Why Israel's Liberals Should Frame Netanyahu as Churchill
In a time of rising political mythologies, casting Bibi as a flawed wartime leader—not a divine redeemer—may be the smartest narrative shift the liberal camp can make.
In today’s Israel, political power is no longer just a contest over policy—it’s a war over consciousness. Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, every speech, decision, or tragedy has become a battlefield of interpretation. Is he a pragmatic statesman? A cynical populist? Or—on the outer edge of belief—a divinely chosen redeemer?
For Israel’s liberal camp, the growing mystique around Netanyahu—especially within the traditional and religious right—is a critical challenge. Many no longer see him merely as a leader, but as a messianic figure, a vessel of divine will. In this context, attacking Netanyahu’s policies is seen not as criticism—but as heresy.
Which is precisely why it might be time to change the script.
The Churchill Frame: A Secular Myth of Responsibility
Winston Churchill, Britain’s World War II-era prime minister, became a global symbol of courage against evil. But he was never treated as a prophet. Britons admired his bravery and eloquence—but also recognized his flaws: arrogance, impulsiveness, imperialism, even catastrophic military decisions. He was called “the butcher of Gallipoli” long before becoming a national savior.
The genius of the British public wasn't blind adoration, but conditional trust. Churchill was supported when necessary—and cast aside once the war ended. That is the essence of a secular political myth: not divine destiny, but human leadership judged by results.
Bibi: Between Redemption and Accountability
Israel’s political culture, however, is deeply infused with religious and mythological themes. In recent decades—especially under the influence of the religious Zionist camp—the State itself is seen not as a civic structure but as part of a divine process. Within this worldview, Netanyahu is not just a politician—he’s a vessel of providence. His growing depiction as “God’s emissary” is no longer metaphorical. It’s literal.
And in such a framework, criticism is sacrilege. October 7? Blame the military. National disintegration? It’s the Left. Any disaster becomes a test of faith. This isn’t politics—it’s theology.
A Strategic Liberal Reframing
Faced with this rising political theology, Israel’s liberal camp often resorts to mockery or despair. But ridicule cannot break myth. What can? A competing story. Not one of hate or delegitimization—but of complexity, realism, and humanity.
In PR, the first rule of narrative warfare is this: if you're not setting the frame, you’re losing. As long as Netanyahu is framed by the Right as either a redeemer or a victim of persecution, the liberal camp is playing defense.
So instead, why not present Netanyahu as Israel’s Churchill?
Not a saint. Not a savior. A wartime leader facing historic trials—who must also be judged by his performance. Framing Netanyahu this way doesn’t glorify him; it grounds him. It turns divine myth into mortal responsibility. It allows supporters to admire his strengths—while accepting the need to critique his failures.
Churchill failed—and won. He led—and was dismissed. His legacy was real, but conditional. So too should be Netanyahu’s.
The Alternative: Surrender to Messianism
If liberals continue to mock while avoiding the narrative battlefield, they’ll cede ground to the religious mythmakers. And you cannot fact-check a prophecy. You can only counter it with a better story.
The Churchill frame offers just that: a model of tough, flawed, secular leadership. It doesn't deny Bibi’s influence—but it removes the halo. That alone makes it the most honest—and perhaps the most effective—way to speak to those still listening.