When my children complain, as they frequently do, about my draconian attempts to take away their screens and make them read a book, they usually come up with the same argument. What is the point, they ask, of reading books written a long time ago when they have no bearing whatsoever on the current world and its issues?
I respond to them that the magic of great books is the incomparable feeling the reader experiences when the author speaks of things the reader has always known and felt but could never express. This amazing ability to present a previously indescribable part of the human experience is what elevates a book to the status of a classic.
F. Scott Fitzgerald said it far better than I could when he wrote “That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong.”
Over the years, few modern writers have been able to demonstrate the importance of this understanding - like Azar Nafisi in her 2003 masterpiece, “Reading Lolita in Tehran.”
"Reading Lolita in Tehran" is a memoir that recounts the author's experiences as a literature professor in post-revolutionary Iran. Set during the late 1990s, the book centers on a secret book club Nafisi held at her home with seven of her female students. Together, they read and discussed banned Western literature—such as works by Nabokov, Fitzgerald, and Austen—as a form of intellectual freedom and personal resistance against the oppressive regime. The memoir intertwines their personal stories with the themes of the books they read, highlighting the power of literature to inspire and liberate in the face of censorship and repression.
As the title suggests, "Lolita", the controversial novel by Russian-American novelist Vladimir Nabokov plays a major role in the story. Published in 1955, Lolita is a novel about Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged man who becomes obsessed with a 12-year-old girl named Dolores Haze, who he nicknames "Lolita." After marrying her mother to get closer to her, he begins a manipulative and abusive relationship with Lolita after the mother dies. Told from Humbert’s perspective, the novel explores themes of obsession, control, and self-deception.
In her memoir, Azar Nafisi explores how relevant the lessons of the book are when applied to the situation in which these Iranian women found themselves. Those in the West would be wise to take a page, literally and figuratively, from her book. Tragically, "Lolita" has lessons for us as well.
"Lolita" is the quintessential example of unreliable narration and the ways language can be used to justify immoral actions. The novel’s protagonist, Humbert Humbert, is the classic model of an unreliable narrator. He distorts reality to justify his actions and manipulate the reader’s perception. Throughout the book, he presents himself as a tragic, romantic figure rather than what he really is by any standards of Western morality - a predator, using eloquent, poetic language to mask the abuse he inflicts on Dolores ("Lolita").
Nabokov deliberately crafts Humbert’s narration to show how persuasive and dangerous storytelling can be—how someone can shape a narrative to obscure the truth. The challenge for readers is to see through Humbert’s charm and recognize the reality of the abuse behind his words.
Anyone who has been watching events unfold in Israel since October 7th can immediately see the parallels. Humbert Humbert might be the most well-known example of an unreliable narrator, but Hamas and the Palestinian Arabs have elevated the craft beyond anything fiction could ever come up with.
Since they initiated the horrendous massacre on October 7th, a major part of Hamas's strategy has been to control the narrative. They understand that whoever defines the issue controls the starting point of any discussion.
They’ve done an amazing job at it. Today, a good deal of the world honestly believes that the Palestinian Arabs are the innocent victims and Israel, the country that was brutally attacked, is the villain. Hamas may be evil monsters, but give them credit where it’s due. Decapitating babies, burning entire families alive, raping corpses, laughing as you do it all and photographing yourself, and then still being seen as the good guys, is an impressive feat.
They’ve been able to achieve this by planning very strategically. The groundwork has been laid for decades, as billions of dollars of Qatari money have gone into spreading the propaganda in elite American universities. Entire generations have grown up on this propaganda, never knowing the source and never once questioning if there was an agenda at play. It’s not surprising that more than half of young Americans hate Israel, it’s what they’ve been taught by their trusted authorities (whose universities were getting lots of money for doing so). The question of whether they should trust the biases of these authorities never is asked.
Once October 7th happened, this manipulation took on a new role. Deeply embedded instigators began spreading the narrative of the Palestinian Arabs as innocent victims of long-term barbaric persecution by the bloodthirsty Israelis. Israel was accused of genocide and colonization. The fact that neither of these claims was even remotely true was irrelevant. Facts don’t matter in service of a good story.
Instead, Palestinian Arabs used the classic techniques of the unreliable narrator. From the start they controlled how the issue was perceived, reframing it as a moral, human rights, and social justice issue. It’s a case of the narrator using manipulative language and it’s not the first time it has been done successfully.
Humbert too used flowery, romanticized descriptions to make his perverse crimes seem like love. Like Hamas, he attempts to gain sympathy from the reader. And Hamas, like Humbert, goes to great lengths to present himself as the injured party. To hear either of them tell it, they are innocent victims being attacked by cruel and savage forces.
