03.09.25
Editorial Note
In late August, Al-Quds, the Palestinian most widely circulated newspaper, published an article titled, “Two Israeli Researchers: The Accusation of anti-Semitism is a ‘Iron Dome’ Against Critics of the Gaza War.” The article discussed two Israeli researchers, Shimon Stein and Prof. Emeritus Moshe Zimmermann, who had claimed earlier in
Haaretz that “Inflating Antisemitism: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ Against All Gaza War Criticism Endangers Jews.”
Al-Quds noted these two “Israeli researchers warned that the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ has become a kind of ‘verbal iron dome’ used by Israel to deflect any criticism directed at it, especially in the context of the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip. The researchers noted that this verbal dome replaces objective discussion about Israel’s behavior, allowing Israeli politicians and diplomats to avoid re-evaluating their policies or apologizing for them when necessary. The excessive use of the accusation of anti-Semitism not only does not serve Israeli interests but also harms them.” According to Al-Quds, Stein and Zimmermann “pointed out that the increasing use of the accusations of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust harms the struggle against real anti-Semitism and undermines the memory of the Holocaust.”
Al-Quds added that “the researchers mentioned that this tactic is not limited to the Israeli government but also includes the public and the media, where it is frequently used whenever they face criticism. The researchers considered that Israel’s portrayal of itself as a representative of all Jews makes Jews around the world more vulnerable and turns them into hostages of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Al-Quds concluded that Stein and Zimmermann “called for a reconsideration of the use of these accusations, emphasizing that they do not serve Israeli interests but rather harm them.”
Over twenty years, IAM reported on Zimmermann’s anti-Israel bias. For example, in 2014, Zimmermann gave an interview to Deutsche Welle (DW), a German international news broadcaster. Having discussed the wave of Gazans protesting on the border, Zimmermann declared that the Israeli government benefits from the unrest and did not want it to cease. He also called on the German government to be “more critical” of Israeli actions.
In 2023, IAM reported that Zimmermann co-authored a book, Trinity: Germany-Israel-Palestine, that pushed the narrative that “the establishment of the state as an act of emancipation for the Jews took place at the same time as the collective disaster of the Palestinian people.” According to Zimmermann, Israel arose “out of the disaster of the Jewish people, but it sacrificed, in the process of its establishment, the Palestinian people… it is not for nothing that many Palestinians still see themselves as the ‘victims of the victims.’ There is a kernel of truth in this Palestinian encoding of the conflict, and it must not be denied.”
In July 2024, IAM published a post titled “Moshe Zimmermann Empowers Antisemites.” The post looked at his book, Niemals Frieden? Israel am Scheideweg (Never Peace? Israel at the Crossroads), written to impact public opinion in Germany. The German press reviewed, stating that Zimmermann does not want Germany’s Federal Government to unambiguously support the Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not even after the atrocious terror attacks of 7 October; That Zimmermann insists that the German Government must confront Israel’s current leadership in ways that help to bring about the two-state solution; and that Zimmermann discussed how the Israeli policymakers bear some responsibility for what happened in October. According to Zimmermann, in 2023, provocations of “aggressive and escalating settler activism” in the West Bank amounted to “fuel poured onto the fire.” Zimmermann’s core argument was that right-wing parties have been sabotaging peace efforts for decades. Zimmermann called the Israeli cabinet “Kakistocracy.”
The current Haaretz interview – together with Shimon Stein – which attracted the attention of Al- Quds, ups his game. Stein, a Senior Fellow at Tel Aviv University’s INSS and a former deputy director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and ambassador to Germany, has offered Zimmermann additional legitimacy.
In 2019, journalist Eldad Beck published a scathing opinion piece about Stein and Zimmermann, titled “The BDS Advocates among the Israeli Left.” He wrote, “Stein befriended Moshe Zimmermann, an academic whose controversial views have already been the subject of legal proceedings, and together they publish venomous libel columns in German newspapers.” Beck illustrated this point by citing an example of propaganda-style writing in a German article by Stein and Zimmermann. In their piece, the authors asked who has the authority to define Judaism and anti-Semitism, particularly in relation to Israel. Their response was polemical: “The official Israeli position is: We determine what anti-Semitism is and what a Jew is. Jews who oppose the boycott because of the occupation and settlements are no longer Jews.” Beck further noted that Stein and Zimmermann, “wonder whether BDS can be defined as an anti-Semitic movement and, in retrospect, accuse the Israeli government of exercising political censorship in Germany as well.” Beck went on to charge Stein with acting in opposition to the Bundestag resolution that explicitly defined BDS as an antisemitic movement.
