CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

‘A Great Nation’

In retirement, Churchill kept a watchful eye on Israel’s wellbeing. On 24 February 1956 he received the Israeli Ambassador, Eliahu Elath, who presented him with a portfolio of woodcuts of ancient Jerusalem as an eightieth birthday gift from the Prime Minister and Government of Israel. Returning to his Embassy, Elath telegraphed to his Foreign Minister, Moshe Sharett: ‘It was obvious that the words of the dedication moved him more than the pictures themselves.’ The dedication had spoken of Israel’s ‘admiration and gratitude for the man who saved the world from Nazi domination, this securing for all its peoples – Israel among them – the renewed hope of peace, freedom and progress.’

While Churchill was looking at the pictures, Elath reported, ‘I told him about the fate of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City. He asked what had happened to the Western Wall. In the course of the conversation he inquired about painting in Israel.’ Churchill also told the ambassador ‘that he has been and remains our friend. He took joy in the establishment of our State and expressed his confidence in its splendid future. He went on to say: you are a nation of ideals and that is the greatest thing in the life of both the community and the individual. He added that he admires the fact that we have absorbed so many refugees and that we have succeeded in developing the land and conquering the wilderness.’

After assuring the ambassador that he would ‘continue to see to it that no evil befalls Israel,’ Churchill told him that the Israeli gift would take its place among all the others he received for his birthday, and that ‘he was happy that future generations would thereby know that the sons of the prophets dwelling in Zion were among his many well-wishers from all over the world.’1

* * *

Churchill continued to champion Israeli enterprise. When James and Dorothy de Rothschild asked him to support a project to erect, on behalf of British Jewry, a large ornamental candelabra in front of the new parliament building in Jerusalem – of which they were major sponsors – he was keen to participate. His Private Secretary, Anthony Montague Browne, having consulted the Foreign Office, reported to Churchill: ‘There would be no political objection to your subscribing to this fund if you wished. We are not very happy that the Israeli parliament should have set itself up in Jerusalem, which is supposed to be an international city, but this is rather a fine point.’2

Montague Browne, who had been seconded to Churchill from the Foreign Office, knew that the British Government still adhered, in theory at least, to the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, whereby Jerusalem was intended to become an international enclave, separate from both Jewish and Arab Palestine. Undeterred by this, Churchill became a subscriber.

On 13 April 1956, during a speech at the Albert Hall in London, Churchill spoke of the mounting crisis in the Middle East, and of how Israel and Egypt were ‘face to face’. It was ‘perfectly sure’ he said, that the United States, as well as Britain, would intervene to prevent aggression by one side or the other. The moment for this would probably never come, and yet, Churchill warned, ‘it may come, and come at any moment.’ If Israel was to be ‘dissuaded from using’ the life of their race to ward off the Egyptians until the Egyptians have learnt to use the Russian weapons with which they have been supplied,’ he argued, ‘and the Egyptians then attack, it will become not only a matter of prudence but a measure of honour to make sure that they are not the losers by waiting.’3

‘I should like you to know,’ wrote Eliahu Elath, the Israeli Ambassador to Britain, later that day, ‘with what deep gratification my Government and the people of Israel will receive your friendly references to our country in your speech.’ Elath added: ‘We shall all hope and pray that these words, coming from you, will have their effect on those, in London and in Washington, in whose hands now lie the crucial decisions on the matters to which you referred, including that of the supply to Israel of adequate arms for her self-defence.’4

Turning to the current confrontation between Egypt and Israel, Churchill wrote to Eisenhower on 16 April, ‘I am sure that if we act together, we shall stave off an actual war between Israel and Egypt,’ and he went on to tell the President: ‘I am, of course, a Zionist, and have been ever since the Balfour Declaration. I think it is a wonderful thing that this tiny colony of Jews should have become a refuge to their compatriots in all the lands where they were persecuted so cruelly, and at the same time established themselves as the most effective fighting force in the area. I am sure America would not stand by and see them overwhelmed by Russian weapons, especially if we had persuaded them to hold their hand while their chance remained.’5

* * *

On 26 July 1956 President Nasser of Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal. The catalyst for his action was the withdrawal of funds by both Britain and the United States for his Aswan Dam project. Both Britain and France, under whom the Canal had been operating for more than a century, were indignant, especially the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden. ‘I think that Britain and France ought to act together with vigour,’ Churchill wrote to his wife four days later.6

On 5 August the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Harold Macmillan, dined with Churchill at Chartwell, noting in his diary: ‘I said that unless we brought in Israel it couldn’t be done. Surely if we landed, we must seek out the Egyptian forces, destroy them and bring down Nasser’s government. Churchill got out some maps and got quite excited.’7

