|
Michael Makovsky
Michael Makovsky is Foreign Policy Director of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, DC institution dedicated to developing bipartisan solutions to pressing policy issues. Makovsky's new book, Churchill's Promised Land (Yale University Press/New Republic Books) explores Winston Churchill's complex relationship with Zionism and how he helped shape the modern Middle East.
Makovsky has a PhD in diplomatic history from Harvard University, a MBA in finance from Columbia Business School, and a BA in history from the University of Chicago (More bio: here). We will discuss his book. Readers can send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.
Dear Michael,
There's some temptation to begin with the question of whether
Churchill can be defined as a Zionist - but maybe we should leave this to the end of the dialogue.
So I will start with a more specific question, and let me quote first
from your book: "Churchill also believed that Zionism advanced the
cause of civilization, which was always the overriding preoccupation
in his worldview".
In what way was Zionism advancing civilization?
Best
SR
Winston Churchill's ultimate goal was to advance civilization, a cause that was often discussed in England during the early years of his life. By "civilization" he essentially meant the Christian European way of life: its broad values, customs, laws, and economic systems. He wrote in 1908, "No man has a right to be idle, whoever he be or wherever he lives. He is bound to go forward and take an honest share in the general work of the world." People could contribute to progress in different ways, such as developing land; advancing science, literature, or philosophy; or introducing liberal laws, culture, and institutions. He considered Britain and its empire the chief champions of civilization, providing British nationalism and imperialism an additional moral underpinning.
Churchill was naturally philo-Semitic and thought the Jews were a great race whose religious beliefs had contributed greatly to the foundations of Christian civilization. He also came to maintain that the Zionists advanced civilization by their beliefs and actions. For him this was a more important basis for supporting Zionism than the historical and biblical Jewish attachment to the Holy Land, in which he also believed.
Churchill came to this conclusion from his personal encounters with Zionists in England and Palestine. He perceived that the Zionists shared many of his values. Indeed, many of the Russian Jewish Zionists who began to immigrate to Palestine and England in the late 19th century subscribed to many of the same values, such as freedom, knowledge, scientific advancement, and a spiritual bond with the soil. Moreover, the Russian Jewish immigrants in England, such as the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, romanticized England and inculcated many of its values.
When he was colonial secretary in 1921 and required to implement the Balfour Declaration, he visited Palestine and became convinced of the Zionist contribution to civilization. His encounters with the Palestinian Arabs offered him a context for the Zionist experiment. He considered the Palestinian Arabs anti-British (they had supported the Ottomans in the First World War) intransigent, and backward people who never developed the land. In contrast, he was impressed with the Zionists' hydroelectric plans, their creation of towns out of deserts and vineyards out of wilderness, and their own claim that they had a "civilizing" mission that would benefit Palestinian Arabs and Jews. He marveled, for instance, at the agricultural achievements of Rishon Lezion, the first permanent Zionist agricultural settlement, "Nothing will stand in your way. You have changed desolate places to smiling orchards and initiated progress instead of stagnation." He became convinced there was a civilizational imperative for the Zionists to govern the land.
His view solidified over time. As illiberal, repugnant ideologies, such as Bolshevism and Nazism arose and spread, the positive values of the Zionists stood out more, especially in contrast to the Palestinian Arabs, who supported the Nazis and the Axis Powers. The civilizational theme remained essential to his continued support of the Zionist cause.
Dear Michael,
But he was not just supportive. "At one point", you write (P. 99) "he
privately proposed abandoning the pro-Zionist policy" of the
government.
So, to what extent was his support - or lack thereof - a matter of
political calculations?
Best
Rosner
It is often forgotten that Churchill was a British politician, one whose political position was often tenuous. In fact, he frequently felt compelled to pay attention to political pressures and opportunities, especially early in his career.
He always rigidly prioritized his objectives and he rarely let politics get in the way of his primary immediate concerns, such as British strategic and imperial interests even though he was flexible over tactics. But he did allow politics to influence his mood and his rhetoric over Zionism, which became for him an important but mostly secondary sentimental cause.