Stein and Zimmermann’s current claim—that accusations of antisemitism are exaggerated to encompass critics of Israel—is untenable. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
What Stein and Zimmermann advance, however, is not a legitimate critique of Israeli policy but a distorted narrative that portrays Israel as perpetually guilty and the Palestinians as blameless victims. As IAM has repeatedly documented, this narrative is sustained through a series of ontological and epistemological maneuvers based on postmodern jargon: refusing to acknowledge the Jewish historical right to Palestine as recognized in the UN Partition Plan; avoiding any contextualization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that would highlight the Palestinians’ role in shaping their own misfortunes; ignoring Palestinian violence; and, overlooking the fact that a substantial segment of Palestinian society embraces the Islamist doctrine, supported by Iran in both rhetoric and practice, that Israel must be ultimately eradicated.
Only by suppressing these inconvenient truths can Stein and Zimmermann maintain their constructed version of reality, to which Al-Quds and other anti-Israel media outlets often cite.
REFERENCES:
PALESTINE
Mon 25 Aug 2025 1:41 pm – Jerusalem Time
Two Israeli researchers: The accusation of anti-Semitism is a “Iron Dome” against critics of the Gaza war.
In a joint article, Israeli researchers Shimon Stein and Moshe Zimmerman warned that the accusation of “anti-Semitism” has become a kind of “verbal iron dome” used by Israel to deflect any criticism directed at it, especially in the context of the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.
The researchers noted that this verbal dome replaces objective discussion about Israel’s behavior, allowing Israeli politicians and diplomats to avoid re-evaluating their policies or apologizing for them when necessary.
The excessive use of the accusation of anti-Semitism not only does not serve Israeli interests but also harms them.
These statements come at a time when Israel is facing widespread criticism from the international community for what human rights organizations describe as genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli airstrikes have resulted in the deaths of more than 62,000 Palestinians.
Stein and Zimmerman also pointed out that the increasing use of the accusations of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust harms the struggle against real anti-Semitism and undermines the memory of the Holocaust.
The researchers mentioned that this tactic is not limited to the Israeli government but also includes the public and the media, where it is frequently used whenever they face criticism.
The researchers considered that Israel’s portrayal of itself as a representative of all Jews makes Jews around the world more vulnerable and turns them into hostages of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As the war continues, the Israeli claim that Palestinians started the war loses its strength, as the world recognizes that Israel contributes to prolonging the conflict.
In conclusion, Stein and Zimmerman called for a reconsideration of the use of these accusations, emphasizing that they do not serve Israeli interests but rather harm them.
========================================================
https://www.facebook.com/azerbisias/posts/pfbid033ghSHKwh1SLjHT14bBQLk9C7wCJYT4BNkCBKvxPqPWYr6YuvTJRQH6XaGaufrZzolAntonia Zerbisias
26 August at 03:31
It needed to be said…a long time ago.
<By Shimon Stein & Moshe Zimmermann
Aug 24, 2025
Haaretz
“Antisemitic!” For a long time now, official Israel has employed a verbal “Iron Dome” to ward off any criticism directed at it: the “gevalt” cry that it’s antisemitism. If that is not enough, the toolbox also produces the word “Holocaust,” or references related to it.
This automatic response system replaces substantive discussion of legitimate claims against Israel’s conduct. Thus, Israeli politicians, diplomats and other spokespersons feel they have been freed from ever rethinking policies, from reconsidering the actions taken in their wake, or apologizing for them when necessary.
Official Israel is making increasingly inflationary use of these two diversionary tactics, expressed as ‘antisemitism’ and ‘Holocaust.’ But not only do these tactics fail to weaken criticism of Israeli policies, it harms the struggle against real antisemitism to the point that it squanders the memory of the Holocaust, a memory that was supposed to protect Jews from antisemitism.
The overuse of the charge of antisemitism not only fails to serve Israeli interests but harms them. And it’s not only official Israel that uses this tactic, but also the Israeli public and the media (AND MANY PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE ISRAEL.) Whenever they encounter criticism of Israel’s conduct, or hostility toward Israelis, they turn immediately to accusations of antisemitism and analogies to the Holocaust. The result is, first and foremost, a devaluation of these weighty terms.
In doing so, people ignore – out of ignorance, convenience or laziness – what really defines antisemitism: prejudice against Jews as Jews, leading to their discrimination and persecution as Jews. The Nazi regime was the most extreme form of antisemitism, assessing that Jews were an “eternal enemy” that had to be exterminated.
