Netanyahu vs. Goldwater & Churchill: Why not victory?
By Moshe Phillips
The headline in Israel's most influential daily newspaper stated "Netanyahu: Direct talks are only path to true Mideast peace" (see http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-direct-talks-are-only-path-to-true-mideast-peace-1.321667). That headline really says it all. Netanyahu is not a political conservative. A conservative would proclaim that the "only path to true peace is victory." It is remarkable that so many political conservatives in the U.S. continue to see Netanyahu as a conservative analogous to the American style!
In 1963 Senator Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, wrote the book Why Not Victory? A fresh look at American policy. This was the follow-up to his ground-breaking The Conscience of a Conservative. Just look at the book title — for true conservatives it is axiomatic that there is no substitute for defeating evil.
Netanyahu no longer speaks of defeating Hamas and Hezbollah, let alone destroying Fatah.
Conservative columnist George Will visited Netanyahu in Jerusalem in the summer. He wrote in The Washington Post on August 12 that "No two leaders of democracies are less alike — in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies — than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist." At least Will did not describe Netanyahu as a conservative. He's not. And he is much closer to Obama than he is to Goldwater. Will relates that "Two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu... One photograph is of Theodor Herzl... Zionism's founding father... The other photograph is of Winston Churchill."
It has been said that Netanyahu has long admired Churchill. More correctly, he has long spoke of Churchill. On September 24, 2009 Netanyahu gave a speech at the UN General Assembly. He said: "Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the 'confirmed unteachability of mankind,' the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the 'want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.'"
Will wrote: Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.
Netanyahu is a pragmatist; he perceives a non-existent value in linking his enemy to Nazi Germany and himself to Churchill. One flaw here is that he has never shown the political fortitude of a Churchill and another is that other than George Will and other U.S. conservative pundits who find Israeli politics too complicated, no one cares. The liberal/conservative dichotomy does not really exist in Israel as it does in America.
Netanyahu would have us draw a distinction between the Iranian enemy (and their Hamas and Hezbollah surrogates) and the PLO/Palestinian National Authority/Fatah enemy. If Netanyahu actually believes that simply because their strategies and public rhetoric are different, that one of these enemies can be negotiated with, then he is drinking his own Kool-Aid. Goldwater drew no distinction between Chinese communists and Soviet communists: both were enemies that needed to be defeated. Churchill and the Allies during World War Two did not distinguish between Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy: all three had to be beaten. Netanyahu has long preached that once Israel's enemies embrace democracy and other Western values there can be peace. Churchill and Goldwater demanded victory against evil before peace. They believed that lasting peace without a prior victory would be impossible.
Netanyahu called his first book Terrorism: How The West Can Win. Did Netanyahu decide that winning the war against terrorism was less important than getting re-elected and mouthing the Obama White House line?
On the surface alone it is surprising that Netanyahu would want to link himself to Churchill in the first place. Netanyahu's father, Benzion, was a senior aide to Ze'ev Jabotinsky. When Begin, Jabotinsky's political heir and most famous disciple, declared the Irgun's Revolt against the British Mandate in 1944, Churchill was in power in London.
Benzion, the elder Netanyahu, who celebrated his 100th birthday in Jerusalem last March, organized support for the Irgun Zionist militia in the U.S. in the 1940s. He served as part of an international delegation of Zionists from the Jabotinsky movement. These activists raised funds to rescue Jews from Nazi occupied Europe and bring them to the British Mandate and break the British naval blockade. They lobbied for the creation of the Jewish State and formation of a Jewish army to fight alongside the Allies against the Nazis. To the Irgun Churchill was an enemy for much of the 1940s. Churchill saw the Zionist militias as Britain's enemy as well.
The first prime ministers from Netanyahu's Likud party, Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both honored Jabotinsky and the Zionist militias with much more commitment than Netanyahu has demonstrated. Begin was the first to place Jabotinsky's portrait in the prime minister's office. Shamir paid tribute to Avraham "Yair" Stern of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel/LEHI by placing his portrait in that same office. Now in place of Zionist heroes appears Churchill. In reality, Netanyahu does not truly emulate Churchill's doctrine and strategy either. Netanyahu has lost his way. More correctly, he lost his way a long time ago.