The following day, Monday, 6 August, was a Bank Holiday. That day Churchill set off by car from Chartwell to Chequers. During the two and a half hour, seventy-five-mile journey, travelling with a secretary, he dictated a note on the Suez Crisis, which he handed to Eden on his arrival. As far as Israel was concerned, Churchill wrote: ‘We should want them to menace and hold the Egyptians and not be drawn off against Jordan.’8

A conference of Suez Canal users was called, to decide upon a firm stance against Egypt. Israel, whose ships were still forbidden passage of the Canal by Egypt, was not invited. In a letter to her husband, Clementine Churchill wondered why not. ‘I suppose why they did not bring Israel in,’ Churchill replied, ‘was that they were afraid that she would become uncontrollable. But she is there in the background, and I have no doubt that if it comes to war she will join in.’ Churchill added: ‘The unity of Islam is remarkable. There is no doubt that Libya, to whom we paid £5,000,000 a year, like Jordania, to whom we paid £10,000,000 or more, are whole-heartedly manifesting hostility.’9

As Churchill explained to Clementine in this same letter, he was at that very moment reading books about Benjamin Disraeli, for his own book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Ironically, the book had a Suez aspect, for it was Disraeli who in 1875 purchased a controlling share in the Suez Canal Company on behalf of the British Government. Because the Egyptian ruler, the Khedive Ismail, was bankrupt, Disraeli was able to purchase almost half the shares in the Suez Canal Company – although not a majority interest, this was effectively a controlling interest. Parliament was not in session at the time; to secure the purchase, Disraeli, on his own initiative, borrowed four million pounds from the Rothschilds. It was a government expenditure that was to be of value both as a financial investment and to secure British control of the sea route to India.

In A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Churchill praised the ‘courage and quickness of wit’ with which Disraeli ‘had been so generously endowed’, and described him – not mentioning that his father had had him baptised – as ‘a young Jewish Member of Parliament.’10 Churchill commented that Disraeli ‘never became wholly assimilated to English ways of life, and preserved to his death the detachment which had led him as a young man to make his own analysis of English society. It was this which probably enabled him to diagnose and assess the deeper political currents of his age.’11 It was Disraeli – the Conservative – who introduced the Reform Bill of 1867, extending the vote to the working class, favouring the large industrial towns, and doubling the electorate to two million.

One November evening at Chartwell in 1947, Churchill had fallen asleep while painting and dreamed that he was talking with his father. During their conversation, which Churchill set down after he woke up, Lord Randolph said of Disraeli: ‘I always believed in Dizzy, that old Jew. He saw into the future. We had to bring the English working man into the centre of the picture.’12

To help him with his Disraeli and Gladstone chapter of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, which he worked on for several months at Emery Reves’ villa, La Pausa, in the South of France, Churchill enlisted the aid of Maurice Shock, a young Jewish don who was teaching at University College, Oxford, and who was put up at a hotel in nearby Roquebrune. ‘He is a very nice young man,’ Churchill wrote to Clementine at the beginning of October from La Pausa, ‘and I am glad to have had him at the hotel for the weekend.’ Among the other guests at La Pausa that weekend was Baroness Jean de Rothschild, with whom Churchill played his favourite card game, bezique. As he wrote to Clementine, ‘Her husband – a Vienna Rothschild – is 72 and she about thirty years younger.’13

Clementine Churchill was staying at St Moritz, where she renewed her acquaintance with a New York Jew, Lewis Einstein, a widower, with whom she had lively discussions about Britain’s rule in Cyprus, then in the throes of a national uprising. Einstein, who had entered the United States diplomatic service in 1903, had served in London, Paris, Peking, Constantinople and Prague, and was a writer and raconteur on topics as diverse as Renaissance art, Tudor manners and the diplomacy of the American Civil War. Churchill was pleased that his wife had found so congenial a friend, writing to her: ‘I am very glad that he has turned up to give you company.’14

* * *

Following President Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal, a British military response was regarded as inevitable, although when or how it would come was unclear. ‘I expect we must look to Israel for the next move,’ Churchill wrote to Clementine in mid-August.15 In fact, a month later, it was the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, who, in secret cooperation with France, persuaded Israel to join in Anglo-French military action against Egypt, and to do so in such a way as to give Britain and France an excuse to intervene militarily. The plan was for Britain and France, having encouraged Israel to attack Egypt, to occupy the Canal under the guise of preventing it from coming under Israeli control. This was the ‘collusion’ agreed upon at a meeting near Paris on 22 October between Israel, Britain and France, which only became known after the event.