When Churchill represented North-West Manchester and its significant Jewish electorate in 1906-1908, politics certainly favored his supporting Zionism. Still, he meant what he said in a strong statement of support for Zionism in 1908. After that, politics generally did not favor Zionism and he at times had to be very careful in what he said and did not say about Zionism. Such was certainly the case in the early 1920s when he served as colonial secretary and had to implement the Balfour Declaration. Zionism was increasingly unpopular, especially in the Conservative Party, the biggest bloc in the governing coalition and the party to which Churchill was intent to ingratiate and possibly return after two decades as Liberal (he again became a Conservative for good in 1924). Politics also contributed to his withholding active public support for Zionism in the late 1940s when Zionist factions clashed with British troops in Palestine--sometimes rather brutally and bloodily--and Churchill sought to return to power after losing a stunning postwar electoral upset in 1945 to the Labour Party.
Overall, however, Churchill increasingly became more pro-Zionist in his rhetoric and in reality as Zionism became more unpopular in England. His identification as a leading Gentile Zionist in the 1930s and beyond only further undermined his popularity among fellow Conservative Party members, government officials and the population. In some ways Zionism?s unpopularity deepened its appeal to him since he ultimately relished lonely struggles against the establishment.
A major purpose of my book is to offer a fuller picture of Churchill, his priorities and his worldview--which are more complex than commonly imagined. Exploring how politics influenced his approach toward Zionism contributes to a deeper understanding of the man.
Hi,
I admire Churchill as a leader and statesman, but have great doubts about his actual relation to Jews and Zionism. Having read Martin Gilbert's book (Churchill and the Jews), it occurs to me that Churchill spoke loudly of his love for Jews and Zionism, but failed us at critical junctures. For example, when probed by Nazis in the 1930s about possible accomodation, he conveyed the message that as long they stayed within their own borders, mistreatment of the Jews would not be an insurmountable obstacle.
In 1922 he cut off 78% of the Palestine mandate and gave it to Transjordan, bragging that he had made Abdullah king of Transjordan one afternoon in Jerusalem. Then he somehow spun this into a pro-Zionist act. Bitterly opposed to the White Paper out of office, when he got into power, he did not really press the issue of rescinding the White Paper when it was still possible to save Jews, and he did not grant British visas to all Jews seeking them. He appointed his friend Lord Moyne to oversee the turning away of refugees from Palestine, and only interfered with that policy when it was too late to save many Jews and in specific cases. All the while he was saying nice words, his policies were resulting in the deaths of a lot of Jews. One face of Churchill was the practical politician, and one was the "real Churchill" - but which was which?
Ami Isseroff
Dear Ami Isseroff
I can't address what you read in another book but if you read mine you will see that I point out when Churchill helped, hurt or ignored Jews and Zionism. I see Churchill as certainly uneven over his career in his approach toward Jews and Zionism, making pivotal contributions and suffering notable lapses but who over time become more pro-Zionist and who on balance was very favorable to Jews and Zionism. The only way to draw that conclusion or any conclusion is by examining his actions/non-actions in the context of his worldview. One must understand what else was going on in his head at a particular time, including what were his important priorities, and Churchill was all about setting priorities and rigidly following them.
I'm not sure what instance you are referring to when Churchill supposedly claimed giving Abdullah Transjordan was a pro-Zionist act. But I do know he did it without consulting the Zionists. He also did it upon the advice of his aides, such as Lawrence of Arabia, without a strong understanding of the issues (his aides were not as knowledgeable as they thought either) and out of restless haste to structure a regional settlement early in his tenure as colonial secretary in 1921. I'm not justifying what he did but neither was this action borne of anti-Zionist malice. It was only after making that decision that he visited Palestine and fell in love with Zionist settlements, which became essential to his development as a Zionist. And he made a number of important contributions to the Zionist cause as colonial secretary. For instance, despite initial opposition to British acquisition of the Palestine and Iraqi mandates, he overrode British officials in Palestine, including Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner, and Palestinian Arab hostility, and pushed for ensuring more Jewish immigrants into Palestine, which was essential to growth of the Zionist Yishuv.
