Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Anti-Israel Conferences
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Hebrew University
[HUJ, German] Moshe Zimmermann has made frequent forays into the field of Middle East mostly to condemn Israel
Moshe Zimmermann: mszimm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il

Editorial note

Professor Moshe Zimmermann, an expert on the history of Germany, has made frequent forays into the field of Middle East, mostly to condemn Israel.
In his latest comments he holds Israel as responsible for the failure of the peace process.  He fails to note that both Labor and Likud leadership tried to implement the Oslo agreement of 1993 but faced considerable odds. To begin with, Yasser Arafat turned the newly created Palestinian Authority (PA)  into a corrupt, violent and lawless state.  So much so, that even ardent Palestinian nationalists such as Edward Said decried his rule.  More to the point, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran concluded in early 1994 that peace in the Middle East posed an ideological threat to their regime; a decision was made to undermine Arafat and torpedo the Oslo process through suicide bombings by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tehran.  Hamas and the Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Brigade soon followed, killing hundreds of Israeli civilian and triggering security measures that destroyed the Oslo- inspired economic confederation between Israel and the PA.   

Even so, Ehud Barak, with the full support of President Clinton, offered the PA an historical deal in Camp David II in 2000 that included the return of almost all of the West Bank and Gaza [the Jewish settlement blocs were to be compensated by a swap of Israeli land] the division of Jerusalem and a condominium in the Holy Basin. The offer was further improved in the so-called Clinton Parameters of January 2001, but the Palestinian leaders rejected it. Virtually all American negotiators- President Clinton, his Secretary of State Madeline Albright and even then CIA director George Tenet who struck up a friendship with Arafat - blamed the PA chief.   Going beyond personality, the right to return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper - a huge surprise to the Israelis and Americans- had a big role in derailing the accord. 

 Indeed, since the collapse of the Oslo peace, the demand for the return of the refugees has only intensified among the Palestinians.  Although Israeli leaders including Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu seem to have accepted land swaps envisaged by the Parameters, Mahmoud Abbas, already hampered by the Hamas rule in Gaza,  would have to cope with the right to return which is very popular in their own camp.  Zimmermann apparently understands this, stating that "if it was up to him, anybody who wanted to return could come back."  Still, he  tries to reassure the Israelis that "most" of the Palestinians would not want to return to Israel. He never specifies how much is "most" and what would happen if his calculations were wrong. 

In an interview to a German newspaper Zimmermann suggests that the United Nations should accept the Palestinian bid to nationhood. He chastises the European leaders and President Obama for not lining up behind the PA and/or catering to the right-wing government of Prime Minister Netanyahu.  In his customary "visionary" ending,  Zimmerman proclaims that change will be possible only when "the entire region starts pursuing policies that are less religious and less fundamentalist;" that is "as long as we [Israel] remain hostages of the settlers and the occupation and collaborate with the hostage-takers, nothing will change." Again, any reference to Islamist fundamentalism is missing.  

Of course, like any other citizen, Professor Zimmerman has the right to express his opinion.  But using his academic credentials to  to turn himself into a Middle East expert is another thing.  As a student of German history, Zimmerman should know that Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of the modern German university movement, urged professors to limit pronouncements to the area of their expertise.  It is not to late for him  to adopt  this useful piece of advise!

Moshe Zimmermann (photo: dpa)

23.09.2011Interview with the Israeli Historian Moshe Zimmermann''One Has to Be in Favour of the UN Resolution''

According to Moshe Zimmermann, the Israeli government is opposed to anything that could lead to the foundation of a Palestinian state. Susanne Knaul spoke to the historian

Mr Zimmermann, you are one of the left-wing voices in Israel that are raised in warning; you are opposed to occupation. Is the conservative government now getting what it deserves for not having listened to people like you?

Moshe Zimmermann: If you look at it objectively, that is indeed the case; but the government certainly doesn't look at it like that. The objective and neutral observer will say that because Israel did not enter into talks with the Palestinians in recent years, public opinion among the Palestinians, in the Arab world and even in Turkey has come to the conclusion that the time has come to take a stance against Israel.