Eight days later, on 30 October 1956, Israeli forces attacked Egypt in the Sinai desert, destroying the Egyptian forces there, and reaching to within a few miles of the Suez Canal. With Israel in the toils of war, Churchill confided to Emery Reves during a weekend at Chartwell in mid-November: ‘I wish them well, and how I wish I were young again, to go to help them.’16 But Israel’s advance came to a halt, as previously arranged with Britain and France, when, following a twelve-hour Anglo-French ultimatum to Egypt, insisting that an Anglo-French force ‘move temporarily’ to the Suez Canal, British bombers struck at Egyptian airfields, while British troops set sail on the long journey from Malta towards Port Said, at the Canal’s northern end.

On 3 November, as British forces were still on their way to Egypt, Churchill issued a public statement giving ‘the reasons that lead me to support the Government on the Egyptian issue.’ In spite of all the efforts of Britain, France and the United States, he wrote, ‘the frontiers of Israel have flickered with murder and armed raids.’ Egypt, ‘the principal instigator of these incidents,’ had ‘rejected restraint.’ Israel, ‘under the gravest provocation’ had ‘erupted against Egypt.’ Britain intended ‘to restore peace and order’ to the Middle East, ‘and I am convinced that we shall achieve our aim.’ Churchill was also ‘confident’ he added, ‘that our American friends will come to realise that, not for the first time, we have acted independently for the common good.’17

Churchill’s message was published in the British newspapers on the morning of 5 November at the very moment when British and French paratroops, in advance of the Anglo-French forces still on their way by sea, landed at the northern end of the Suez Canal, capturing Port Said. ‘My dear Winston,’ Eden wrote to Churchill, ‘I cannot thank you enough for your wonderful message. It has had an enormous effect, and I am sure that in the US it will have maybe an even greater influence.’ Eden added: ‘These are tough days – but the alternative was a slow bleeding to death.’

‘Thank you for your kind words,’ Churchill replied. ‘I am so glad it was a help.’18

On the morning of 6 November, the seaborne forces of Britain and France finally reached Port Said, landed, and advanced southward along both banks of the Canal. Later that same day, however, as the culmination of a week of intense American pressure, augmented by the refusal of many of Eden’s own colleagues to support him, Eden agreed to a ceasefire. Pressure from Washington had been decisive.

* * *

Having completed the six volumes of his war memoirs, in 1956 Churchill prepared a single-volume abridgement. In it he decided to refer in the preface to acts by Jewish terrorists that had so scarred the last three years of the Palestine Mandate. ‘I wrote a phrase,’ recalled Anthony Montague Browne, ‘to the effect that these were acts of black ingratitude to their saviours which would always be a blot on the creation of Israel. Emery Reves took exception to this,’ but Churchill ‘insisted that it should go in,’ telling Montague Browne, ‘The Jewish people know well enough that I am their friend.’19

The sentences as published, read: ‘Few of us could blame the Jewish people for their violent views on the subject. A race that has suffered the virtual extermination of its national existence cannot be expected to be entirely reasonable. But the activities of terrorists, who tried to gain their ends by the assassination of British officials and soldiers, were an odious act of ingratitude that left a profound impression.’20

Following the Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula with the collusion of Britain and France, President Eisenhower, and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, denounced the Suez war as aggression, demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops, and threatened sanctions. Emery Reves, with whom Churchill was staying at La Pausa, at the beginning of 1957, wrote to him in protest at the American position: ‘If there has been since 1949 a state of belligerence, as Egypt asserts, then how can the occupation of the Sinai Peninsula in November be called “aggression”? Under the circumstances of belligerency the move of Israeli troops was an offensive, and certainly nations at war have the right to take the offensive and to attack. Under the theory of Israel and Egypt having been belligerents since 1949 the occupation of the Sinai Peninsula is legally the same operation as was the Anglo-American landing in Normandy.’ It was clearly a military offensive, Reves wrote, ‘but not “aggression” in the sense of the UN Charter.’21

From La Pausa, Churchill sent Reves’s note to Harold Macmillan, with a covering letter: ‘This seems to me to contain a point of real substance. It has been written by Reves, who you know is an Israelite. I do not see myself the answer to it on principle, and I hope it will influence your mind. I am astonished at Eisenhower and America’s State Department.’22

