The Abuse of History.

Tony Elliot - Resident of Israel and UK

It is possible to take details from history (or omit them) and distort present day reality. This is happening regarding the peace process in the Middle East at the time of writing.

Viewing Israel through the prism of contemporary history can be used to create the wrong impressions. The conflict in the Middle East needs a context. Part of that context is the historical facts.

“The past must not be consigned to irrelevance. Unbroken historical continuities contextualize current events. Nothing springs forth from a vacuum. What takes place began back there”

-           Sarah Honig  

To paraphrase:  If we ‘airbrush out’ or ‘spin’ aspects of history we lose integrity and distort reality.   

On the 13-03-2014  Secretary of State. John Kerry addressed the House of Foreign Affairs Committee. He made the point that Israel was deliberately making things difficult for the Palestinians by insisting they recognise Israel as a Jewish State. This he intimated was an un-necessary stumbling block being put before the Palestinians because their recognition had been endorsed in the 181 Resolution back in 1947. Basically he was telling Israel to stop ‘banging on about it’.

Quote  “They (Israel) keep raising it again and again as a critical decider of their attitude towards the possibility of a state and peace and we’ve obviously made it clear”

This statement is either a mistake or worse a dangerous and deceptive manipulation of historical fact. It is true that in Resolution 181 Nov29th 1947 the words ‘The Jewish state is mentioned 40 times’. However Mr Kerry misses out one important fact: The Arabs never accepted Resolution 181. Their response to Resolution 181 was to mobilise 7 armies with the intention of exterminating the Jewish people. Gen Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha articulated Arab priorities. Quote  “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre”.  That sentiment remains today.

Israel insists the Palestinians recognise the Jewish State of Israel because it is stated in the UN Resolution 181. To Israel the present day reality and the historical facts cannot be separated. Nor should they be!  What the Arabs rejected 67 years ago must be accepted today. The issue should not be ‘airbrushed’ away.  It is the central issue in the search for a lasting peace.    

Another example of interpreting history through a contemporary prism appears in Robert Fisk’s book ‘Pity the Nation’ quote:

‘……….Yad Vashem is not so much a memorial as a political statement. Its documents, photographs, dictate its theme: That the holocaust produced the state of Israel and that anyone who opposed the creation of that state is on the level of the Nazis’

The historical context tells a different story. By this statement he makes three insinuations:

1.       That Yad Vashem is more a political statement.

2.       That the Holocaust produced the State of Israel.

3.       Anyone who opposes the creation of the State of Israel is a Nazi.

1.Yad Vashem has two functions: First and foremost as a memorial to 6 million men, women and children, who were denied the right to live. Secondly as a place of study and research into the subject of genocide. To reduce Yad Vashem to the level of a political statement is an abuse of the historical facts and an insult both to the memory of those who perished and the integrity of Israel’s government.

2. The State of Israel was long in process before the Holocaust.  Mr. Frisk ‘airbrushes’ over the facts and creates a distorted picture. The vision for a Jewish homeland existed as early as 1809. A London Missionary group supported by people like William Wilberforce had an agenda which worked towards the physical restoration of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel.  

In 1895 Theodor Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (the Jewish State).

“The Jews who will it shall achieve their State. We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and in our own homes peacefully die. The world will be liberated by our freedom, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness. And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind."

To suggest that the Holocaust produced the State of Israel is either ignorance or a deliberate manipulation of the facts.

3. Mr. Fisk’s third insinuation does contain some relevance to historical fact because, Hajj Amin al Hussieni, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem (1921-1948) actually joined the Nazis party. He vehemently opposed the creation of the State of Israel.  However Mr. Fisk uses the word ‘anyone’ to infer that Israel is in the business of stereo typing ‘anyone’ who disagrees with its politics as ‘Nazis’. Another example of a misleading interpretation.

Contemporary history needs the context of past history.  It is dangerous to pick and choose aspects of history in order to push an agenda.

Holocaust Education in the UK

Much has been written and misreported on the subject of Holocaust education in UK schools. I have also received many letters claiming that the UK government has stopped the teaching the Holocaust in its schools. The Guardian in the UK pointed out that "Teaching of the Holocaust is expected to become compulsory under the new national curriculum from next year". It only quotes the report as giving examples of two schools, which makes the opening paragraph that says that "Schools have avoided teaching the Holocaust grossly misleading”

A teacher who has written to me, has been teaching history since 1981 and has taught Holocaust studies throughout in a variety of schools, including one with a substantial Lebanese population has worked very closely with the Dept. of Education who funded the Historical Association --- the association of historians in the UK --- to produce a report called "Teaching emotive and controversial History 3 – 19" In his opinion, "the report is an excellent, well researched piece of work that in no way justifies the way the Guardian have sensationalized a tiny part of its observations on what has happened in a couple of schools. If the content of this report and its recommendations were acted upon", he believes, “we could all sleep at nights”.

To quote from the intro on their website http://www.history.org.uk/news_details.asp?ID=17 :The National Curriculum for History and GCSE and A-level History qualifications often include areas of study that touch on social, cultural, religious and ethnic fault lines within and beyond Britain. Such areas of study include the Holocaust and aspects of Islamic history. These areas are sometimes avoided by teachers to steer away from controversy in the classroom.

The teacher goes on to say that this avoidance is not a government policy but a misguided example of local choice being exercised in some schools. The report has specific recommendations on how to support teachers working in sensitive subject areas.The way such past events are perceived and understood in the present can stir emotions and controversy within and across communities.

The Historical Association's report will gather examples of effective teaching that deals with emotive and controversial history in schools across all key stages from the ages of 3 to 19. This will allow teachers to obtain a comprehensive view of current best practice in teaching these and similar issues. It will recommend proven and successful approaches that enable teachers to tackle these issues in ordinary lessons through rigorous and engaging teaching while at the same time challenging discrimination and prejudice.

I hope this information will finally put this issue to rest.