"In my new book, I quote a good friend from Israel, Dr. Eddy Cohen, who was born in Lebanon," says Dr. Matthias Küntzel, a researcher of Muslim antisemitism, speaking to me from his home in Hamburg, Germany. "Eddy has about half a million followers on Twitter, from across the Arab world. Once, I asked him to post a question in Arabic: 'What do you think about Adolf Hitler?' Within minutes, the post received hundreds of responses. He translated the first forty for me, and about half of them expressed very positive sentiments: 'Hero,' 'the bravest man in the world,' 'his only mistake was not killing all the Jews,' and other such statements.
"Imagine a Western country, like France, conducting a public opinion poll where masses of people express strong support for Hitler and what he represents. It would be a global scandal; everyone would talk about it. But because it's the Arab world, it passes without criticism. The immense popularity of Hitler in the Arab street is well-known to anyone familiar with the Middle East."
President Herzog revealed in a BBC interview that IDF soldiers found copies of Mein Kampf in homes in Gaza.
"Unfortunately, the popularity of Mein Kampf is not limited to Gaza. Even in a country like Egypt, which has a peace agreement with Israel, many people have read Mein Kampf. To understand how this happened, we need to recognize that after 1945, there was a double division in the world. On one hand, the world was split by the Cold War, into the Soviet and American blocs. On the other hand, the world was divided over the legacy of Nazism: in most parts of humanity, Nazism became the ultimate symbol of evil, and the name Hitler provoked universal condemnation. In the Arab world, however, he remained an admired and beloved figure. But because the Cold War 'dominated the headlines,' no one noticed that significant parts of the Arab world were still infatuated with Hitler."
Nazis against Zionism
Dr. Matthias Küntzel (69) is often regarded as the foremost scholar on contemporary antisemitism in the Muslim world, particularly the influence of Nazi ideology on Muslim antisemitism in the Middle East and the radical currents of political Islam, including the Muslim Brotherhood. His first book on the subject, written in German in 2002, amidst the global shock of the September 11th attacks, is also the only one translated into Hebrew: Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Nazism, Islamism, and the Roots of 9/11 (Toby Press, 2008). Over the years, Küntzel has published additional books focusing on Germany's responsibility for the development of Iran's nuclear project, German policy towards the Muslim world and Israel, and over a hundred articles exploring the Nazi roots of Muslim antisemitism, all of which can be found on his blog.
His latest book, published this year and currently available in German and English, serves as a kind of summation of thirty years of research: Nazis, Islamic Antisemitism, and the Middle East: The Arab War Against Israel in 1948 and the Responses to World War II.
Many in Israel, especially after October 7th, draw parallels between Hamas and the Nazis. However, there are also those who oppose this comparison, arguing that it is historically unfounded.
"The massacre by Hamas on October 7th, which was an act of ecstatic killing, proves to me that quasi-Nazi antisemitism, which seeks to kill Jews wherever they are, is still flourishing in our world. That being said, you're correct that this connection is not self-evident. The central role of Nazi antisemitism in planning and executing the Holocaust is well known, while its influence on the Middle East remains under-researched. My new book aims to fill this gap. I argue that the Arab armies' assault on the young Jewish state in 1948 can be understood in a new light against the backdrop of the methods the Nazi regime used a decade earlier to successfully spread its unique brand of antisemitism throughout the Middle East, through the Arabic language and culture."
To understand this story, Küntzel explains, one must go back to the 1930s. "In the early years after the Nazis came to power, their foreign policy showed little interest in the Middle East. Their prevailing perception was that the region was deeply rooted under the influence of the British, French, and Italians, and they had no interest in becoming involved. When, in the spring of 1933, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, wanted to collaborate with the Nazis against the Jews, they rejected him.