Eisenhower’s last message, Macmillan replied, seemed to show that the United States administration had abandoned the idea of voting for sanctions against Israel, and was thinking in terms of a solution that would give Israel ‘reasonable guarantees.’23 The United States was taking up the torch that Britain had set aside; but Eden, recovering in hospital in Boston from a major operation, wrote to Churchill about the support of Democrats and Republicans for this course: ‘I don’t feel that this will for a moment influence Dulles in his pursuit of Arab favours and at the cost of the French, British or Israeli interests.’24

* * *

On 30 November 1957 Churchill was eighty-three years old. Among his Christmas gifts that year were a case of Israeli oranges from Weizmann’s widow Vera, and a Virginia ham from Bernard Baruch. In May 1958 the Technion at Haifa, to which four years earlier Churchill had sent a thirtieth anniversary message, opened a new auditorium. Churchill had agreed that it could be called the Churchill Auditorium. Representing him at the opening ceremony on 29 May was his daughter Sarah. ‘They love you very much’, she wrote, ‘and the auditorium was designed to honour your achievements and exist as a constant reminder of your courage and inspiration.’25

Sarah reported to her father how much the Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wanted to see him. A few months later, when Churchill was again at La Pausa, he saw in the local newspaper that Ben-Gurion was also in the South of France. Churchill invited him to lunch at La Pausa. ‘I deeply appreciate your kind invitation,’ Ben-Gurion replied, ‘which to my regret arrived too late, when I was already on the high seas on my way back to Israel.’ Ben-Gurion added: ‘Like many others in all parts of the globe, I regard you as the greatest Englishman in your country’s history and the greatest statesman of our time, as the man whose courage, wisdom and foresight saved his country and the free world from Nazi servitude.’26

Churchill wrote in reply: ‘I often think of your Country, and I view with admiration the way in which you are undertaking your great tasks. I trust that we shall have another opportunity of meeting before long.’27

At the end of May 1961, while Churchill was in London, he received a request from Ben-Gurion, asking if the two men could meet. He readily agreed, and on 2 June 1961, at his home in London, received the man whom he had just missed in the South of France, and whom Sarah had so enjoyed meeting in Israel. At the meeting, Ben-Gurion was accompanied by his Private Secretary Yitzhak Navon (later President of Israel), and by the Israeli Ambassador to London, Arthur Lourie.

The conversation between Churchill and Ben-Gurion lasted about twenty minutes, Anthony Montague Browne reported to the Foreign Office later that day. Ben-Gurion told Churchill that in his view Iraq would ‘survive’ the overthrow of the monarchy ‘and be strong enough to contain her own Communists.’ He was ‘more doubtful about the survival of Jordan which hung on the life of one brave man, to wit, the King.’ Ben-Gurion also told Churchill ‘that Egypt was slowly preparing for war, that they had twenty and possibly more MIG 19 fighters which were better than anything the Israelis had, and about 200 Russian Army and Air Force instructors.’ He added that he had asked the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, ‘to make available suitable weapons to deal with the air side.’28

Yitzhak Navon later recalled the subsequent conversation: ‘Churchill said that he was always a friend of the Jewish people and Zionism, and Ben-Gurion responded with expressions of admiration for his friendship and his stand during the Second World War as a leader of the free world which was saved, thanks to him. He told of his stay in London during the Blitz and the impressions he gained of the courageous stand of the British people.’ During their talk, Churchill mentioned that he had written an essay on Moses. Ben-Gurion expressed great interest and requested to receive a copy. Churchill gave Ben-Gurion a copy of his book Thoughts and Adventures, in which his essay on Moses had been reprinted in 1932. At the end of their meeting Churchill turned to Ben-Gurion and said: ‘You are a brave leader of a great nation.’29

* * *

In September 1961, two months before Churchill’s eighty-seventh birthday, Anthony Montague Browne asked him if he wanted to send a message to David Ben-Gurion on his seventy-fifth birthday. ‘You have not done so in previous years,’ Montague Browne pointed out.30 The two men had, however, finally met, and Churchill wanted to send a message, which he did: ‘On your 75th birthday I send you my congratulations and good wishes.’31 Ben-Gurion replied to Churchill’s telegram: ‘My dear Sir Winston, I was deeply moved to receive your greeting on the occasion of my birthday, and rejoiced to see that you still remember such trifles. It recalled to my mind the few unforgettable moments I spent with you at the beginning of June, and I cherish as a precious possession your book of essays, which includes that on Moses. I hold you in esteem and affection, not only – not even mainly – because of your unfailing friendship to our people and your profound sympathy with its resurgence in our ancient homeland. Your greatness transcends all national boundaries.’