When Herzl envisioned the Jewish state, he thought precisely of solving this problem: Jews would live in their own state and not among populations whose behavior was influenced by antisemitism and led to discrimination and persecution. (YEAH. BUT ABOUT THOSE PESKY PALESTINIANS WHO HAPPENED TO LIVE THERE, HE DIDN’T MUCH THINK. THEY WEREN’T “ANTISEMITIC” BUT THEY DID COME TO HATE THE RUSSIAN S AND OTHER EUROPEANS WHO WENT ON TO BRUTALLY MASSACRE, ETHNICALLY CLEANSE, AND OCCUPY THEM.)
Against this background, from the moment Israel claims that antisemitism is directed specifically against it, it admits that the Zionist mission for which it was established has not yet been achieved. More than that, Herzl did not foresee that Israel itself would become what is called a “projection-surface” for antisemites.
Since antisemitism is officially condemned today all over most of the world, antisemites employ their prejudices (“Jews are exploiters,” “Jews are child murderers,” “Jews see themselves as a superior race,” etc.) less against Jews in the diaspora, but far more against Israel and Israelis. One could even go so far as to say that Israel’s policies allow the outside world to counter-attack well-founded charges of antisemitism with the admonition that Israel look to its own faults first.
Several recent incidents exemplify how official Israel and the Israeli public cry “antisemitism” in response to any criticism of Israeli behavior, even though anyone who knows what antisemitism really is would not use this claim.
The Australian government cancels the entry visa for far-right MK Simcha Rothman because he spreads messages of hate. The response: “antisemitism.”
France supports the recognition of a Palestinian state: “antisemitism.”
Reminding Israel of the thousands of Palestinian dead and confronting it with the humanitarian disaster in Gaza: also “antisemitism.”
The (disputed) arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague: sheer antisemitism.
The German foreign minister supports a process that will lead to a two-state solution: Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir sees this as proof that Germany has returned to supporting the Nazis (Hamas or the Palestinians being the new Nazis, in his eyes).
Sometimes Israelis use the charge of antisemitism pre-emptively. When the Maccabi Haifa soccer team played a Polish club, its fans displayed a banner saying “Murderers since 1939,” as if Poles, and not Germans, were responsible for the Holocaust. When the European Football Association, UEFA, permits the display of a banner reading “Stop killing children – Stop killing civilians,” referencing the Gaza war, Israeli fans responded by calling for the elimination of UEFA together with Hamas.
No one hurls the accusation of “antisemitism” more than Netanyahu, who blasts it at anyone who disagrees with him. Israelis who oppose him become, for him and his entourage, shills for antisemitism.
But Israel’s conduct toward the Palestinians is triggering reactions all over the world. In Israel, people remember only October 7 and wonder why there is so much international attention on what has happened since. The Israeli claim that “they started it” loses its force the longer the war continues, as the world realizes that Israel contributes to prolonging it.
What we are seeing is an increasing spillover of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into global discourse, leading to sharp reactions against Israel, even in the United States. There, too, President Donald Trump uses the claim of “antisemitism” instrumentally, but to promote his battle against liberal universities.
In this situation, as in others, the critical question is avoided: Where does criticism of Israeli policy actually become antisemitism, and where not? Anyone who deals with antisemitism knows that this element does sometimes exist in negative attitudes toward Israel. Prejudices defined as antisemitism do sometimes play a role in criticism of Israel, and increasingly so whenever there is violent conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Two years of war have allowed antisemitic prejudices to surface to a degree not seen in earlier, shorter rounds of conflict. But this does not strengthen the claim that all criticism of Israel’s conduct is indeed antisemitism.
There is another damaging result of the false cry of “antisemitism”: When Israel presents itself as the exclusive representative of the Jewish people, and its leader crowns himself as the representative of all Jews, it appears to give legitimacy to those responding to its actions to phrase their response with the term “the Jews” instead of “Israelis.” Moreover, it allows antisemites to charge “Israelis” with prejudices from the historical arsenal of antisemitism.
And here lies the height of absurdity: Israel’s conduct, in casting itself as the representative of all Jews, makes the Jews of the world more vulnerable, not more protected. Jews around the world have thus become hostages of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of viral Israel-bashing.
Some Diaspora Jews have not yet understood their captive position, misusing the same cry of “antisemitism” whenever they encounter criticism of Israel’s actions. The same State of Israel that failed to prevent a pogrom of more than a thousand Israelis and the kidnapping of 251 people, most of them Jews, on its own soil, is supposed to be the ultimate sanctuary and refuge for them?
