Netanyahu: study Winston Churchill

Tuvia Brodie,

לבן ריק
לבן ריק
צילום: ערוץ 7
Tuvia Brodie
Tuvia Brodie has a PhD from the University of Pittsburgh under the name Philip Brodie. He has worked for the University of Pittsburgh, Chatham College and American Express. He and his wife made aliyah in 2010. All of his children have followed. He believes in Israel's right to exist. He believes that the words of Tanach (the Jewish Bible) are meant for us. His blog address is http://tuviainil.blogspot.com He usually publishes 3-4 times a week on his blog and 1-3 times at Arutz Sheva. Please check the blog regularly for new posts.

 In June, 1940, Adolf Hitler began to think about invading England. At that moment, he controlled virtually all of Western Europe. Only Britain remained free of Nazi domination.

To Nazi Germany, the blond, blue-eyed Aryan was supreme. By the summer of 1940, the Aryan had proved his prowess. For example, during April-May of that year, the Aryan had been unstoppable. Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and most of France fell into Nazi hands within a matter of weeks.

The Aryan conquest had been swift. The Nazi was indeed supreme.  

The British Expeditionary Force, an army of some 300,000 men, had gone into France to help stop the Nazi war machine. It had been routed. By June, 1940, those troops who had survived the Nazi juggernaut were surrounded and trapped on the French coast—at a place called, Dunkirk. They escaped back to England as a ragged, defeated entity.

Just a few days later, on June 14, 1940, Paris fell. Once that happened, the Nazi war machine rested. It had conquered Europe.

Hitler could now turn his attention north---to England.

According to some historians, Hitler preferred not to have to invade England. He hoped he could form some kind of an arranged ‘compromise’. He thought England would ‘accommodate’ itself to the reality of the Nazi presence—and the Nazi power.

It might be argued that many in England were interested in such an arrangement. If the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, had spoken in favour of a ‘compromise’ in June, 1940, it most probably would have happened.

But Churchill didn’t do that. He didn’t choose what some called the inevitable reality of a Nazi victory. He didn’t choose surrender. He chose to fight.

That decision didn’t make him an instant hero. If some didn’t think he was actually insane, they certainly thought he was drunken (“'Winston Churchill's wartime speeches did NOT inspire and many thought he was drunk during famous finest hour address', claims academic”, The Daily Mail, August 20, 2013). Even today, some believe that Churchill’s refusal to accommodate Hitler was the reason the British Empire ultimately failed (Robert Skidelsky, “Book Review: Churchill: The End of Glory; A Political Biography [written by John Charmley], The National Review, November 15, 1993).

According to the Charmley book, Churchill was inspiring but barren (ibid). He was temperamentally unable to do what was needed to conserve the British Empire (ibid). He did more harm than good.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces similar criticism. Leftists, Arab apologists and pure anti-Semites all tell us that this Prime Minister resists the inevitable reality of a ‘Palestinian’ state. They talk about his ‘shameless’ behaviour trying to oppose Iran (Shoula Romano Horing, “The Left's Shameless Attacks on Netanyahu”, The American Thinker, February 2, 2015).

Many think Netanyahu is insane to oppose the juggernaut called the ‘Palestinian Cause’. He isn’t a wise leader, they say; he’s desperate, disrespectful and, well, incompetent (Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Netanyahu Disaster”, The Atlantic, January 27, 2015).

Churchill heard the same complaints. He was considered by many to be untrustworthy (Arnie Mansdorf, “Winston Churchill: Right or Wrong Man for the Job 1933-1940”, The Churchill Centre, no date). He was called, ‘an opportunist’ (ibid).  He was considered by some NOT to be the right man for leading England (ibid). Many considered him to be unpopular and isolated (ibid).

Netanyahu has been described with almost the same terms.

Churchill opposed Hitler because he didn’t see Nazi rule as the road to peace. Netanyahu opposes a ‘Palestinian state’ for the same reason (“Is Netanyahu fighting just Hamas or the two-state solution as well?”, Haaretz, July  16, 2014). Churchill saw Hitler’s policies and ambitions as ‘warlike’ (“The Causes of World War II in Europe: Hitler’s War”, History: Causes, practices and effects of war, pearsonschoolsandfecolleges, no date). He believed that Hitler had a ‘master plan’ to dominate and conquer Europe (ibid).  

Netanyahu sees the ‘Palestinian-Israel two-state solution’ the same way (Haaretz, ibid). He sees the policies and ambitions of Hamas-Fatah as being based upon a plan to conquer and destroy Israel.

Both men were demonized, isolated, attacked. Churchill was called a warmonger (Mansdorf, ibid). So is Netanyahu.

Churchill and Netanyahu share much. But they are also different. Churchill was adamant about the need to fight the Nazi. He was a bulldog about that.

Netanyahu isn’t.

Churchill believed with a complete faith that victory over the Nazi would be his. He declared that if Hitler attempted to invade, ‘we shall not flinch’.

Netanyahu flinches.

Churchill faced the extinction of the British way of life. Netanyahu faces the extinction of the Jewish way of life in Israel.

Churchill stood up for the British way of life. Netanyahu doesn’t stand up for the Jewish way of life.

Netanyahu should read about Churchill, 1939-41. He might learn how to save Israel.