Hamas has learned well from Humbert’s playbook. They’ve mastered the art of self-justification. Humbert constantly defends his actions, portraying himself as someone who can’t help his desires, rather than taking responsibility. Hamas too knows how to turn its terrorists into “freedom fighters”, its pogroms into “resistance” and its attempts to wipe out Israel into “liberation”
Like good students, Hamas has also mastered Humbert’s trick of using emotional appeals (or pathos over logos). Humbert knew what Hamas knows, that the best way to win an audience over is through feelings. Therefore, both focus on fictitious personal stories and experiences to create an emotional impact.
Note that in every interview, Hamas representatives use emotional stakes to attempt to override statistics and data. Hamas however has gone far beyond Humbert, achieving this on an international level. It’s the result of decades of “activist training” that has taught terror supporters how to look like they are “speaking truth to power.” Humbert has gone global.
What’s more, they mirror Humbert’s cruelty in their attempts at minimization of harm: Humbert downplays or omits Lolita’s suffering, rarely acknowledging her perspective or agency, making it easy to forget she is a victim. At times, he even presents her as the aggressor. Hamas has far outpaced Humbert in this regard, to a degree that would never be considered believable or realistic if it were fiction.
What is amazing about Hamas’ role as an unreliable narrator is that up to this point it has gone completely unquestioned. New sources acknowledge that their only source of information in Gaza is Hamas, yet never think to question what they’re told. Most news organizations are only too happy to pass along whatever Hamas says as verified facts. No matter how outrageous the claim, the Western press will print it. A compelling story sells more papers than a true one.
Thus, we have fabricated reports of Israel bombing hospitals and schools, slaughtering children, and intentionally executing aid workers. Not once has anyone in the media stopped to ask where they were getting their information. Never have they bothered to check if their sources are reliable.
As a result, they are constantly proved wrong. Every claim against Israel that was reported as fact is later quietly acknowledged to have been misinformation. Of course, without any apology or attempt to set the record straight. Even when Hamas openly admits to lying, as they did recently when they confessed that their number of dead civilians was entirely made up, the world still chooses not to listen. Instead, facts fade away and fictions linger in the minds and memories of Western readers. The media, knowing this, is happy to let people forget and move on to the next lie.
This frequently humiliates the media itself. Recently the Guardian ran a piece on the "1000-year history of Palestine, " a joke to anyone who knows history. As proof, they showed a supposed ancient Palestinian mosque. It was quickly revealed that the building was actually a Jewish synagogue from the Second Temple Period, proving the exact opposite of the point the article was trying to make. It is the Jews who have thousands of years of history in the land the Palestinian Arabs wish to usurp. Regardless, the original story is still widely circulating while the truth languishes.
If this war were the plot of a book, no reader would find it believable. That so many people could be so easily manipulated stretches the limits of credulity. The discerning reader would demand an explanation of how so large a deception could be successfully pulled off.
Ironically, the only answer that can be given is that people don’t read. Understanding what an unreliable narrator is helps us critically evaluate the information we’re given—whether in literature, media, politics, or everyday life. Unreliable narrators can distort the truth, mislead the audience, or present only a partial view of reality. Recognizing this technique teaches us to read between the lines, question motivations, and seek multiple perspectives before forming conclusions. In literature, it deepens our understanding of character and theme; in real life, it sharpens our media literacy and helps protect against manipulation, propaganda, or misinformation. Knowing what it is let’s us spot it in real life, something Palestinian Arabs and their supporters don’t want us to do.
There’s another lesson here as well. So much of the anti-Israel movement also claims to fight against “colonialism”. Colonialism is the original sin from which, they posit, every crime, Israeli or American, originated.
While they might give any number of reasons for their hatred of the West, the truth is much simpler. They want the West to appear evil so that the world will not learn the lessons Western civilization has to teach. Without learning these lessons, Western civilization cannot and will not endure.
That has always been the end goal. They want to tear it all down so that in its place, they can build whatever utopia they imagine for themselves. Subsequently, it’s important to present Western learning as inherently fruit from a poisoned tree. Yet reading these books shows not only that there is much good to be found in Western culture, it shows why it must be protected.
Because so much of the world has turned away from great literature, they’ve lost the opportunity to take to heart the lessons their works can teach us. We see in the West’s distorted reaction to Israel just how dangerous ignoring these lessons can be. The classics are timeless, and what they have to say is timelier than ever.
Ilan Goodman is a museum collections professional and exhibition curator. He also serves as a rabbi and educator. He made Aliyah to Israel in 2011 and lives with his wife and children in Beit Shemesh