Unique Idea Could Bring Peace to the Middle East

Today I have the pleasure of speaking to Peter Nennhaus about his controversial new book, Quo Vadis, Israel?. In Quo Vadis, Israel?, Peter suggests moving Israel to a more suitable land in Europe to ease the territorial conflict that has plagued the Middle East for decades. We´ll explore this idea further and discuss some of Peter´s other work.

Thank you for joining us today, Peter. It´s an honor and a pleasure.

Before we get to the book, please tell us about yourself. Where did you grow up? How did that impact your current point of view?

I grew up in Berlin during Hitler´s time. I was 16 at the end of the war. I have pondered a great deal ever since about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and the successful establishment of the State of Israel and seeing that land progress has almost been a personal matter for me. Thus, my present concern about the lack of peace and the persistent hostilities in the Middle East are a reflection of that personal interest.

When did you come to the United States? In what year did you become a United States citizen?

I spent a year at the University of Washington on a Fulbright scholarship in 1951-2. I returned in 1955 as an immigrant for further training after completing medical school. Six years later I became a US citizen.

Your bio states that your interests include studying the history of the 20th century, the Holocaust, and anti-Semitism. Why are you drawn to these topics?

It is my nature not to complain about the symptoms but rather to find the cause. That pertains particularly to the nightmare of first half of the 20th century. How in the world could all of that happen? It calls for an analysis. The only problem is, that part of history is so complex that one never finds the final answer.

Prior to Quo Vadis, Israel? you had written another book. Can you tell us about it?

I published a book in 2002 under the title Boyhood, the 1930s and World War II. It is a description of my childhood, but there is more to it than that. It describes historical highlights of that time, it gives insights into the feelings and opinions among the German people, it lists some of the major atrocities of that war, and it outlines a history of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Time and again it points to the pitfalls of human reasoning in states of anger and passion.

Let´s talk about your latest book. Quo Vadis, Israel? suggests moving Israel to an alternate location in Europe. Where did you come up with this idea?

I wasn´t looking for it. It came about by pure chance. I heard about a Russian-held territory at the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. It used to be part of the old German province of East Prussia. Stalin annexed it when Germany lost the war. It is an enclave, separated from Russia by 300 miles. I learned about its appalling conditions. It is mismanaged and stricken with all the social, criminal and economical maladies you can think of. The Europeans call it "the Devil´s Kitchen" and view it a major danger from which the tentacles of the Russian Mafia and its corruption might spread elsewhere. For reasons explained in the book, nobody can help them, neither the Kremlin nor the EU and it looks into a sad future. In fact, rumors circulated in Brussels that before long Russia would have to turn it over to the Europeans. A reflective thought flashed through my mind: Imagine how prosperous and sound that land would be today, had in 1948 the State of Israel been created here and not in the turmoil of the Middle East! As unrealistic as that thought was, it returned the next day: Could one bring Israel up there now? Absurd or not, the idea did not let go of me. Finally I decided, since I am retired and had time available, I would do a little research about the feasibility of such a transfer, which would prove I was a fool and would eliminate the thought altogether. Against my expectations, that investigation took seven or eight months and, hard to believe, showed that such a project would be feasible, affordable, and bring immense benefits to the Israelis and everybody else as well. Of course, the cogency and logic of my reasoning notwithstanding, the idea was still so far off the chart that only a few people would even consider it. That´s okay, I told myself, publish it anyway and then leave it up the readers.

Anti-Semitism is an integral part of this book. The first chapter discusses anti-Semitism and says that the Jews made three fundamental mistakes. Could you briefly discuss those mistakes?

There is a misunderstanding about the word "mistakes". That word and the chapter that follows were written (as one of my reviewers correctly said) tongue-in-cheek and in dark humor. Humor, that is, at the expense at the brutality and blindness of history that can smash our best intentions. The three "mistakes" were of course nothing of the kind. The adherence to a religion is perfectly normal and has been done the world over. The institution of universal schooling 1800 years before anybody else did so was, in fact, most admirable. The same is true for the Jews´ refusal to submit to the divine claims of the Roman emperor and rather accept the dispersal from their homeland. No, on the contrary, the attentive reader will easily recognize the grim humor and instead see in it my praise for three events in the history of the Jewish people. Too bad that these three factors combined to create never-ending anti-Semitism, and, in fact, that is what I said at the end of the chapter.

Do you feel there is a way the Jewish people could have avoided those mistakes?

They had no moral reason to avoid them. They might have, for practical reasons, avoided the dispersal into the Diaspora had they started praying to the emperor, but rejecting it is what people do when they are in awe of their own God.

Quo Vadis, Israel? also discusses the numerous peacemaking efforts that have occurred throughout the years. Why do you believe that all peacemaking efforts in the area have failed?

After reviewing that question at length I reached a conclusion I had never before quite realized, namely that all peacemaking attempts between the Arabs and the Israelis had been stalemated from the start. That was not so because of lack of goodwill but because it was principally impossible. The constellation of the pieces on the chessboard in the Middle East will never allow it. The opposing beliefs and necessities are incompatible, no matter how long you try. There is no reproach in my saying this, rather again it is caused by the blind and cynical forces of history.

Do you have any more hope in the most recent peacemaking attempt by the current Administration and Dick Cheney´s visit with West Bank Palestinian leaders?

It is certainly a valiant effort, but was futile from the start. The reason the present Bush administration has waited seven years before making an attempt is that there was and still is no conceivable way to untie that Gordian Knot. The heart-breaking disappointment that this is so was my motive to write the book.

On Page 54, you discuss "The Scenario of Atonement". One of the things you mention is that a business transaction of sorts should have taken place in 1948, whereby the original Palestinian land should have been purchased by Israel. Who would they have paid? The Arab League?

Of course, that scenario was scratching the bottom of the barrel in search of finding a magic bullet to have avoided all the hostility. I introduced it by saying, theoretically, this is as far as we would have had to go in an attempt to find a satisfactory settlement, and like the other scenarios I discarded it as unrealistic as well. Who would fund any such settlement, if there were one? We will, the friends of Israel and I think, oil-rich Arabs would gladly pitch in, if that would get Israel off their back. And, you understand, I feel the only workable and beneficial scenario is exactly the one I describe in the book.

Why would anyone living in Israel support your idea? Wouldn´t it mean them giving up what they feel they rightly deserve?

It would be similar to undergoing surgery after all the medicines in the world have failed, and in this case it would be safe and curative surgery. The Israelis need and deserve a homeland that is as peaceful and as normal as are France or Sweden. In the Middle East, I am convinced peace will never appear. Even worse, there are sound reasons for thinking that the obvious demographic problems inside Israel will put its long-term survival in question. If I am correct, it would be a gut-wrenching decision for them, but one all of us have to make when we need a surgical operation to escape from pain and illness.

You also mention in your book that Israel is surrounded on all sides by neighbors who dislike the state. What about Biblical support that as God´s Chosen People the Jews would always be persecuted? Using this, can we not assume that even moving Israel to an alternate location in Europe would be bound to fail?

Not in the least. A Baltic Israel would be perfectly normal, fourth Baltic republic just south of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Once the Jews are allowed to live in their own home and in a land, which is not claimed as the homeland of others, the disease of anti-Semitism will vanish. Altogether. At long last.

I´ll give you the closing word Peter. Thank you for joining us today and share your ideas with us.

You asked the right questions and I thank you for the opportunity to explain my concept. I certainly hope some of the readers will read the short book and see, if they cannot recognize a promising light at the end of a frightening tunnel. It is available at amazon.com and bn.com or you can visit Outskirts Press.