"In 1937, however, a turning point occurred: the Peel Commission in Britain proposed for the first time the plan to partition the land into two states. The commission recommended the establishment of a very small Jewish state in Palestine, on only 17% of the territory, and a very large Arab-Muslim state. The Jews, of course, were not thrilled with this idea, but they accepted it. The Nazis sought to prevent even this tiny Jewish state at all costs. They believed it might become a kind of 'Jewish Vatican' and interfere with Nazi foreign policy. That same year, they launched a campaign throughout the Arab world to bury the nascent Jewish state plan before it could take root.
"It's important to remember that before the Nazis' intervention, there were still various solutions to the conflict. For example, Abdullah I, King of Jordan, favored the two-state solution. There were significant and influential Arab families in Palestine, such as the Nashashibi family, many of whom supported this solution. It may surprise some readers, but quite a few Arabs in Palestine didn't want the 1948 war. A decade earlier, in 1937, there were even more of them. Many Arabs believed that the two-state solution would be the best option for them and for the region in general."
What were the arguments of the Arabs who supported the establishment of a Jewish state?
"This division was primarily around the question of the relationship to modernity: Arabs who sided with modernity generally supported the Jewish presence in Palestine, believing it would help them close the gap with Europe and enjoy a more advanced way of life. The Israeli historian Hillel Cohen wrote an entire book on Arab collaborators with Israel in '48 (Good Arabs, Keter). There were, of course, collaborators who just wanted to get some money from the Jews, but there were also others who did so out of a desire for good neighborliness and a belief that the Jewish presence was good for the region.
"But by that time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who opposed modernity in the name of Islam, had already cooperated with the Nazis and attacked anyone who did not oppose the two-state solution. He even murdered friends and families within the Arab population to scare them away from any positive contact with Jews. The Mufti's actions, which combined an Islamist dimension with Nazi influence, were essentially the beginning of the Arab terrorism that continues in the Land of Israel to this day." In this context, it should be noted that the person who assassinated King Abdullah of Jordan during his visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1951 was a member of the Husseini family. The assassination was carried out due to Abdullah's moderate attitude toward Israel.
Khomeini listened to Radio Berlin
You mentioned that the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian branch is Hamas, is steeped in Nazi antisemitism. Can you explain?
"Well, you only need to read Hamas's 1988 charter, and you'll find exactly the same slogans that the Nazis spread during World War II through their Arabic-language radio broadcasts. This is a crucial point," emphasizes Küntzel, describing a historical perspective that is not well-known. "When the Nazi Arabic-language radio station began broadcasting, radio was a very important medium. Since 80% of the population in Arab countries was illiterate, radio was the best way to influence people. The Nazis produced very good radio programs, and it was attractive. Every broadcast began with a verse from the Quran, there were news broadcasts, interviews with well-known figures in the Arab world, and also popular Arabic music, such as songs by Umm Kulthum.
"Millions of Arabs listened every evening, for six years, to Nazi messages wrapped in a pseudo-religious Muslim guise, using the most advanced technology of the time. There is no doubt that this deeply influenced people; it changed something in their consciousness. In my view, the division is very clear: the Middle East before the Nazis' broadcasts to the Arab world, and the Middle East after them."
You note in your book that even the young Khomeini listened to Nazi radio in Iran.
"Yes. The radio broadcasts were indeed in various dialects of Arabic, but they also had versions in Persian, Turkish, and even Hindi. So Khomeini could listen to it in 1938 when he was 40 years old. Every evening, he gathered friends around him to listen to the Nazi radio broadcasts. Khomeini might not have been a fan of Nazi Germany, but he certainly enjoyed the antisemitic content. I believe he later used what he learned through this radio station."
I think this is where we should mention one of the most important figures in the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology, Sayyid Qutb.
"Definitely. Qutb was a senior activist and important thinker in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. His book Our Struggle with the Jews, published in 1951, was a significant step towards establishing Nazi antisemitism in the Arab world. The title of the book, of course, echoes Hitler's famous Mein Kampf (My Struggle in German). After the Six-Day War, the book, with generous Saudi funding, reached every corner of the Arab world. It is a foundational text in the history of the Brotherhood and certainly behind the murderous ideology of Hamas."