Regarding the 1939 White Paper, you are right that he championed the opposition to it in Parliament and then did not seek its repeal when prime minister. The White Paper was a very controversial issue domestically and abroad (in Middle East and the United States) and there was a limit to which he would expend political capital on such a subordinate and divisive matter, which he was unlikely to get repealed anyway. As he asserted in 1943, "Everything for the war, whether controversial or not, and nothing controversial that is not bona fide needed for the war." But he also employed this status quo argument to oppose any public defense of the White Paper or other anti-Zionist measures, which some officials were itching to carry out. In short, he essentially enforced the White Paper while repeatedly condemning it in scathing terms to other officials in private, and he evidently had some misgivings about it.
While Churchill failed to push some important Zionist objectives, and did little to help European Jews during WWII, I see the war as marking the zenith of his Zionism. Among his wartime pro-Zionist accomplishments: he privately encouraged his colleagues to allow more Jewish immigration into Palestine; aspired to arm the Palestinian Jews so they could defend themselves against the Arabs; relished battling with anti-Zionist officials; eschewed any semblance of balance in the government's treatment of Palestinian Arabs and Jews; and doggedly and passionately pursued a Middle Eastern diplomatic settlement that would establish a Zionist state in Palestine within a loose Arab-led federation after the war?an effort that failed partly due to Franklin Roosevelt's equivocation.
Did Churchill have any personal Jewish connection when he was growing
up? Were the Jeromes philosemitic?
Joe Feld
Dear Joe Feld,
Churchill had a lot of personal connections with Jews while growing up but it did not come from his American mother Jenny Jerome, who sometimes made some derisive comments about Jews - Churchill even reprimanded her for it despite his adoration for her. Instead, he imbibed philo-Semitism from his father, Randolph, who came from a family that did not like Jews, which was common among the aristocratic class. At a young age Randolph liked socializing with mega wealthy Jews, such as the Rothschild's, and he felt the same as an adult-again, this was not common among his class. He also looked to Benjamin Disraeli as a sort of mentor, and he inculcated the many of the views of the Jewish-born Conservative Party leader and prime minister, who extolled the Jewish race and argued that it was protected by Providence.
Churchill grew up very comfortable socially with Jews, took on many of his father's Jewish friends when he grew up and his father died, and also took on many of Disraeli's views of Jews. He also was guided by a mystical dictum he ascribed to Disraeli, "The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews." He repeated it a number of times in his life. Churchill was not turned off to the Jewish race by the many Russian Jewish immigrants he met while representing North-West Manchester very early in his career, even though these immigrants often did not look, speak or dress like proper Englishmen and women.
Despite his deep-rooted philo-Semitism, Churchill sometimes manipulated Jewish issues and even anti-Semitism for the sake of other objectives, especially very early in his fledging career. His father did the same. Such was part of his complex personality.
Dear Mr. Makovsky,
Comparing Churchill and other leaders of Britain following him, would
you say that the support that was given to Israel over the years has
declined?
Thank you,
Benny Sheinblum
Dear Benny Sheinblum,
It is a good relevant question but my book is about Churchill until his active career ended in 1955, and I don?t feel comfortable venturing beyond that.
I will answer your question by addressing the Socialist government of Clement Attlee that followed Churchill in a stunning electoral upset two months after the Nazi surrender, which governed for six years until 1951, when Churchill again became prime minster.
