Mercaz Irgunim

The Centre of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Israel (COHSI) was founded in 1988 as an umbrella-association that embraces 28 organizations of Holocaust survivors who live in Israel. COHSI is a member organization of two world wide organizations that represent the material interests of Holocaust survivors and of former Jewish residents of Eastern Europe: one is the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany (the Claims Conference), the other is the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO).

COHSI, as the representative body of all Holocaust survivors in Israel, considers it its duty to take up

these people's cause in order to help make the last years of their lives more endurable.

The areas in which COHSI operates for the benefit of Holocaust survivors are the following:

For more information please contact our offices during work hours:

Phone 972-2-6231737 Fax 972-2-6222743 email:info@survivors-holocaust.org

Address: 4 Emile Botta St. P.O.Box 7218 Jerusalem, Israel

The following articles were published in our newsletters:

Claims Conference Is Sitting Please Do Not Disturb/Zvi Gill

Claims Conference On jewish Material Claims Against Germany - 1998 Annual Report

Theft Of Private Jewish Owned Property In Poland/Arye Adelist (Adv.)

The Holocaust Of The Jews, Compensation To The Palestinians, And The Ethnic Problem/Raul

The office of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors is located in an exciting and splendidly

beautiful site in the heart of Jerusalem. Nearby are the Old City walls, the Jaffa Gate, Hutzot Hayotzer, the

Shiloah Pool, Mount Zion, the Sultan's Pool, Mishkenot Sha'ananim, St. Andrew's Church, the YMCA

tower, and other attractive sites. The distant horizon is no less beautiful: Anatot, Mishor Adumim, Ramat

Rachel, Bethlehem, and the Judean Desert.

There can be no more poetic justice than the fact that the authorized representatives of the survivors of the

Holocaust, the brands that were snatched from the fire, is located in the heart of the legacy of their fathers,

on the very edge of western Jerusalem, on the seam of reunited Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

No less symbolic is the fact the office of the Center of Organizations is a tenant in the building of the

American Zionist Congress. It would be even more symbolic if the Center of Organizations was located in

some trailer in a corner of the grounds of the Claims Conference of the Jewish Organizations. This is a

Jewish institution, rich in financial resources, in New York, whose achievements over close to fifty years of

activity are undeniable. The 1998 report, in an impressive blue and gold cover, only reinforces this

However, this institution, which was founded in the name of Holocaust survivors and on their behalf, was

without any real influence from the survivors themselves in the past, and even today, their influence is very

This body, whose full name is the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, was

established in 1951. It is the creation of Dr. Nachum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress,

who wanted to negotiate with the government of West Germany for payment of compensation to the

victims of the Nazis, negotiations which also included discussions of payments to the State of Israel to ease

the absorption and settlement of survivors.

Here is a list of some of the 22 organizations that Dr. Goldmann brought under the same roof almost fifty

years ago, with the composition remaining almost frozen, like an antique photograph: Agudath Yisrael

World Organization (whose status in another Jewish institution, the Remembrance Fund, we will address

separately), the Jewish Agency, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, the World Jewish

Congress, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the British Federation of

Jewish Communities, the U.S. Council of Synagogues, Alliance Israelite Universelle, and other Jewish

All these groups were gathered together haphazardly in order give the organization a global aspect. There

was not even a single organization of Holocaust survivors among them. No one asked why Agudath

Yisrael and not Hamizrahi, or why the Va'ad Hapoel in Eretz Yisrael was not included, but the American

Jewish Labor Committee was. If the Organization of American Jewish Veterans was included, then why

not the soldiers of the Eretz Yisrael Brigade? And no one asked the obvious question: Why not Holocaust

survivors themselves, for whom and in whose name this organization was founded?

The answer to this question, on the historical level, is apparently simple. Immediately after the war, in

1945, Jews in Eretz Yisrael represented about three percent of all the Jews in the world, and in 1948, they

reached six percent. Thus, when Dr. Goldmann began negotiations with the West German government,

Israel was not included in the Jewish forum. The Jewish Agency was included, because it was considered

an international Jewish organization, half of whose members were Americans. But Holocaust survivors,

A rumor circulated that Goldmann refused a request by Anshel Reiss, chairman of the Jewish Federation

of Polish Jewry, and the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, Rabbi Yedidya Frankel, to bring in an Israeli survivors'

organization. None of these men is alive today, so I was unable to verify this rumor, which reached me

through a very reliable source. It should be noted that from the very beginning, the entire subject of

compensation was raised with regard to German Jews, and this, too, indirectly. The compensation was, in

fact, intended for Germans in West Germany who had been victims of the Nazis. At a later stage, Germans

who were born and had lived in Eastern Europe (the Volksdeutsche) were included. The latter, who were

deported from Eastern Europe after the war, came to Germany and demanded compensation as refugees.