The Saudi shift
After the attacks on the Twin Towers, you wrote that Saudi Arabia was the primary producer of antisemitism in the Sunni Muslim world. Twenty-two years later, are you surprised by its shift towards Israel?
"No doubt, I was surprised. This is a hopeful change. It shows that perhaps antisemitism in the Arab world is not so deeply rooted in the culture that we cannot see a shift in other places soon."
In this context, Küntzel points to an important difference between Egypt and Saudi Arabia: "With Egypt, Israel has a peace agreement with the government, but the Egyptian people are still largely hostile to Jews. In Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, they have begun to introduce changes in the education system, including towards Judaism. This is a very important development. If you ask me, antisemitism in Christian societies is probably more deeply rooted."
In fact, your argument has an optimistic aspect. If we can moderate the Islamist influences among Arabs, peace relations with Israel could be possible.
"I certainly think so. That's why the Abraham Accords make sense."
Yasmine Mohammed, a former Muslim and international speaker, told me in an interview that one of the mistakes liberals and progressives in the West make about Islam is thinking that all the bad things in Muslim civilization happen because of Western influences. On the contrary, one can definitely quote harsh antisemitic messages from the Quran and Hadith about how Muhammad's army slaughtered Jews, who are described as 'sons of apes and pigs,' long before any Western influence. So maybe the Nazis aren't the only ones to blame here.
"Well, that's certainly a tough question. It's true that the Nazis didn't need to invent anything from scratch, but they did manage to refuel the antisemitism that had existed in Islam for ages, in the same way they did in the Christian world. They built an additional layer of extreme demonization of Jews, presenting them as a dangerous force controlling all negative movements in the world. There are also passages in the Quran that are sympathetic to Jews, which the Nazis did not highlight in their propaganda broadcasts to the Arab world."
Western historians and scholars make a distinction between Islam and radical Islam. Do you accept this division?
"Look, in Islamic history, there were also many currents that called for not taking the Quran's words literally and believed that the Quran's interpretation could and should be adapted to changing times. On the other hand, radical Islamists say that we must adapt modern times to the Quran, not the other way around. This is where the difference between the currents lies. However, radical Islam, Islamism, is deeply rooted in global Islam, and many Muslims see it as a legitimate stream within Islam.
"For example, when ISIS carried out their horrific terrorist attacks, a large conference was held at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most important Sunni Muslim institution in the world, addressing the question 'Should we denounce ISIS and excommunicate them from Islam?' In the end, it was decided that they could not be excommunicated from 'Islam' because they still followed the commandments of the Quran and Islamic law. This is the main problem – you can't fight Islamism as long as such crimes can receive broad religious legitimacy in the Muslim world. For us in the West to fight Islamism, we need to forge an alliance with moderate Muslims and hope that change comes from within. I don't think outsiders can bring about significant change in this religion.
"It's important to understand that Islamism is actually the largest global mass movement that has grown and thrived since the fall of communism. When the Iron Curtain fell, they claimed that they are now the new force rising against the West. They are driven by this consciousness, which still gives them great power today."
Do you see sufficient determination in the West to fight these currents of Islam?
"Right now, I'm not satisfied with the situation. People in the West often don't recognize that mainstream Islam often provides support and cover for Islamist activities. The danger with Islamist movements stems from the fact that, first, they have a very clear common agenda – the Quran as a plan of action. Second, they have a lot of money, and they are well-organized. Third, they are spread all over the world. This is an international movement with immense power, which opposes the free market, liberalism, and all the values that the West supports. That's why we must fight them in every possible way. Unfortunately, Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot of influence over young Muslims living in the West, and we in the West must not ignore this. They are gaining strength not only in Europe but also in the United States."
New York as a Jewish center
Küntzel's worldview regarding political Islam and its dangers is surprising when you consider that he was once firmly aligned with the left wing of German politics. During the 1980s, he served as an advisor to the German Green Party in the Bundestag, was a member of the Communist League, and identified with the "anti-German movement," a fringe group on the German left characterized by its anti-fascism, but also pro-Israel stance and opposition to antisemitism.
