This will be a specifical analysis and application on my musing about the general lack of interest in learning. Regardless of any contemporary understanding of history, history has happened. I say this because there is a prevailing atmosphere that only contemporary analysis is necessary for understanding the origin of conflict between people. In short, we only react to events within a short window of time in which the event occurred, and seldom do we ever look at the larger picture as to why an event occurred, and what motivated those involved to act as they did. Nobody reads history, and it shows.
I was listening to Tim Pool’s Culture War Podcast, with Scott Horton, and Will Chamberlain, to discuss the contemporary Gaza-Israeli War. Horton evidently asked permission to give an opening statement, in which he outlined his understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and gave a fairly in depth analysis, citing specific events that Horton argued more or less resulted in the events that occurred on October 7th. Pool flatly responds “You’ve made so many points, I think you’re just wrong”. The discussion then turned into a 2 on 1 debate where Pool and Chamberlain argued recent specific events that justifies Israel’s response to October 7th, whereas Horton argued that in the grand scheme of things, Israel is not justified as many of their decisions and actions directly led to the events of October 7th occurring.
Another contemporary discussion occurring at the time of this musing, is Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” has been circulating on social media, with many people on social media arguing that bin Laden was more or less justified in attacking America utilizing suicide terrorist attacks. Again, commenters like Pool, Ben Shapiro, and others, brush off the reasoning of bin Laden, rather than try to understand the positions he takes in his writings.
I’m not using this musing to argue whether Israel or Palestine in justified in their actions, nor am I arguing that bin Laden was justified in attacking America. To be clear: I do not think Palestinians should have committed a terrorist attack on Israel, nor do I believe bin Laden was actually justified in planning a suicide terrorist attack that killed thousands of people. I’m using these two examples to demonstrate how the majority of people do not really understand history.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is a sticky situation. One side believes that, for literally thousands of years, the Holy Land was their legitimate homeland, and they had a right to settle that land. There’s another group who has lived on that land for close to 1400 years, and has had generation after generation living on that land. When Israel was founded in 1948, after the Holocaust, Sykes-Picot Agreement, after the Balfour Declaration, the McMahon-Hussein Letter, the Arab Revolt, and the Holocaust, there were two sides that firmly believed that the Holy Land would be their land. It should be unsurprising to anyone understanding this history that conflict would occur, and that either side would be dissatisfied with any outcome that was not wholly their envisioned end-state.
Of course this is just a cursory glossary of the major events in the late 19th, through the mid 20th century that gives an overview of why either side would engage in conflict. The purpose in discussing those handful of examples is to demonstrate how complex history can be. It is important to understand these events, because people use events such as the Balfour Declaration, and the Holocaust, to justify a homeland for Jewish people. From a strictly secular point of view, the Palestinians (and Arabs in general) see the promise of Arab nationalism as guaranteed by the United Kingdom, in exchange for fighting the Ottoman Empire, is just as legitimate of a reason for them to inhabit the lands they wish to inhabit.
Conflicts are seldom ever ended in one side completely dominating the other side, and unilaterally enforcing terms on the loser. World War 2 is an anomaly in history, and the majority of conflicts are ended by two sides coming together, in good faith, and seeking out compromises that, while not perfect, give both sides some sort of victory in order to maintain legitimacy. Considering how often conflict occurs between the Israelis and Palestinians, it is clear that neither side engages in good faith. Neither side will act in good faith so long as they continue to focus on their own narrative. Arguably, the conflict has only deteriorated because both sides are becoming ever more zealous in their view, which has more or less turned into a sectarian conflict between the Jewish People and Muslims.
In his Letter to America, bin Laden lays out his reasoning for planning and carrying out 9/11. While he does argue for religious principles such as a global Islamic Caliphate, and subjugating non-Muslims to convert to Islam through force, bin Laden also justified his actions due to United States foreign policy. It is that critique of US foreign policy, in which the seemingly vast majority of people who have recently read the letter, is the motivating factor for them publicly agreeing with bin Laden. To the shock of many, 9/11 did not occur because “They hate our Freedom”, but rather in part due to reactions to US foreign policy, and the idea that people are responsible for their government overall. The path that the Bush Presidency took by framing the conflict between radical Jihadists, and Americans as a purely ideological battle, rather than a conflict of interests, led to an eventual rejection of not only the foreign policy in question, but a reactionary position that all of America’s actions in foreign policy are unjustified.
Even this reaction to the Bush Policy is shortsighted, and lacking historical understanding. Taking bin Laden’s word for his assessment on US foreign policy is foolish, he was a radical fundamentalist, whose intentions were anti-American. Americans siding with bin Laden is akin to sheep siding with wolves. Those siding with bin Laden due to reading a social media post about his letter ought to read more into the historical situation, before opining that a terrorist leader was justified. In both cases of the bin Laden letter, a lack of comprehensive understanding of the historical situation has led to a radical shift back and forth on what action should be taken, rather than an intermediate compromise that allows flexibility in decision making. I suspect that a further divide will occur in America due to this level of ignorance.
I used a picture of Herodatus, the classically understood “Father of History”, at the top of the musing, because Herodatus attempted to understand the circumstances of the time in which he lived in. He wrote about historical figures and instances to give context to the times in which he lived. We have always lived in a context of events, the footnotes of our time themselves had footnotes for their times. I implore everyone to read history, and understand it as best they can. We need to stop reacting to things we do not understand, but rather try to understand them, so that we may decide a better solution.