They demanded, and they received. The moment that Bonn granted compensation to Germans, it could

not discriminate between non-Jews and Jews, and Goldmann jumped on the wagon. This international

Jewish diplomat knew well how to adress the Germans. The Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, was

aware of this, and there was here, without a doubt, a meeting of interests. At the same time, the German

Chancellor, Dr. Konrad Adenauer - although he did have direct and intensive contacts with Ben-Gurion at

a slightly later stage and thereby entered upon the great challenge of creating relations between Germany

and the Jewish State - preferred that the practical negotiations on compensation be handled through a

Jewish organization, in order to gain legitimacy for Germany with the entire Jewish people. Adenauer also

knew the power of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. There was also an Israeli background to this. The Israeli

public, including large parts of the survivor population, was divided on the subject of (personal)

compensation, and mainly on the question of payments (to the State of Israel) from Germany.

The leader of the opposition, Menachem Begin, who headed the campaign against an agreement with the

Germans, said in a fiery speech at Zion Square in Jerusalem that "there are things in life that are more awful

than death itself, and this is one of these things for which we will give our lives, over which we would be

prepared to die..." His followers stormed the Knesset building, throwing stones at it, and attacked the

police with sticks and light weapons. The army was called in to restore order.

While Begin and his Herut movement was calling the government to moral account, Mapam leader

Yaakov Hazan was calling it to political account, cloaked in morality, in everything connected to the

agreements with West Germany. While Mapam viewed Communist East Germany as above reproach,

West Germany was a pariah because of its Nazi past. In a speech to the Knesset, Ya'akov Hazan said,

"Today the government is proposing that we relinquish our spiritual independence - that we sell our souls

(the payments - Z.G.) after we have already sold our bodies (the political agreement)." Even the General

Zionists, whose Knesset lobby numbered 23 MKs and who were not counted among the extremists,

claimed that the payments would destroy morals, as well as the spiritual unity of the people.

In the Knesset vote, 61 supported the agreement and 50 opposed it. In this matter, the Knesset vote undoubtedly

reflected the situation in the general population, and the controversy crossed party lines. The leaders and

spokesmen of the partisans and anti-Nazi fighters did not want any contact whatsoever with the German

government. Under these circumstances, it was comfortable for the government of Israel, headed by Ben

Gurion, to accept the representation of the Claims Conference (that is, of Nahum Goldmann) to manage

negotiations with the Germans in their name. It was as though Goldmann and the committee were the

"shabbos goys" who did the unpleasant work by "submerging in the ritual bath while grasping an unclean

Even the occasion of the signing of the agreement, which certainly was conducted according to dry

diplomatic protocol, teaches us about accepting something while the hand is extended backwards. On

September 10, 1952, the agreement was signed in Luxembourg. Signing on behalf of Germany was

Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, and for the government of Israel, not the prime minister, but the Minister of

Foreign Affairs, Moshe Sharett. Goldmann and Adenauer signed the two protocols between the

government of Germany and the Claims Conference of Jewish Organizations, and our ambassador in

Washington, Abba Eban, signed the agreement with the Jewish organizations on Israel's part in the claims.

When all was said and done, Holocaust survivors in Israel were also eligible for personal compensation. If

problems were created in carrying out "shipments" of the payment "merchandise" from Germany to Israel,

the troubleshooter would not be Israel's representative in Bonn, Dr. Eliezer Shinar, but Dr. Goldmann,

who embodied and represented the Claims Conference he had created with his own hands. This political

background has another aspect, not necessarily political. The agreements determined that the State of

Israel would receive close to DM 3.5 billion, about 845 million dollars, over 12 years, from which Israel

was to transfer 110 million dollars to the Claims Conference.

The State of Israel, as absurd as it sounds, was worried that the sum given to the organizations as personal

compensation would be at the expense of the collective compensation. A portion of the payments was

transferred to Britain for shipments of raw petroleum to Israel, and part of it in massive German aid to

Israel's poor and shaky economy. And, by the way, this money was used for the absorption of many

immigrants who were not Holocaust survivors, and for other purposes, according to the judgement of the

survivors and with their consent. This is a subject that is worthy of individual attention.

What actually happened over the years was that the government of Israel received what had been

promised as assistance according to the agreement, whereas the total of personal compensation came to

50 million dollars, all this through the good services of the Claims Conference.

There is an American saying, "Nothing succeeds like success." This is an indisputable accomplishment.

The Claims Conference so thoroughly created a base for itself with Germany, that in the agreement with

Luxembourg (on claims from Germany), it was determined that the Claims Conference would follow the

legislation of the payments and compensation from Germany. The Claims Conference received authority

from Germany that is still in force. But beyond this, authority for implementation of all subjects related to

compensation after the law expired in the mid-1980s. By law, the Claims Conference became the heir of

Jewish property without heirs. By virtue of this, and by inertia, it became the sole controller of all the

money that comes to the Jewish people from claims related to person and property.