"When I wrote a book about the Kosovo War in 2000," Küntzel recalls, "I deliberately avoided any discussion of radical Islam or jihad. As a leftist, I wanted to avoid what could be perceived as racism against Muslims."
The 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers also shattered Küntzel's worldview. "They changed everything for me. I wanted to know why the terrorists did it," he describes. Küntzel was further shocked by reports that the attack was actually planned on German soil, in his own city, Hamburg. Mohamed Atta, the 31-year-old Egyptian who hijacked the Boeing aircraft and crashed it into the North Tower of the Twin Towers, had lived in Germany since 1992 and established the "Hamburg cell" of al-Qaeda, which carried out the attacks in New York.
"The weekend after the Twin Towers fell, I already had on my desk at the University of Hamburg library research books on subjects that had previously been distant from me: the roots of Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood, the history of the Middle East, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I immersed myself in this field for a year, and then published my first book on the subject."
Küntzel realized then that many chose to ignore one of the central motifs that motivated the attacks: antisemitism. "During my research, a trial was taking place in Hamburg against one of the aides of the 'Hamburg cell,' Mounir al-Motassadeq. Witnesses in the trial testified that the cell members' mindset was 'like Nazis,' in the sense that the terrorists believed that 'the Jews are responsible for everything bad that happens in the world.' This was the first sign for me that behind the attacks there was a deep antisemitic background that needed to be investigated. What amazes me is that researchers completely ignored this perspective. I am essentially the first scholar to recognize that antisemitism was a primary motivation for the attacks."
Your book on 9/11 begins with a startling anecdote: the first person to conceive of suicide planes crashing into buildings in New York was not Osama bin Laden, but Adolf Hitler.
"This idea was documented in the diaries of Albert Speer, Hitler's personal architect and one of the people closest to him. He describes how Hitler was enthusiastic about the idea of suicide planes crashing into skyscrapers in New York, which the Nazis referred to as the 'world Jewish center.' I thought it was a good opening for the book to show the mindset behind this kind of thinking that originated in Nazism. It's not just about killing another person or winning a battle, but 'cleansing the world of evil.' The Nazis even began building a plane called the 'America bomber' to implement this idea.
"In hindsight, I learned that in the minds of al-Qaeda members, New York was also seen as the 'center of world Jewry.' The terrorists even wanted to target the Jewish neighborhood in New York before deciding to hit the World Trade Center, but this aspect was completely forgotten. Even in the official U.S. report on the motive behind the attacks, Osama bin Laden's worldview was not mentioned. In this context, it's crucial to mention bin Laden's Letter to America, in which he clearly wrote that the Jews are behind every evil in the United States."
This text has recently gained bizarre popularity among progressive youth in the U.S., who praised bin Laden's letter on TikTok as a "spiritual journey" that brought them closer to the Quran.
"It was unbelievable to me because bin Laden explicitly wrote that the problem is not what America does or doesn't do in the Middle East, but the essence of America: the fact that people can vote and choose candidates to manage their political lives. Bin Laden wrote that Americans, along with the entire world, must submit to Sharia law. This is also why Iranian leaders refer to the West as the 'arrogant world' – we are so arrogant that we think we can manage our lives without 'Allah's will.'
"In other al-Qaeda statements, bin Laden clarified that the Muslim nation must punish America for its support of Israel, so the 9/11 attack was also a form of anti-Israelism. The reverse is also true. For them, 'if you destroy Israel, you destroy the West's front post.' We in the West were comfortable ignoring the suicide bombings that happened in Israel, and so we got 9/11 in New York and the terrorist attacks in Western capitals since. Therefore, October 7th should serve as a huge warning for us."
In this regard, your research echoes a message we in Israel have been trying to convey to the West since October 7th: "We are fighting your war."