If Israel had made some constructive proposals to the Palestinians in recent years and stopped its settlement policy, it would have been much easier for the Egyptians, the Syrians, and the Libyans, who were involved in the Arab Spring, to understand Israel. The government in Jerusalem sees things very differently, as do its supporters. They consider what is happening now to be a confirmation of their conviction that the entire world is and always has been against Israel.

The Palestinians intend to put their application to the UN. Should Israel have reacted differently and perhaps even agreed to the foundation of a state as the Palestinians are demanding? After all, they want a two-state solution, so what's the problem?

Zimmermann: If one wants to represent the true interests of Israel, one has to be in favour of a UN resolution like this. Ultimately, the UN resolution in 1947 was for the foundation of two states side by side. So if one state, i.e. Israel, is legitimate then the other state is automatically legitimate too. That means that Israel should have actually taken action to ensure that such a resolution is accepted. However, the fact of the matter is that Netanyahu and consorts automatically oppose everything that will ultimately lead to the foundation of the Palestinian state.

But officially Netanyahu supports the two-state solution. That being the case, should he not be able to make some capital out of the Palestinian initiative?

Zimmermann: When Netanyahu speaks about two states, he is only paying lip service to the idea. When Netanyahu demands peace negotiations without preconditions, what he means is that he expects the other side to accept his preconditions, namely the continuation of the settlement policy. That is his objective and that is not in line with the foundation of a Palestinian state.

This is why attempts are being made to exert pressure on those states that are known here in Israel as the "moral majority" – the Europeans, the US etc., which are supposedly more important than the actual majority of around 130 states that are in favour of recognising Palestine. In this respect, I have to say, the Israeli policy is successful. Instead of reading the riot act to Foreign Minister Liebermann and Prime Minister Netanyahu, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle are trying to placate the government in Jerusalem. All you can do is shake your head.

So in your opinion, the West should have exerted much more pressure?

Zimmermann: It's not about pressure, it's about conviction. The Western powers should have convinced the Israelis that a decision at the UN in favour of the foundation of a Palestinian state would be advantageous for Israel. Instead, they are automatically adopting a stance that is opposed to the Palestinian state just because the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu insists that they do and because he protests against the "unilateral step".

In your opinion, what is the worst that could happen next?

Zimmermann: The worst case scenario would be that the UN General Assembly would in fact support the PLO's application in its current or a different form, the Palestinians would then launch major demonstrations, Israel would overreact to these demonstrations, and the settlers would make sure that the disputes get totally out of hand.

If it ends in violence, other countries will hold Israel responsible. How much Western anger can the country stand?

Zimmermann: Israel's reaction will be two-pronged. It will say: that is not our fault; the Palestinians are responsible for that. Consequently, they will expect America and Europe to exert pressure on the Palestinians. If that doesn't happen and if Israel is instead put under pressure, they will start singing the same old song again, namely that "the whole world is anti-Semitic". The whole world, mind you, not just the Palestinians, the Turks and the Egyptians, but the Germans and the Americans etc. as well.

The sad thing is that US President Barack Obama doesn't have an opposition in America capable of correcting him. The Republican opposition in the US is largely fundamental and supports Netanyahu. He is aware of this, a fact that allows him to continue pursuing his unbending policy. Obama is too weak, and the Republicans and the Evangelists are strong enough.

Is there anything that can be done, or are we condemned to simply watch from the sidelines and do nothing?

Zimmermann: It is now much more difficult to make up for missed opportunities, and the current government is not even going to try. It is only when people come to understand that their personal welfare is directly linked to Israel's Palestinian policy – an opportunity that has once again been missed in the social movement in Israel – only then will there be pressure from below; then change will be possible.

It is only when we and the entire region start pursuing policies that are less religious and less fundamentalist that change will be possible. As long as we remain hostages of the settlers and the occupation and collaborate with the hostage-takers, nothing will change.

Interview: Susanne Knaul

© Die Tageszeitung/Qantara.de 2011

Moshe Zimmermann is professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His book "Die Angst vor dem Frieden. Das israelische Dilemma (The Fear of Peace: The Israeli Dilemma) was published in German by Aufbau-Verlag in 2010. His focus of research are the social history of the 18th and 20th century of Germany as well as of the German Jews and Anti-Semitism.

Translated from the German by Aingeal Flanagan

Editor: Lewis Gropp/Qantara.de  

Back to "Hebrew University"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 256596645Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version