethics of the Fathers is an ancient Jewish code of ethics that is studied by many Jews on Shabbat. We are quoting from Rabbi Ben Zoma, who is in turn quoting Proverbs 16:32.]

Procedure:

As Full Group

1. Ask participants to "brainstorm" all the possible feelings, reactions, thoughts, plans, ideas, etc., that they have had to terror attacks. As this is going on, one counselor jots down on the board all the ideas expressed.

Note: Brainstorming involves saying EVERYTHING that comes to mind in a free and uncensored manner.

2. Arrive at a group definition of each of the following concepts:
   • FEELING
   
   
   • THINKING
   
   
   • ACTION
   Note down your group's definition on the board or paper. You may find it interesting to compare your results with the Dictionary page in this file.

3. Ask participants to decide which of the items that you brainstormed just now are feelings, which are thinking, and which are actions.
   In one color, mark with a large "F" those statements that are feelings; in another color, mark with large "T" those statements that reflect thinking; and in another color, mark with a large "A" those statements that are actions.
   Take a moment to review the nature of the kinds of response in each color -coded section.
   Inform the group that we shall be working towards a focus on actions.
4. First, tell participants that it is understandable and legitimate to experience every possible kind of feeling after such terrible events. It is important, however, to stop and think, as an intermediate step between feelings and actions.
5. Have 3 new pieces of poster board pinned up. Ask 3 participants or counselors to copy out each kind of features separately, starting with the list of ACTIONS.

For each of the actions listed by participants, ask the group to try to decide:

• what FEELINGS would be behind such actions (i.e. fear, hope, desire for revenge, trust, pity, etc.)
• what THINKING would be behind such actions (i.e. strategizing, thinking about deterrence, protection, etc.)

In Small Mixed Groups

6. Divide the participants into buzz groups of 3 - 4 people each. Ask each group to try to put its finger on what characterizes an action motivated by THINKING (as opposed to an action motivated by FEELINGS). Give groups 3 - 4 minutes to confer and then ask each to share their main conclusions.

Groups should mention most of the following about actions motivated by thinking. If not, the facilitator may want to add some of them:

• Thinking takes time (whereas, feeling is immediate);
• Thinking involves clearly identifying goals (...feeling is undisciplined);
• Thinking involves an accurate identification of the problem;
• There is a logical connection between the problem and the action;
• The action is usually better organized and well-planned;
• Various outcomes are weighed;
• The outcomes are usually more predictable.
7. Ask the group:
   What can happen if people react out of feelings of anger, hope, revenge, trust, disbelief and fear, rather than thinking?
8. Display the Quote sign.
9. Review with participants:
   
   • We can all agree that to control one's drives (i.e. strong, unruly feelings) leads to behaviour that is more moral and ethical.
     Do you agree that it is also more effective or honest? (After all, Ben Zoma asks "who is strong?" not "who is nice?"!)
   • How does this tie in with democratic values: Is justice limited?
     Where does the ordinary citizen figure in the national picture and what should ordinary people expect of the government?
     What is the country's call on the correct use of power or military force?

[Reacting to Terror]