After Churchill?s wartime administration, the most pro-Zionist British government since Lloyd George?s when the Balfour Declaration was issued, Attlee took over. Attlee was anti-Zionist and his aggressive foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, a former union leader, was outright hostile to Jews and Zionism. Attlee came to power intent on pursuing a radical departure in British imperial and foreign policy. He even described pre-1945 British history as the ?mess of centuries.? Well, he also turned his backs on his own Labour Party?s repeated promises to the Zionists, including the 1944 resolution, ?Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.? In fact, Attlee-Bevin reverted to the Chamberlain-Halifax policy of believing that British interests were best served being pro-Arab. They downplayed Jewish suffering, closed off Palestine indefinitely to Jewish immigration, appeased Arab peoples, opposed a Zionist state, and--in line with the military?s thinking--sought to maintain control over Palestine as a strategic asset.
Bevin encouraged Transjordan in early 1948 to use the British-led Arab Legion at a minimum to capture the areas designated for the Palestinian Arabs, including the West Bank, and seemingly also Jerusalem, which was designated for international control despite British opposition. In discussions with other Arabs, Bevin apparently suggested he wanted the Jewish state destroyed. Britain also refused to support a U.N. truce in June 1948 until it was clear the Arab side was exhausted. This was dangerous stuff, caused unnecessary rifts with the US, and didn?t buy Britain any Arab friends perhaps beyond Transjordan.
The emergence of the Jewish state and its victory over its Arab neighbors marked a complete defeat of the Attlee-Bevin policy, which Churchill eventually scathingly criticized in memorable terms. Churchill also publicly suggested Bevin was an anti-Semite and some Bevin remarks I cite in my book suggest the same to me. Many British historians dispute that claim and also defend Bevin as an excellent foreign secretary--I have trouble understanding that opinion, even aside from the Zionist issue.
When Churchill took power again in 1951, he sought to reorient British foreign policy to a more pro-Israel line, and considered Israel an important strategic asset in the region.
Dear Michael,
So here is the question I wanted to ask all along: should we say he
was a Zionist?
Best
Rosner
Dear Shmuel,
If we define a Zionist very simply as someone who believes in a Jewish state in in Zion, or what is now Israel?then the answer must definitely be yes. That was certainly the case after his visited Palestine in 1921 and met Palestinian Arabs and Jews, and he ended his active career in 1955considering himself a strong Zionist and being proud that Jews were very fond of him.
Over time Churchill came to view Zionism as a cause that restored dispersed, persecuted Jews, a great ancient race whose heritage was integral to the foundation of Western civilization, to their historic homeland, where they could observe their traditions and civilize an area left barren by what he considered backward, anti-British Arabs. At different times he supported Zionism for some combination of religious, racial, ideological, historical, humanitarian, familial, mystical, civilizational, personal and strategic reasons. Support for the cause in his mind also translated into a belief in commitment to one?s pledges, fidelity to one?s allies, and an expansive view of the world?s possibilities.
Still, Zionism was for Churchill an ultimately sentimental cause which for him meant it was subordinate to other more important objectives, and he rigidly prioritized his objectives?which usually involved British imperial and strategic interests and sometimes his own political needs. He was after all a British politician and statesman. Those preeminent concerns usually shaped his mood toward Zionism, but not always. As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, Churchill became more supportive of Zionism as it became less popular in England. And beginning in the late 1930s, he saw Zionism as offering strategic benefits.
He certainly had his moments if not years when he was indifferent if not opposed to Zionism, especially in the crucial years of the 1910?s, and before his 1921 visit to Palestine. Even after that he did not always advance the Zionist cause, such as in the mid to late 1920?s and in the key years post-WWII years of 1945-48. But he also advanced the Zionist cause in some pivotal years, such as the early 1920s, 1930s, WWII (1940-45), and 1949-55.
In my book I always seek to contextualize what Churchill is thinking or not thinking or doing or not doing, which one must do in trying to understanding anyone, but particularly someone complex like Churchill. He often saw the world very differently than his colleagues and countrymen and he defies easy classification. That all said, I view Churchill?s Zionist trajectory as uneven but ultimately upward, and I believe he was certainly a Zionist.
|