But in order to realize the agreement as quickly as possible, Dr. Goldmann and his people made several

fateful mistakes. During the legislation, distortions were created that the Claims Conference either did not

catch or ignored, distortions that cannot be accepted over time.

Raul Teitelbaum, a journalist and historical commentator on the subject, cites three basic distortions: 1)

The territorial distortion: Eastern Europe of the time was excluded from the agreement. 2) The principle of

belonging to "the circle of German culture": Anyone who received compensation had to prove that he, in

some way or other, belonged to this circle, or at least spoke German. 3) While the Germans recognize

compensation for material, physical, and mental damages, there is no compensation for the taking of life.

The Germans thereby received a reward that completed the work of destruction.

In the heat of the desire to receive compensation quickly, and under the conditions of the time - when the

German economy was weak and Germany was afraid that any agreement with the Jewish state would

bring about an Arab boycott on German goods - Goldmann was willing to make very extreme

compromises, even on the level of compensation. The Germans made two conditions at the very last

minute before signing the agreement: The first was that the Templars be compensated for the property in

Israel that was taken from them, and the second was that Israel would, from the money it received (in the

amount of one billion dollars), grant pensions to those who were left disabled by the Nazi persecution (the

Holocaust disabled). In the final analysis, the agreement created great injustice precisely to those who

suffered the most, the Jews of Eastern Europe. But this, too, is history and is counted as "wisdom after the

fact." The survivors were not asked, and if they were asked, it is doubtful if they could have or wanted to

When in 1986 the West German opposition - the SPD and the Green Party - published a document

entitled "Recognition of All Casualties of the Nazis and Their Compensation," Noach Flug, today

Secretary-General of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors, was economic advisor to the

Israeli embassy in Bonn. At a meeting at the home of the ambassador, Ben Ari, the hosts asked their

guests, representatives of the German opposition, "What do you mean by 'all casualties'?" They

responded, "The gypsies, homosexuals, communists, etc." "And what about the Jews," asked the Israelis.

"The Jews," they wondered. "The Jews have already received compensation."

The Israelis informed the Germans of their error. Go tell the Germans that Holocaust survivors did not

open their mouths here, and if they were opened, someone took care to close them.

Noach Flug reached the conclusion that it was still possible to correct the distortion, even though the

agreement was long since closed. He received a mandate from the Finance Minister, Yitzhak Modai, to

handle the matter. The Director-General of the Treasury, Emmanuel Sharon, advised Flug to leave "the

It appears that this was also the opinion of the Claims Conference. But Flug disagreed, and in a

conversation with Knesset Members and Holocaust survivors Dov Shilanski and Shevah Weiss, he

expressed the idea of concentrating all the activities of the Holocaust survivors' organizations under one

umbrella in order to fight to correct the historical distortion. For this purpose, he also enlisted Moshe

Zanbar and Yitzhak Artzi, the former an ex-Hungarian captain of Israeli industry, and the latter a leader of

the defunct Progressive Party, a former Romanian. Also supporting the idea was Zeev Factor, secretary of

the Organization of Immigrants from Lodz, the largest survivors' organization in the country. Thus, at the

end of the 1980s the basis was established for the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in

Israel. From the point of view of Holocaust survivors, this allowed them to appear as a united body, but

the Claims Conference was not impressed. It consented to give the new body a spot in the corner so it

could observe what happened around its table. Observe, but not interfere and not influence.

In retrospect, and out of a desire to be fair to those who did the work during that time, it is hard to find

fault with the precision and improvisations during the negotiations with the Germans. In Israel, the

government looked first and foremost at the distribution of its legacy among its needs, just as it looked at

the Holocaust as a national entity, more than at the survivors and their needs.

Those survivors' organizations that did exist were affiliated with political parties and served more as

political back-up, especially during elections, and not necessarily as bodies that represent the interests of

Holocaust survivors. The Claims Conference stepped into this vacuum, and it is good that it did so. The

Israeli people must be grateful to those Jews who, with the help of persons of influence in the government

and the American Congress, made great achievements, both in terms of assistance to the State of Israel

and in the area of personal compensation, which, over time, has been a stable support for the economic

health of the country and the absorption and resettlement of Holocaust survivors, and, as stated above,

The change in the Claims Conference with regard to survivors and their organizations stemmed from the

recognition that while in the first years after the Claims Conference was founded it was the committee who

was filing claims, now, after the agreement was finalized and people wanted to open it, it was wise to use

the survivors' organizations. When all was said and done, they were the object, and were mature enough

