There are clear signs that Prime Minister Netanyahu may be Churchillian — probably with thespian tendencies. Such horrible accusations could never be make about President Obama.
In this article, I tried to analyze an editorial by the editor-in-chief of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s AIPAC speech. In that speech, PM Netanyahu asserted a parallel between the Holocaust and a nuclear attack on Israel. That was disgusting, according to the Haaretz editor-in-chief, because no such parallel can be drawn legitimately. Today, the Haaretz editorial staff picked up the pace with this. The introductory paragraph avers,
Anyone who cares about Israel’s future could not help but feel a chill upon hearing Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech at the AIPAC conference – if not because of the gravity of the existential threat it described, then because of its sheer vulgarity and bad taste. The prime minister, as if he were no more than a surfer leaving feedback on a website, did not hesitate to crassly compare Israel today to the situation of European Jewry during the Holocaust. And to spice up his speech with one of those visual gimmicks he so loves, he even pulled out a photostat of correspondence in order to imply a comparison between U.S. President Barack Obama’s cautious approach toward attacking Iran and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s refusal to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz. (Emphasis added)
Former President Clinton Rush Limbaugh, the vulgar guy with a cigar! How could the Israeli Prime Minister sink to that level of vulgarity and bad taste? Sadly, he was already there. The editorial continues, repeating essentially the same theme, and closing with this:
Netanyahu isn’t the first Israeli prime minister, especially from the right, to harp on the trauma of the Holocaust. But in contrast to Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, who at the moment of truth also displayed diplomatic and leadership abilities, Netanyahu was and remains essentially a PR man: someone for whom words and rhetoric replace reality. The spine-chilling fear is that one day, all of us – himself included, despite his caution and hesitation – will discover too late that we have become hostages to his Churchillian speech, but without a Churchillian victory.
The epithet “Churchillian” was doubtless meant to be derogatory; it should always be. Churchill was a bust, and it is gratifying that President Obama returned his graven image to the Brits promptly upon his ascension to Heavenly Oval Office where he now reigns supreme, benignly and wisely over us. If only he could rule all the Earth as he rules us! In striking contrast, Churchill was a portly fear monger intent upon plunging Great Britain and much of the rest of the world into an horrifically deadly, expensive, unnecessary and unjust war. He even had harsh words for the U.S.S.R, Stalin and the “Iron Curtain.” Heh! What did he know? Nothing. He spoke such heresies because he was a self-absorbed, self-seeking publicity hound who obviously envisioned massive royalties from the subsequent publication of his trite autobiographical nonsense masquerading as history. Churchill? An historian? That’s absurd. He was merely a slimy, low life politician who could barely manage to scribble even an unintelligible sentence. How did he dare to disparage the heroes of Oxford University who proclaimed in their 1933 resolution “that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country?” According to Churchill in The Gathering Storm,
it was easy to laugh off such an episode in England, but in Germany, in Russia, in Italy, in Japan, the idea of a decadent, degenerate Britain took deep root and swayed many calculations.
He even went so far as to extend blame, shamefully, far beyond the astute scholars at Oxford to everyone but himself:
We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history … [all British parties] during this fatal period. Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation . . . the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist Party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality . . . constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience (Emphasis added).
What tripe! Churchill, who despised “love” as the only source of true peace, had no shred of wisdom or of common decency. And, obviously, neither has PM Netanyahu who now knows as little about the situations in Israel and Iran as Churchill knew about those in Great Britain and Germany during the 1930s. Due to their respective disdains for peace in our time and to their lacks of enlightened understanding, their desires for war, their disgusting rejections of the wise counsel offered by world leaders — even that
graciously offered by President Obama in PM Netanyahu’s sad case — Churchill then desired, and PM Netanyahu now desires, a massive world conflagration merely to satisfy their own narcissistic needs.
It is a great blessing for the world that we in the United States have such a brave and deliberative, humble and decisive, leader as President Obama — who never makes decisions for partisan political reasons and who can always be trusted to bring us hope for change in a better world created through his benign wisdom. He does not bluff! He does not wait! He just does what has to be done!
Did Churchill ever receive or deserve such a mellifluous vote of confidence from wise young people? Of course not. Could PM Netanyahu? The question is equally absurd and deserves the same answer.