Winston Churchill: An Unlikely Zionist
By Peter Beyfus, marking the 150th anniversary of Churchill’s birth on
30 November 1874.
In February 1920 Churchill wrote in the ‘Illustrated Sunday Herald’: "Some people like Jews and some do
not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and
the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world”.
If that had been the sum total of Churchill’s opinion of Jewry one would feel his personal view tended to
the positive rather than the negative. The article went on to talk about good and bad Jews, Bolshevik Jews,
terrorists Jews, international Jews who are equated, although not specifically mentioned, as a shadowy
group, very much as presented in the scurrilous forgery ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’. Anyone having
read the entire feature would conclude Churchill was antagonistic toward certain elements within Jewry,
specifically those who promoted Bolshevism, but he also welcomed the idea of a Zionist state; so to take
this piece as indicative of Churchill the antisemite is a distortion of the truth.
In evaluating Churchill’s relationship with Jews, one has to start by placing him in the context of his age.
Churchill, although regarded, and, rightly so, as a great twentieth century war leader was rooted in
nineteenth century mores. He grew up in a privileged home, a patrician family, educated at Harrow, served
in the army in South Africa, and not surprisingly, given his background, shared common views of race and
western Christian civilisation; in short, he reflected the zeitgeist of his class, but, as we shall see, he was
also out-of-step with it when it came to Zionism. Churchill thought of the British as a very special people,
superior to many other nationalities. It is important to realise such a world view was not extraordinary,
indeed it was the norm, and so when the ill-informed judge prominent people living in a different historical
milieu by their own or accepted societal moral values, distortion of history is the result. The Italian
philosopher, Benedetto Croce, coined the phrase “all history is contemporary history”, and that is an
inevitable consequence of studying the past: we see events through the lens of our own preoccupation, but
the good historian tries to avoid superimposing modern values on past eras. For instance, both Samuel
Pepys, the well-known and much loved diarist, and the English polymath Robert Hooke, both fellows of the
Royal Society, would today be regarded as pederasts, but not so in the seventeenth century!
Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s official biographer and leading historian of the Holocaust, stated Churchill
knew of the Holocaust, gleaned from intelligence intercepts from Nazi Germany and, no doubt, from the
USA. Lord Roberts in his recent biography ‘Churchill: Walking with Destiny’ supports much of what Gilbert
says about Churchill’s proactive role in dealing with the issue of the Holocaust. The question that has been
asked many times is ‘could Churchill have done more to prevent this monstrous crime?’ Dr. Cyril Mazansky,
in thanking Sir Martin Gilbert for his presentation to the International Churchill Society (ICS) in 2009 not
only confirmed Churchill was aware of the Nazi extermination programme, but praised the efforts made by
Churchill to do what he could reasonably do, given the nature of extreme warfare, to intervene where
possible to save Jewish lives. In ‘The Myth of Rescue’ by William Rubinstein, he unequivocally states, when
referring to the impotence of the Allies when faced by the Nazi regime’s policy of Jewish genocide: “Not
one plan or proposal, made anywhere in the democracies by either Jews or non-Jewish champions of the
Jews once the mass murder of the Jews of Europe began, could have rescued one single Jew who perished in
the Nazi Holocaust”. In 1932 Churchill was in Munich and had already sensed where Hitler’s policies were
leading. Churchill had done much to support Jewish emigration to Palestine and consistently opposed
efforts to limit numbers of those fleeing persecution. In this respect Churchill was very different to Neville
Chamberlain. The latter wrote to his sister: “Jews aren’t lovable people, I don’t care for them myself”,
probably a view prevalent among many at that time.
