History is not only a record of a distant past. It is a mirror that confronts humanity with difficult questions about the present. When examining Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, a chilling picture emerges of cooperation, indifference, and at times even identification with dark forces that sought to destroy an entire people. The comparison between Nazi Germany, fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini, the Vichy regime in France, and current developments is a clear warning sign.
During those years, Nazi Germany did not act alone. It found partners, sometimes out of political interest and sometimes out of deep antisemitism. A central figure in this context was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, who collaborated with the Nazi regime, supported its ideology, and even worked to advance the destruction of Jews. The connection between Nazi ideology and radical political Islam was not incidental. It was rooted in a shared hatred of Jews.
Above all of this stands one figure as a symbol of a dangerous illusion: Neville Chamberlain. In 1938, as part of the infamous Munich Agreement, he believed that Hitler could be appeased and that war could be avoided. That illusion became a symbol of strategic blindness. Instead of stopping the aggressor, the West projected weakness and invited escalation.
This lesson did not remain in the past. It echoes in the present as well. When leaders in the West choose to avoid taking a clear stance against threats to global stability and prefer to see them as someone else’s problem, a troubling sense of repeating history emerges. Statements attributed to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, suggesting that a confrontation with Iran is not Britain’s concern, raise serious questions about whether the West is willing to learn from history.
What connects then and now is not only antisemitism, but also the way it evolves and gains legitimacy. In the past, antisemitism took on a racist and pseudo-scientific form of “racial purity.” Today, it is often wrapped in political, social, or religious discourse. The result remains alarmingly similar: calls for the destruction of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel. When regimes and organizations speak openly about wiping Israel off the map, this is not a metaphor. It is a real threat.
From historical warning to present threat
At the center of this danger stands Iran, a regime built on extreme religious ideology and ambitions of regional hegemony. Like Germany in the 1930s, this represents a combination of a totalitarian worldview and a drive to obtain destructive power. Iran operates through regional proxies and promotes a long-term strategy to destabilize the Middle East and beyond. The threat is not only external. It advances gradually and at times almost imperceptibly.
The connection between radical ideologies within Europe and actors such as Iran is not always direct, but it exists at the level of influence and consciousness. When extreme ideas spread, they create an environment in which it becomes easier to undermine stability, weaken trust in institutions, and empower hostile forces.
Just as many in Europe in the 1940s did not believe that the destruction of Jews on such a massive scale was possible, there are those today who struggle to believe that open threats against Israel and the West could be realized. Yet history has already proven that when declared evil is not stopped in time, it becomes reality.
The conclusion is clear. The West must wake up and distinguish between pluralism and indifference, between tolerance and surrender to ideologies that seek to exploit freedom in order to undermine it.
The world once again faces a test. Will it choose to learn from the past, or repeat the mistake and hope for a different outcome?
Chamberlain believed he was buying time. In reality, he was buying an illusion.
That illusion came at a heavy cost to the world.
This time, everything is visible, everything is documented, and everything is being said openly. Iran declares its intention to destroy Israel, while leaders in France, the United Kingdom, and Spain roll their eyes and claim it is not their war.
Those who choose to close their eyes today will not be able to claim tomorrow that they did not know.
The choice is not between war and peace, but between clarity and illusion, between responsibility and indifference.
The question is no longer what will happen, but who will bear responsibility when it does.
The author is the CEO of Radios 100FM, honorary consul and deputy dean of the consular diplomatic corps, president of the Israel Amateur Radio Club, and a former Army Radio monitor and NBC television correspondent.