Genghis Khan and Christ: Netanyahu’s Distortion of Will Durant’s History

  

In a televised speech, Benjamin Netanyahu evoked a passage from Will and Ariel Durant’s seminal historical work, The Lessons of History, sparking significant controversy regarding the “superiority of Genghis Khan over Christ.” Netanyahu stated: “It is not enough to be moral, it is not enough to be just... history proves, unfortunately, that Christ has no superiority over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong, ruthless, and powerful enough, evil will overcome good, and aggression will defeat moderation.”

Upon a careful reading of this profound philosophical work, it becomes evident that Netanyahu has distorted the authors’ ideas to serve a narrative centered on the use of excessive, brute force and to justify annihilation. By suggesting that evil triumphs over good and that Christ’s humanitarian values have no place in history, Netanyahu posits ideas that fundamentally contradict the book’s core arguments and final conclusions.

What Lies Within The Lessons of History?

At the outset of his analytical study, Durant poses a fundamental question: Have you found in history merely “a discouraging chamber of horrors”... or have you derived from it any “illumination of our present condition”? He adds that the essence of these inquiries lies in determining the true nature of “victory.” While history echoes with the names of conquerors who forged vast empires through “iron and fire,” the question remains: Do these figures represent “victory” in its existential sense, or are they merely biological accidents in the context of power struggles?

Durant begins with the premise that “history is a fragment of biology.” In this vast laboratory, states are subject to the same laws of “natural selection” and the struggle for existence. From this context arises his famous observation: “Nature and history do not agree with our conceptions of good and bad; they define good as that which survives, and bad as that which goes under; and the universe has no prejudice in favor of Christ as against Genghis Khan.”

In this characterization, the book provides a “realist” monitoring of the mechanics of material history. Material power—encompassing armies, economics, and technology—is the final arbiter in “momentary” conflicts. States that ignore the logic of power and rely solely on moral idealism often vanish under the feet of rising powers that are more “adaptable” and ruthless.

However, in discussing the impact of Christ, Durant points out that the moral development introduced by Jesus became a tool for dismantling old theologies. He notes: “Just as the moral development of the Hellenes had weakened their belief in the quarrelsome and adulterous deities of Olympus... so the development of the Christian ethic slowly eroded Christian theology. Christ destroyed Jehovah” (meaning that the moral image of Christ deconstructed the image of the ancient, vengeful deity).

Material Victory vs. Lasting Meaning

In the final chapter, “Is Progress Real?”, Durant categorizes the influence of Christ as part of “civilizational immortality.” He argues that “material victory” is a quantitative and spatial conquest. Genghis Khan, Alexander, and Napoleon achieved staggering material victories, yet these are “time-bound” triumphs. Durant posits that material power carries the seeds of its own destruction within the very logic of concentration. Economic and political history is a periodic pulse between “contraction,” which mobilizes wealth and power in a few hands, and a forced “expansion” that deconstructs this concentration when it exceeds the limits of administrative capacity or social endurance. Thus, decay becomes an inevitable tax on the imbalance between efficiency and justice.

Within the book's broader philosophy, Durant notes that material history is a “tiring repetition of past mistakes on a larger stage.” States that achieve only material victories leave behind “ruins and graves,” but do not necessarily leave behind a lasting “meaning.” This type of victory can be described as “baroque”; it breaks rules and patterns for a time but does not change the essence of human nature, which remains competitive and greedy.

The Permanent Victory

Toward the conclusion, Durant transitions from the “realist historian” to the “humanist philosopher,” proposing the concept of a “permanent victory” that transcends military might. He concludes that “a great civilization does not entirely die” (non omnis moritur); rather, it remains alive as a “connective tissue” of human history. Citing the classic model of the transmission of Greek civilization to Rome, he asserts that “permanent victory” is not military but a “cumulative process” built on ideas, values, and aesthetics. True progress is not measured by material or technological power, but by the “increasing abundance, preservation, transmission, and use of this heritage.”

Durant concludes his vision with an optimistic outlook that transcends historical materialism. For him, history is not merely a “record of crimes and follies”; through consciousness, it transforms into a “celestial city” and a “spacious country of the mind.” In this city, saints, creators, and philosophers remain alive through their impact, while the “generals” who left nothing but transient dominance fade away.

The ultimate lesson Durant offers is that lasting victory resides in the civilizational “trace.” A true civilization gathers the fragments of human heritage to bequeath them to future generations as a lighthouse, protecting humanity from “sliding back into savagery.”