"That's right. I see the war in Gaza within the framework of the global struggle between Muslim terrorist organizations, supported by Iran, along with the axis of Russia, China, and North Korea, and liberal democracies. That's why it's so important that you win in Gaza."
Ideology over facts
Following Küntzel's conclusions about the dangers of Islam, his friends on the German left expelled him from their ranks. "They reacted to 9/11 in two ways: some were outright gloating over America's downfall, or they saw the attacks as a just response, even if excessive, to what they called 'American imperialism.' In essence, they justified al-Qaeda's actions.
"The left-wing crowd is steeped in ideology, which will always take precedence over facts on the ground. They never bothered to study the foundational texts of al-Qaeda, the Hamas charter, or the thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood, who repeatedly emphasize that they are not interested in fighting against one American administration or another, but against the West as a whole. The left wants to bury all of this, so they had to ostracize me. The left's thinking in this regard is narrow-minded and one-dimensional, almost primitive, I would say. They don't want to acknowledge the facts, even if they are harsh."
Perhaps this is related to the fact that since Marx, the left has placed great importance on economic solutions over religious ideas.
"I think this is not only a mistake of the left but of Western culture as a whole. The last time the West witnessed a war with a clear religious background was the Thirty Years' War between Catholics and Protestants in the first half of the 17th century. Since then, much water has flowed under the bridge. Therefore, we in the West don't know how to deal with wars that have a clear religious background. Even the German government does not take Hamas's religious background seriously, even though the Quran is quoted no less than 32 times in Hamas's charter.
"People in the West find it difficult to grasp that when the Nukhba operatives launched their attack on the morning of October 7th, from their perspective, it was the fulfillment of a deep divine mission. That's why they appeared so proud and enthusiastic in the videos. When your enemy thinks in terms of a religious mission, no kind of peace can be made with him. He must be utterly defeated, and there is no possibility of compromise with him. Understanding this religious dimension is crucial, and denying it is destructive."
Küntzel experienced the academic establishment's suppression firsthand, under the guise of political correctness. In March 2007, he was supposed to give a lecture at the University of Leeds in England, titled "Hitler's Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East." The Muslim Students Association at the university complained about the "provocative" title, and the university caved to their demands, agreeing to remove the words "Hitler" and "Islamic," but it was to no avail: aggressive emails received from Muslim students at the university led to the event's cancellation due to "security concerns." At the time, Küntzel said that "my feeling was that this was a form of censorship," and that "the claims that my lectures contain something intentionally against Islam are ridiculous, as I also talk about Christian antisemitism."
The shadow of the father
What initially led you to study antisemitism?
"I am trained as a political scientist, and I always thought that as a German, it is very natural to want to understand what made Auschwitz possible. My understanding of the central role of antisemitism in Nazi ideology was strengthened when I came across Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's famous book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. It was a turning point for me, a kind of eye-opener." Through research and documentation of a German reserve battalion that participated in the murder of Jews in Eastern Europe, Goldhagen argued that a unique form of antisemitism inherent in the German people enabled the Holocaust. The book caused a stir at the time, extending beyond Holocaust research, and predictably, parts of German society did not like its conclusions.
Around the time he was exposed to Goldhagen's book, Küntzel also mustered the courage to confront his family's history anew: "After my father's death in 1996," he writes in his book, "I was able, for the first time in my life, to read the letters he sent from the Western Front in 1945, the letters of a family… that remained loyal to the Nazi regime until the bitter end."
Küntzel and several other German scholars published a book about the German left's reactions to Goldhagen's thesis. "Surprisingly, we found that the left's rejection of the book was identical to that of the German right, where such a reaction might be more expected. In general, it's fair to say that Germans don't like this book, but for me, it allowed the beginning of a difficult but honest confrontation with our history."
After October 7th, we saw a clear display of support from the public and government in Germany. How would you characterize German public opinion regarding the war now?
