The image was striking in its rarity: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, draped in a blue and white prayer shawl, standing at the Western Wall in one of his few public displays of religious observance during his long political career, but the second since the start of the war with Iran.
For a leader who has spent decades as a largely secular figure, this moment of visible piety carried unmistakable political symbolism. Like Napoleon crowning himself emperor with papal blessing in spite of his lack of any personal religious belief, Netanyahu seemingly understands that existential wars require not just strategic vision but sacred narrative.
This scene crystallizes a broader parallel that Netanyahu has long cultivated – his comparison to Winston Churchill.
Both leaders built their political careers around identifying what they saw as existential, almost cosmic threats to their nations: Churchill against Nazi Germany, Netanyahu against Iran. Both endured political wilderness before being vindicated by events that tragically proved their warnings prescient. And both understood, despite personal skepticism about faith, how to introduce religious and moral rhetoric in service of secular strategic goals.
The most striking parallel lies in their roles as prophetic voices crying out against gathering storms. Churchill spent the 1930s warning about Hitler’s ambitions while political elites pursued appeasement. Similarly, Netanyahu has spent decades warning about Iranian nuclear ambitions and regional hegemony while international leaders pursued diplomatic engagement. Both were dismissed as warmongers, alarmists, and politically motivated fear-mongers. Both were ultimately proven right.
THE CIVILIZATIONAL dimension of their rhetoric deserves attention. Churchill framed World War II not merely as a territorial dispute but as a battle between “Christian civilization” and Nazi barbarism, between democracy and tyranny, between light and darkness.
Netanyahu similarly frames the conflict with Iran and its proxies in civilizational terms – the “forces of civilization” against the “forces of barbarism,” the democratic West against Islamist extremism. Both leaders understood that existential conflicts require grand moral frameworks that transcend mere geopolitics.
Yet neither man was particularly devout personally. Churchill was essentially secular, supporting the Church of England more as a cultural institution than with spiritual conviction. Netanyahu, raised in a secular Zionist household, maintains only nominal lip service to religious observance, making his Western Wall appearance seemingly more theatrical.
Still, like Napoleon, who sharply observed that religion is the mystery of the social order, both understood religion’s political power. Churchill invoked divine providence and Christian heritage to rally Britain, and Netanyahu has deployed Jewish historical memory to frame Israel’s struggle, speaking of ancient Jewish return to their homeland and invoking themes of survival against enemies who would destroy the Jewish people entirely, and now introducing personal religious acts of his own.
The most remarkable parallel lies in their attempts to transform catastrophic defeats into sources of national purpose. Churchill’s rhetorical mastery after Dunkirk, spinning a humiliating evacuation into a tale of heroic deliverance, became a masterclass in political leadership during crisis, and perhaps his most famous wartime speech. Crucially, this occurred just three weeks into his premiership, allowing him to define his leadership from the outset. His “fight them on the beaches” speech transformed military disaster into moral triumph, giving Britain the psychological foundation for its finest hour.
Netanyahu is attempting a similar transformation with October 7, though the context differs significantly. After nearly fourteen years of almost continuous power, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust represented not just external attack but catastrophic failure of his government’s core promise of security. His precision and success with regards to Iran contrasts with completely missing the threat from Hamas and the failure to act. His effort to recast this as Israel’s “never again” moment – leading to a regional war that has fundamentally altered Middle Eastern power dynamics – faces great skepticism.
Religious motifs used by both leaders
THE INTRODUCTION of religious motifs like his new prayer shawl, as well as longtime political ally Arye Deri’s description of Netanyahu’s spiritual awakening following the October 7 attacks, will be met in some parts with some incredulity, but weaves into a wave of increased expression of Jewish identity since the attacks. The strategic logic mirrors Churchill’s approach, yet the harsh reality complicates the narrative.
Both leaders also navigate complex relationships with democratic accountability during wartime. Churchill’s wartime coalition government enjoyed broad support, and yet voters immediately ejected him in 1945, choosing social reconstruction over continued martial leadership. Netanyahu faces similar tensions, extraordinary wartime powers without the benefit of unified domestic support, and growing questions about post-war political survival and accountability for pre-war failures that occurred on his watch.
Churchill’s transformation of defeat into victory was complete and historically validated. His warnings proved prophetic, his wartime leadership was genuinely transformational, and even his electoral defeat couldn’t diminish his historical vindication. Netanyahu’s parallel transformation remains incomplete, its sustainability uncertain, and its ultimate judgment still being written. The first test will be the Israeli public, and later history will pass its verdict.
Churchill’s reputation survived his electoral defeat and eventual return to power, and his legacy rests on having led Britain, and in many ways the world, through an existential moment having been summoned by destiny. Whether Netanyahu will be remembered as a similarly far-sighted leader depends on outcomes we cannot yet see, and on questions of timing, context, and democratic accountability that make the Churchill parallel both compelling and, ultimately insufficient.
What we can observe is how both men understood that in politics, being right isn’t enough – you must also be right at the right moment, with the right crisis, and the right democratic mandate to vindicate your warnings. History may judge Netanyahu’s Iran fixation to be as prophetic as Churchill’s Hitler obsession, but that verdict awaits future historians who will know whether the comparison truly holds.
The writer is founding partner of Goldrock Capital and founder of The Institute for Jewish and Zionist Research. He chairs a number of NGOs including Leshem, ICAR and ReHome and is a former chair of Gesher and World Bnei Akiva.