© Moshe Phillips
November 12, 2010
The headline in Israel's most influential daily newspaper stated "Netanyahu: Direct talks are only path to true Mideast peace" (see http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-direct-talks-are-only-path-to-true-mideast-peace-1.321667). That headline really says it all. Netanyahu is not a political conservative. A conservative would proclaim that the "only path to true peace is victory." It is remarkable that so many political conservatives in the U.S. continue to see Netanyahu as a conservative analogous to the American style!
In 1963 Senator Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, wrote the book Why Not Victory? A fresh look at American policy. This was the follow-up to his ground-breaking The Conscience of a Conservative. Just look at the book title — for true conservatives it is axiomatic that there is no substitute for defeating evil.
Netanyahu no longer speaks of defeating Hamas and Hezbollah, let alone destroying Fatah.
Conservative columnist George Will visited Netanyahu in Jerusalem in the summer. He wrote in The Washington Post on August 12 that "No two leaders of democracies are less alike — in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies — than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist." At least Will did not describe Netanyahu as a conservative. He's not. And he is much closer to Obama than he is to Goldwater. Will relates that "Two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu... One photograph is of Theodor Herzl... Zionism's founding father... The other photograph is of Winston Churchill."
It has been said that Netanyahu has long admired Churchill. More correctly, he has long spoke of Churchill. On September 24, 2009 Netanyahu gave a speech at the UN General Assembly. He said: "Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the 'confirmed unteachability of mankind,' the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the 'want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.'"
Will wrote: Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.
Netanyahu is a pragmatist; he perceives a non-existent value in linking his enemy to Nazi Germany and himself to Churchill. One flaw here is that he has never shown the political fortitude of a Churchill and another is that other than George Will and other U.S. conservative pundits who find Israeli politics too complicated, no one cares. The liberal/conservative dichotomy does not really exist in Israel as it does in America.
Netanyahu would have us draw a distinction between the Iranian enemy (and their Hamas and Hezbollah surrogates) and the PLO/Palestinian National Authority/Fatah enemy. If Netanyahu actually believes that simply because their strategies and public rhetoric are different, that one of these enemies can be negotiated with, then he is drinking his own Kool-Aid. Goldwater drew no distinction between Chinese communists and Soviet communists: both were enemies that needed to be defeated. Churchill and the Allies during World War Two did not distinguish between Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy: all three had to be beaten. Netanyahu has long preached that once Israel's enemies embrace democracy and other Western values there can be peace. Churchill and Goldwater demanded victory against evil before peace. They believed that lasting peace without a prior victory would be impossible.
Netanyahu called his first book Terrorism: How The West Can Win. Did Netanyahu decide that winning the war against terrorism was less important than getting re-elected and mouthing the Obama White House line?
On the surface alone it is surprising that Netanyahu would want to link himself to Churchill in the first place. Netanyahu's father, Benzion, was a senior aide to Ze'ev Jabotinsky. When Begin, Jabotinsky's political heir and most famous disciple, declared the Irgun's Revolt against the British Mandate in 1944, Churchill was in power in London.
Benzion, the elder Netanyahu, who celebrated his 100th birthday in Jerusalem last March, organized support for the Irgun Zionist militia in the U.S. in the 1940s. He served as part of an international delegation of Zionists from the Jabotinsky movement. These activists raised funds to rescue Jews from Nazi occupied Europe and bring them to the British Mandate and break the British naval blockade. They lobbied for the creation of the Jewish State and formation of a Jewish army to fight alongside the Allies against the Nazis. To the Irgun Churchill was an enemy for much of the 1940s. Churchill saw the Zionist militias as Britain's enemy as well.
The first prime ministers from Netanyahu's Likud party, Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both honored Jabotinsky and the Zionist militias with much more commitment than Netanyahu has demonstrated. Begin was the first to place Jabotinsky's portrait in the prime minister's office. Shamir paid tribute to Avraham "Yair" Stern of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel/LEHI by placing his portrait in that same office. Now in place of Zionist heroes appears Churchill. In reality, Netanyahu does not truly emulate Churchill's doctrine and strategy either. Netanyahu has lost his way. More correctly, he lost his way a long time ago.
© Moshe Phillips
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