"After the attack on October 7th, there were expressions of solidarity with Israel among the German public and pro-Israel statements from German politicians, much more so than in the Scandinavian countries, for example. But unfortunately, as the war progressed, the German public's attention has increasingly focused on the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza."
Küntzel shows me a cover of Die Zeit – Germany's most widely circulated weekly newspaper, associated with centrist political views – featuring a photo of a Palestinian family near a destroyed house. "This is typical coverage," he says. "Our TV channels show around-the-clock suffering in the Gaza Strip. Of course, they won't show pictures of the Israeli refugees from the north. Unfortunately, the coverage of the war in Germany is completely one-sided.
"As for the German government, it acts in a self-contradictory manner: ostensibly, it supports Israel, which is reflected in hesitant statements of support from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, but on the other hand, it does everything to tie Israel's hands in the war, for example, when it joined the U.S. administration's demands that Israel not enter Rafah. They are essentially blackmailing Israel: 'If you dare to do what needs to be done seriously to defeat and eliminate Hamas, we will stop supporting you.' How can the German government make such demands of Israel without showing them how to get rid of Hamas without entering Rafah, Khan Younis, or other areas in the Strip? Israel has no real alternative. The unspoken conclusion from Israel's 'friends' is that Hamas must be accepted as a reality in the day after, rather than defeated. This is a very mistaken position."
Küntzel is critical of Germany's Middle East policy in general. "To me, it was a real scandal when German President Steinmeier traveled to Ankara to strengthen ties with Turkey without mentioning Erdogan's support for Hamas. Erdogan himself emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood movement. When Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood member who managed to become Egypt's president, died during his trial in Egypt, symbolic gestures of solidarity with the 'oppressed' Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were made in Turkey. So, when a country like Germany meets with Erdogan to strengthen ties and economy, it's another victory for Islamism in Europe."
Some in Israel believe we should be more open to the possibility of ties with right-wing parties in Europe, particularly in Germany, given the shared opposition to Islamist movements. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is often mentioned in this context.
"I disagree. Today, the AfD is a genuinely fascist party. In the first two or three years of its existence, there were also standard conservative right-wingers in it, but that's over; the fascist wing has taken over this party. Even Le Pen in France distances herself from the AfD in Germany because there are people there with a clearly fascist ideology. Their immigration policy is extremely radical: they seek to get rid of anyone who is not a 'typical German,' for example, any German citizen of Turkish origin. In the Jewish-Israeli context, it's important to know that they deny the necessity of remembering what happened in Germany during the Nazi period, instead calling for emphasis only on the positive sides of German history. These are two major points of failure in my view."
Deterrence won't work
Küntzel is a member of the advisory board of UANI, "United Against Nuclear Iran," an American organization that enjoys bipartisan support in the U.S. and focuses on research and public relations around the Iranian nuclear threat.
Assuming there won't be a significant Israeli attack with U.S. support in the near future, Israel might have to live alongside a nuclear Iran.
"In my view, this situation is nothing short of terrible. We've already seen a Cold War where both superpowers had nuclear weapons. Ultimately, neither attacked the other because despite the ideological struggle, what the Soviets and Americans had in common was a love of life, allowing for mutual deterrence. However, the slogan of the Islamists is 'You love life, we love death.' So this kind of mutual deterrence simply won't work this time.
"When Iran says seriously and persistently that they want to 'wipe Israel off the map,' we in the West need to take it seriously, not just as a form of verbal bluster or 'anti-Israel rhetoric.' The main lesson from October 7th is that we must take the Islamists' declarations seriously. If we in the West again display laziness in analyzing their ideological goals, another catastrophe could occur in Israel. Therefore, I think you need to use military means to prevent this bomb from being realized."
Do you see an American administration attacking nuclear facilities on Iranian soil together with us?
"I wouldn't rule it out. Don't forget that no nuclear power wants there to be more nuclear powers in the world. Even China and Russia, despite their cooperation with Iran, are not enthusiastic about the possibility of Iran getting the bomb. So we must fight until the last second to prevent this situation. I believe it's still possible."
