One of the most often paraphrased sayings runs along the lines of “those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat its mistakes” (or variations on the theme – don’t get pedantic). While this is a touch simplistic (it seems even studying history wont save you) it has a comforting ring of truth, and it is often sadly accurate (*). Despite this an amazing number of people seem either wilfully ignorant of history or to have drawn some mind-numbing inaccurate lessons from it. This month I have come across two pretty large examples of this weird mindset, so I will try to dissect them here. Please feel free to let me know what you think.

First off, Time Magazine from the start of the month had this titbit in its letters pages:

Power [Samantha Power, 28 Jan 08 Time Magazine] recommends engaging Iran, including high-level negotiations. It’s not very reassuring to see how little we’ve learned from history. The ghost of Neville Chamberlain rides again.
Greg Lifschultz, Rowlett, Texas

Poor old Neville Chamberlain eh? He is constantly used as a bogeyman every time there is a debate about using military force. This is, interestingly enough (well not that interesting) an exact match to a debate I had repeatedly with various Americans last year (both in the flesh and online).

Now, it is true that with historical hindsight, Chamberlain’s desire for “peace at all costs” was a mistake in the 1930’s but does that mean it is an applicable lesson? Chamberlain was Prime Minister of a country with a reasonably small military. He was faced with a large, aggressive nation that had repeatedly flouted international laws and agreements. Chamberlain was faced with an opponent that had annexed several previously sovereign nations against international will and caused all manner of death and suffering. Chamberlain was wrong to try and negotiate with a country set on war. This is reasonable and we can all agree that if Chamberlain had been more forceful the course of WWII would have been different (not necessarily “better” though, be careful of historical assumptions).

Here is my problem. Using this analogy requires more assumptions than the current evidence will allow. Nothing about the current situation matches the historical one in the way Greg (for example) seems to imply. Iran is militarily the weaker nation, the US has invaded two of its neighbours and is threatening the do the same to Iran, not the other way round. If anything, the Iranians are behaving like Chamberlain… It is saddening, not reassuring, to see how little people like Greg have learned from all their education. (**)

The next weird history bit is more recent and from the Guardian Comment is Free but is equally false. Ranting about UK – Israel relations, this commenter felt the need to highlight how the UK is very much anti-Israel with his list of hate:

1. Britain refused to grant entry permits to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees to Palestine in the 1930s and ’40s, effectively causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews during the Holocaust..

Erm, I have two issues with this. First off, the deaths were caused by the Germans not anyone else. Secondly, Britain pretty much met its international obligations to allow the movement of people escaping the Nazis. We even fought the Germans (not over the Jews but that is a different issue).

2. Britain killed hundreds of Jewish freedom fighters during the Mandate and fought a ferocious war in order to keep Palestine out of Jewish hands.

Wow, just goes to show one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. I seem to recall the Stern Gang were not trying to “reclaim” land they had once occupied (unless we allow centuries to be an acceptable gap). I have no qualms whatsoever with the state of Israel, but trying to re-interpret its Origin Story is a BADTHING™. In the early post-war years, the Jewish terrorists (as they were at the time) killed hundreds and fought a ferocious war to claim land away from both its natural inhabitants and the occupying power.

3. Britain took the side of the Arabs during Israel’s War of Independence and supplied them with arms and military advice.

Really? Well, actually I don’t need to ask. This is largely nonsense. The Arabs who attacked the fledgeling state of Israel in 1948 did indeed have British tanks and weapons but then so did Israel. This is largely down to all the crazy countries being recent escapees from the “oppressive” British control.

4. Britain has consistently sided against Israel with the Arabs since the Suez War.

Crap.

5. Britons are in the forefront of anti-Israel boycotts and campaigns to delegitimize and demonize the Jewish State.

Hmm. Hard to challenge this use of language. It is reasonable to assume there are British citizens who are in the forefront of pretty much anything. That implies nothing about official government policy nor the “general” stance of the public (if there even is one – I suspect most British people are neither for nor against “Israel” and a goodly percentage couldn’t find it on a map).

6. Britain has the highest number of physical and verbal attacks on Jews of every country in Europe.

Two counts of crap here. First off it is simply wrong but even if it wasn’t it still carries a “so what?” with regards to this debate.

7. Britain tolerates extremist clerics genocidal anti-Semitic rhetoric in it’s Moslem communities.

So allowing freedom of speech means you are anti-Israel? Interesting. Britain no more tolerates anti-Semetic rhetoric than it tolerates anti-Church of England rhetoric. This is a massive example of special pleading which some pro-Israel types have a tendency to fall back on. It is not anti-Israel to afford people the right to criticise Israel and its policies.

8. Two British suicide bombers killed dozens of Israelis in Tel Aviv in 2003.

Bwahaha. Four British suicide bombers killed dozens of British people in London in 2005. Dozens of Jewish terrorists killed scores of British in Palestine in 1947 does that make Israel anti-British? The actions of two people do not signify either the will of the public or the government.

It seems that education really is no longer important. People can surf the internet, pick up a few historical facts and then argue the toss with national newspapers. Isn’t that great? Isn’t that liberating? Isn’t it ironic that the same people are often complaining about others not learning from history…

—

(*) I could talk for a while about how the US seem to be repeating most of the mistakes from Vietnam in Afghanistan and the UK seems to be repeating all the mistakes of early 1970s Ulster in Iraq but that would be boring…
(**) Please don’t make the mistake of thinking I am “anti-war” or “pro-Iran” on the basis of what I have written here…