As to Churchill’s realisation that the march of Soviet Communism would be the great danger in the post-war world, Ben-Gurion recalled Churchill’s desire for the Western Allies to reach Berlin before the Soviet forces, telling Churchill: ‘If your advice had been taken in the last year of the war, the grave crisis over the question of Berlin, which has aroused the apprehensions of the civilised world, would never have arisen, and some of the East European countries would have remained within the bounds of Western Europe.’

Ben-Gurion ended his letter: ‘Your words and your deeds are indelibly engraved in the annals of humanity. Happy the people that has produced such a son.’32

‘I have not failed to give Mr Ben-Gurion’s letter to Sir Winston, to whom it afforded much pleasure,’ Montague Browne informed the Israeli Ambassador, Arthur Lourie.33 Two days later Churchill wrote direct to Ben-Gurion, at his desert home in the Negev: ‘My dear Prime Minister, I am indeed obliged to you for your graceful and charming letter. It gave me great pleasure to read what you said, and I would like to assure you again of my very warm good wishes both for the State of Israel and for you personally.’34

* * *

In April 1962 Churchill made plans to take a cruise with Aristotle Onassis on board his yacht Christina. The cruise was to start from Monte Carlo on 5 April, and visit Libya, Lebanon and Greece. ‘I fear much, however,’ Montague Browne wrote to one of Macmillan’s Private Secretaries, Philip de Zulueta, ‘that Sir Winston will insist on visiting Israel. I had thought that our host, Mr Onassis, would have been debarred from going there because of his oil interests and his relations with the Arab countries, but I find that this is not so. I will do what I can to persuade Sir Winston not to go to Israel, but I cannot guarantee it in view of his long association with Israel and his outspoken feelings as a Zionist.’

Montague Browne added: ‘I will let you know how things develop, and possibly as a last resort the Prime Minister might consider writing to Sir Winston if it is thought that it would be really harmful for Sir Winston to stop in Israel.’35 In the event, the fears of the Foreign Office that Britain’s Arab friends might be offended if Churchill were to visit Israel were not put to the test, as Christina sailed along the coast of Israel during the night. It was almost thirty years since Churchill had last been in Palestine. Aged eighty-seven, he was never to set foot on Israeli soil.

* * *

Churchill died at his London home on 24 January 1965. He was ninety years old. At a special meeting of the Knesset on the following day, he was eulogised by David Ben-Gurion. ‘In his undaunted resistance and struggle against the Nazi kingdom of hell,’ Ben-Gurion told the Israeli parliamentarians, ‘Churchill was the perfect combination of a great man at a great hour. He joined battle and he prevailed. The longed-for decision was not the result of one man’s war or the victory of a single nation. It was not through him alone that the sons of light prevailed against the sons of darkness. Nevertheless, this one man was a symbol and a catalyst, a focal point of hope and a kingpin of forces in the struggle of giants. As far back as the beginning of the century, Sir Winston Churchill supported the cause of Zionism. Thirteen years later he spoke on Mount Scopus of a free and sovereign state, one that would be unconquerable. Churchill belonged to the entire world. His memory will light the way for generations to come in every corner of the globe.’36

Knesset members rose in tribute to the departed leader. A week later, having flown to London, President Zalman Shazar and David Ben-Gurion represented Israel at Churchill’s funeral service in St Paul’s Cathedral. So that they would not have to drive on the Sabbath they were found a hotel near the cathedral, and walked through the sombre, muted streets of London to the service.

In a tribute in the Jewish Chronicle, Harry Sacher, one of the British Zionist drafters of the Balfour Declaration, who had been present in Jerusalem when Churchill planted a tree at the site of the Hebrew University in 1921, wrote: ‘We Jews are under a special obligation to Churchill, the faithful friend of Zionism.’ Sacher went on to explain: ‘For the MacDonalds, Zionism was a fantasy to be indulged when undemanding and to be betrayed when expedient. For Chamberlain it was an exotic irrelevance to be cast away in a diplomatic deal. For Bevin it was an unofficial strike to be crushed by a trade union boss. For Churchill it was the magical revival of a nation which had seen so many empires crumple to dust, which had persisted through so many trials and humiliations, which had renewed its ancient creative vitality and from which mankind might hope no little. It was characteristic that he called upon his countrymen to conceive the establishment of the State of Israel in the perspective of thousands of years. No petty calculation of ephemeral diplomatic loss or gain drew him to Zionism; for him it belonged to the great tide of history.’37

If you find an error or have any questions, please email us at admin@erenow.org. Thank you!