Moshe Zimmermann in his apartment in Kiryat Ono, Tel Aviv, this January. Avishag Shaar-Yashuv
Moshe Zimmermann's family history coincides with his academic specialization. He was born in Jerusalem 80 years ago because his parents fled Nazism in 1938 from Hamburg to the British protectorate of Palestine. For 50 years he has written dozens of books and articles on German social history, the history of Jews in Germany, nationalism and anti-Semitism. Professor emeritus of modern history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he directed the Richard Koebner Center for German History and received the Humboldt Prize for international researchers.
Along the way, he has not dropped his rings for delving into cinema or sports, as can be seen in the large library of his home in Kiryat Ono, east of Tel Aviv. Nor for getting down from the academic ivory tower and analyzing the present of his country against the current, to the point of drawing parallels with Nazism. He struck a chord and earned him three defamation complaints that ended without conviction. He believes that the “pogrom” carried out by Hamas on October 7 forces us to “question the whole idea of Zionism” and that comparing it to the Holocaust is a great sign of weakness.
Ask.
On the way, she heard [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu on the radio saying that Israel is fighting neo-Nazis. Why is what has happened since October 7 part of the Holocaust?
Answer.
The absolute and historical enemy of the Jews were the Nazis, so if you want to delegitimize your enemy it is best to compare them with them. It has become an instinct in Israel, mainly among its politicians. It has a part of truth. In one day, more than a thousand Jews were massacred. A pogrom. So one instinctively clings to that comparison. But it is also the source of great weakness. If the worst catastrophe in Jewish history since 1945 occurs in Israel, it must be admitted that something is wrong with the whole idea of Zionism, which was created to save the Jews from a diaspora that lasted 2,000 years. And the question is: what did Zionism do on October 7 to save the Jews?
Q.
But it was a day, not the six million exterminated in the Holocaust, that could not happen today in Israel. How does that challenge the whole idea of Zionism?
A.
I don't want to say that it is the end of the idea of Zionism, but it failed at a crucial moment. If such a defect exists you have to question the whole idea of Zionism. If as a Jew you are discriminated against, you look for a way not to be. This is what happened in Europe since the end of the 18th century. We believed that self-emancipation, in your own State, as a nation, not as a religion, was a solution. Until it is seen that Jewish life is in danger even in a Jewish State that can defend itself. It created a new problem in the Middle East. You have to wonder if it was taken into account beforehand or not.
Q.
And it was had?
R.
If so, was it the right way to move forward, at the expense of the Palestinians? At first the idea was typically European. Europe is the center of the world and its inhabitants can colonize or emigrate anywhere. This is how the United States or South Africa was created. This is how colonialism worked in the 19th century, the Jews were no strangers to that. The idea was not to create an empire, but to save Jews from persecution. From that approach a conflict emerged. Jewish nationalism developed the tendency to consider everything that does not belong to their nation as the other; even more, like the enemy. The Arab population of Palestine also learned from the Europeans to develop a national consciousness. Soon we had two national identities living in the same place and in conflict.
Q.
Those who went to Palestine saved their lives...
A.
The majority believed that Europe would provide them security. It is the main argument in favor of Zionism after 1945. This poses a problem. If [Nazi Marshal] Rommel had occupied Palestine, he would have treated the Jewish population like that of Europe. The counterargument is that if they had already had a state, it would have been different. Take the fate of Poland or Czechoslovakia under Nazi occupation... A State is no guarantee. That those, like my family, who went to Palestine were saved was, in large part, luck.
Q.
This refers to what is happening today: having a State and an army does not guarantee facing all threats.
A.
It is an illusion created by the state of mind that everything that happened to us was because we did not have sovereignty. And a paradox with no way out. Jews who experience anti-Semitism abroad are willing to move to Israel, but it is not a safe haven. In the end, Israel is today the main target of anti-Semitism and Jews outside Israel have not been spared from anti-Semitism. Was it predestined or was it a mistake?
Q.
What do you think?
A.
If from the beginning the tendency had been to create a nation-state in Palestine based on cooperation with the Arabs on equal terms, the basis for a Jewish existence without anti-Semitism could have been laid: there would be no motivation for non-Jews to adhered to anti-Semitic ideas. What we are experiencing today is increasing anti-Semitism due to the existence of Israel.
“My opinion is that taking revenge on Hamas at the expense of Gazans is unjustified and irrational, but not genocide.”
Q.
The counterargument is that anti-Semitism simply takes different forms.
A.
Anti-Semitism is based on stereotypes. But it needs a platform to articulate itself. What would have happened to anti-Semitism if Israel did not exist? I'm not saying Israel is the cause of this, but it gives anti-Semites the opportunity to turn latent anti-Semitism into overt one. And since Israel behaves the way it does, it favors it.
Q.
What is the border between a legitimate criticism of Israel and an anti-Semitic one?
A.
Motivation. If you attribute a Jew's behavior to being Jewish, you are arguing on the basis of anti-Semitism. If you criticize Israel for ruling the West Bank and you would say that about any other nation that occupies territory and subjugates its inhabitants, it is not anti-Semitism. Or if you call for a boycott. It is not anti-Semitic per se. Israeli politicians automatically define all criticism as anti-Semitic, which will have a boomerang effect, because then it can be said that any criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism by definition, even if stereotypes are used.
Q.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism includes comparing policies of Israel and the Nazis, as you have done...
A.
Comparing is something we historians do to understand. I did so with the idea of warning Israeli society that there are elements of Israeli politics or behavior comparable to elements of National Socialism.
Q.
Where are we now regarding these elements and what is happening in Gaza?
A.
Everyone uses the word genocide. The comparison is legitimate, but I hope that The Hague will pay attention to the differences. The genocide planned by the Nazis was based on a plan to wipe out an entire group of people. You cannot prove that this happens in Israel. My opinion is that taking revenge on Hamas at the expense of Gazans is unjustified and irrational, but not genocide.
Q.
You are just now investigating the moment when nations “went crazy,” as happened during Nazism. How does that happen?
A.
Only in retrospect do you discover how deep the chasm crossed was. For many, January 31, 1933 [the day after Hitler was appointed chancellor] was no different from January 29. “We have a new Government every six months, now Hitler…”. Six months later they discovered that another chancellor was not waiting for them.
Sign up here
for the weekly Ideas newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_