Shimon Stein, who served as Israeli Ambassador to Germany, is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). Moshe Zimmermann is Emeritus Professor of German History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.>
=========================================================================
http://www.dw.com/en/little-optimism-in-middle-east-conflict-israeli-historian-says/a-43815879
05/16/2018Little optimism in Middle East conflict, Israeli historian says
The deadly protests on the Gaza border may have died down, but Moshe Zimmermann doesn’t have much hope for peace. He told DW that Israel’s government benefits from the situation and called on Germany to be more critical.
Deutsche Welle: Around 60 Palestinians were killed and about 2,800 injured in clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli army. What does this latest development mean for the fragile peace process?
Moshe Zimmermann: The peace process has little to do with the number of dead and wounded. It’s about the willingness on both sides to negotiate. It seems in the background, there are efforts at a rapprochement between Israel and Hamas [the militant Palestinian group that runs Gaza]. There is no other way to explain the sudden falloff of the demonstrations, as well as the drop in the Israeli military’s trigger-happiness.
You say there have been efforts at rapprochement. Who is mediating between the parties?
Rapprochement takes mediators, but also the willingness by both conflict parties to approach one another. Hamas has little wiggle room, also due to pressure from its own people in Gaza. And Israel is trying not to escalate the situation in the south of the country. Most likely, the Israeli towns along the border with Gaza will also be putting pressure on the Israeli government. That means both sides have an interest in coming up with a new arrangement.
Fires broke out on the border between Gaza and Israel as part of the recent Palestinian protests
In addition, Arab states are also involved, in particular the Egyptians. Then of course the United States, the Europeans and the Russians are trying to help calm the situation. All in all, there is more interest in pacifying the situation than letting it escalate further.
Does Germany also play a role?
As a member of the European Union, but not so much as an individual state.
Do you think the German government is being too cautious?
Because of the Holocaust, Germany’s line on foreign policy is that it must refrain from criticizing Israeli politics. That’s a mistaken conclusion. Our history teaches us that you should stand up for something. If the current government is not as liberal, democratic and willing to find a peaceful solution, Germany must make an even greater effort to pave the way for peace and openness. If German policy discerns between Israel’s true interests and the interests of the current Israeli government and its policies, it can certainly get away with constructive criticism.
Would anyone listen?
I am an Israeli, and I know that there’s not much we can reach with this government. It is stubborn, one-dimensional and nationalist, and it doesn’t react to international criticism. It only listens to praise and support. All the same, you have to try to take countermeasures.
Have the developments over the past weeks strengthened Hamas?
Not regarding Israel, no. Compared to Israel, from a purely military point of view, Hamas is a dwarf. But if you look at Hamas and the officials in the autonomous Palestinian territories, Hamas has gained strength.
The clashes come at a time when Israel is involved in the Syrian conflict. Doesn’t that make a complex situation even more complex?
The situation is complex because the war in Syria is still undecided and because Iran is establishing itself as part of the constellation of power in Syria. For Israel, the situation is complicated in any case: One real challenge is Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite political party and militant group backed by Iran. Add to that the dispute with Turkey.
But it must be said that this complicated situation is very favorable for the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suspects that attitudes hostile to Israel come from every direction anyway, and now he’s been handed confirmation. The more enemies, the better. That’s something they can live with because the Israeli military is strong enough, and so they shirk — and this is very important to Netanyahu — peace talks with the Palestinians as well as withdrawal from the occupied territories. That is Netanyahu’s goal.
Did the fact that the US moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem play a role in the clashes?
The protests were mainly linked to the commemoration of Israel’s founding 70 years ago, which is also 70 years of the Palestinian catastrophe, called the “Nakba.” That was the reason for the demonstrations and clashes.
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem was an additional aspect. The city is an important symbol in the Muslim world and beyond. Trump is an arsonist, and if he can fan the flames, he will.
Are you optimistic for the future?
No. How can I be optimistic? If you know the Israeli government, the Palestinians and the situation in the region, you have to be pessimistic, at least for the short and medium term. But I am willing to take an optimistic outlook: things will be better in 100 years!
Moshe Zimmermann is an Israeli historian with German roots. In 1937, his parents fled the port city of Hamburg for the British Mandate for Palestine. Zimmermann, who specializes in German social history, was Director of the Richard Koebner Center for German History at Hebrew University in Jerusalem until 2012. He has also taught in Germany.
israel-academia-monitor.com 