Despite opposition from the Colonial Office, always inclined to appease Arab sentiments, Churchill, being
responsible for Admiralty shipping, did much to facilitate Jews wishing to enter Palestine. Churchill was out
of kilter with the rest of the cabinet on the issue of Jewish emigration to Palestine. It was Winston’s son,
Randolph, who brought to his father’s attention that a ship had been intercepted carrying illegal
immigrants to Palestine. The migrants were to be sent to Mauritius but because of Churchill’s influence
they were allowed to land and remain in Palestine. It is important to note both the Jewish Agency and
Chaim Weizmann were in regular contact with Churchill, advising on how the situation in Europe and
Palestine was unfolding. General Wavell, the British Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East, sent a
telegram to Anthony Eden, warning that to allow Jews to enter Palestine would damage Britain’s relations
with Arab nations. Churchill stepped in telling Wavell it would be “an act of inhumanity to prevent (Jewish)
refugees landing in Palestine”. Perhaps the most hotly debated aspect of the Holocaust is why the Allies did
not bomb the railroads and death camps. It is true that if Churchill had ordered such a deployment of
aircraft it could have been done, but one has to appreciate a number of factors. Firstly, the British and
American high command were not in favour of diverting aircraft and resources from non-military targets,
and daylight bombing raids were always likely to be costly in terms of planes and pilots. In July 1944
Churchill met with Eden and expressed support for the bombing of the railway lines to Auschwitz,
something he felt the Americans could and should do; in the event nothing was done, and although the
deportation from Hungary stopped the same month, it was too late to save but a final 100,000 Hungarian
Jews. Secondly, the Jewish Agency and David Ben-Gurion were also opposed to the Allies bombing
Auschwitz because Jewish lives would be lost too; later revelations proved this to be a tragic irony! Thirdly,
the scale of the Nazi extermination programme was underestimated; industrial genocide had never been
encountered in the past. Finally, if the railway lines to Auschwitz and other death camps had been
destroyed and the camps’ infrastructure, particularly the crematoria, had been significantly degraded, then
the evidence of the extent of mass murder, that later came to light, may well have been lost, and that
would have minimised the millions of lives sacrificed to a perverted ideology.
Churchill’s views of Zionism developed over time but from the general impression of recorded comments
attributed to him, he was supportive of the aspiration of the Jewish people to have a homeland. One
should remember Winston was exposed to his father’s sentiments that were philosemitic, as is evidenced
from Randolph Churchill’s champion of Jewish rights. According to Richard M Langworth, Churchill
expressed support for re-establishing Jewish nationhood in 1908; and it seems he became sympathetic to
Zionist aspirations as early as 1905, perhaps influenced by the antisemitic pogroms in Russia. It would be
wrong to suppose Churchill was uncritical of all aspects of Zionism. He believed Jews and Arabs could co-
exist in Palestine, over-optimistically with hindsight, highlighting the talents of both peoples. Churchill was
dismayed by the anti-British rhetoric of some hardline Zionists such as Zev Jabotinsky, and deplored the
bombing by the Haganah of the King David Hotel in July 1946. However, despite his repugnance of
terrorism, in all its forms, Churchill never failed in his backing for Zionism. In October 1951 Churchill was
returned as Prime Minister for a second time. He received many letters congratulating him on his party’s
electoral success, including one from the President of the State of Israel, Chaim Weizmann. Churchill
responded on 19 November 1951, and I reprint the letter because it says everything about Churchill’s
unwavering support for the Jewish homeland and his hope for good relations between Jews and Arabs:
“My dear Weizmann, Thank you so much for your letter and good wishes. The wonderful exertions
which Israel is making in these times of difficulty are cheering to an old Zionist like me. I trust you may
work in with Jordan and the rest of the Moslem world. With true comradeship there will be enough for
all. Every good wish my old friend. Yours sincerely, Winston Churchill”
As we mark the 80th anniversary of the Holocaust debates about culpability and attitudes toward Jews
continues, and Churchill’s reputation, more recently brought into disrepute by political activists, especially
those in support of BLM, Black Lives Matter, with claims he was a racist and imperialist. When one
examines the historical evidence it is apparent Churchill was a nationalist, in the best sense of the word,
and, clearly, despite ambivalence about some Jews, he was a keen supporter of Zionism. He was proud of
the British Empire believing its general contribution to be far more benign that other imperial regimes; in
this sense he echoes Disraeli. The charge Churchill was antisemitic is robustly denied by Professor Andrew
Roberts who claims Churchill was opposed to antisemitism for virtually his whole life. Whether he saw, as
some Marxist historians assert, Israel as some kind of colonial state, in hock to the British, is without
foundation. He saw the potential of Jews and Arabs working together to enrich the Middle East, to
westernise it and to become an important entity in the post Second World War world.
In conclusion, Churchill despite his reservation about Jews who were Bolshevik revolutionaries and others
whom he saw as potential threats to his idealised notion of civilisation, he warmly embraced the Jewish
heartfelt wish for self-determination and the right to a homeland. Norman Rose in ‘Churchill: the Unruly
Giant’ states: “Yet few Englishmen have a better record on behalf of Zionism, and few can equal Churchill's
high reputation among Zionists.” Churchill did not fight shy of standing up for the Jewish people, even
when it meant criticism from his political colleagues and opponents; his actions in supporting the creation
of Israel resonate with the words of Eli Wiesel: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human
beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never
the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”