Thus it happened that in 1992, when the survivors' organizations were finally given a foothold in the Claims

Conference and negotiations began on pensions for Holocaust survivors who did not belong to the "circle

of German culture," the representatives of the Claims Conference decided to add two Holocaust survivors

to the negotiations: Noach Flug from Israel and Roman Kent from the U.S. A third survivor, Karl Brojak,

filled the slot of the Claims Conference's representative in Germany. The Germans insisted on a one-time

payment. The representatives of the survivors demanded pensions, arguing that irreversible harm was

caused to the Holocaust survivors and therefore continuing pension was due them. And when, after many

exhausting discussions, the Germans agreed to the principle, there remained the question of the size of the

pension. The organizations' representatives demanded DM 750 per month, just as every German eligible

for compensation receives. "If so," asked the German Finance Minister, Franz Weigel, "Why does your

government pay the Holocaust disabled only 250 Deutschmark!" In the end, they compromised on DM

500 as the monthly pension for eligible Holocaust survivors. At the same time, it is worthwhile to note that

this is a unique attainment in the matter of pensions.

After the re-unification of Germany, the representatives of the Holocaust organizations extended efforts to

reach lists of all the Holocaust victims in Germany, as well as data on Jewish property. A central source of

this material was the SPS Archive of the Russian army. The Center of Organizations of Holocaust

Survivors wanted to send a delegation of specialists to Germany to locate the lists. Yossi Beilin, who was

Deputy Finance Minister, and David Boaz, who was responsible for budgets, approved allocations of

$50,000 to fund the delegation. They were able to examine the lists, which were 27 km. in length and

included data on German Jews gathered by SS Commander Heidrich. These lists were very helpful to the

Claims Conference in submitting claims for the return of property, claims that so far come to DM 750

million, and which are expected to double in the next 5-7 years.

Thus the survivors' organizations became an essential part of the campaign to obtain money and property.

However, their slogan demanded: "Nothing about us without us," (apparently based on the slogan of the

Boston Tea Party rebels, "No taxation without representation.") This slogan has yet to be fulfilled.

The fact is that during almost half a century Holocaust survivors have had no status on the Claims

Conference. This defect in the composition of the committee endures, with only the stipulations of

Orthodox Jewish religious law rivaling it for endurance in the face of surrounding change.

In the last report of the Claims Conference, for 1998, the bodies that compose the committee are named.

Appearing again are Agudath Yisrael, B'nai Brith, the Executive Committee of Australian Jewry, the

Jewish Welfare Society of Britain and other organizations that Dr. Nahum Goldmann put on the stage 50

years ago to appear before the Germans. Some of these organizations had no status in the past and some

are no longer active. Alongside of them appear in their own right Mr. Akiba Levinski, who was treasurer

of the Jewish Agency and of the Claims Conference, and the chairman, Rabbi Yisrael Miller, who has filled

this position with dedication since Goldmann's death in 1982. The only innovation is in the addition of

Moshe Zanbar, chairman of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors, and Noach Flug, its

secretary-general - wo out of a list of 45 representatives on the committee, two who stood at the front of

the battle for the survivors and who actively represent tdozensof organizations of Holocaust survivors in

Israel, who today are the largest group of Holocaust survivors in the world. There are also two

representatives of Gathering, a Holocaust survivors' organization in the USA.

The Israelis, who ,as stated above, mrepresent ost of the Holocaust survivors in the world, have to creep

and maneuver along the overt and covert paths of this body in order to receive the support of a

representative of an ephemeral organization or one that not longer exists in order to see that Holocaust

survivors get something, like beggars at the door. On the allocations committee, which is composed of nine

members, there is one Israel and one American who are Holocaust survivors. When representatives of the

Center of Organizations asked to add Ze'ev Factor, chairman of the Holocaust Survivors' Welfare Fund,

the Claims Conference agreed to accept him as an observer, without the right to vote. The claim that there

iare moresurvivor-representatives on the Claims Conference is misleading to the point of hypocrisy, since it

refers to representatives by virtue of their positions, like the representative of the Joint, who represent

various organizations and not Holocaust survivors.

At the meeting of the Claims Conference's board of directors in July, 1998, it was decided to discuss the

issue in a special committee for long-term planning. IManwhile, wuly, 1999, has come and goneand this

committee has not yet met. The Claims Conference has still not internalized that something is very wrong

with the proportions of fair representation in this body. The chairman of the Center of Organizations of

Holocaust Survivors, Moshe Zanbar, insisted on this, like the various international organizations that

express the relative number, and that this number has no expression in the Claims Conference, not in

anything related to Holocaust survivors in general, and not in relation to Holocaust survivors in Israel, who

are 60% of all the survivors in the world.

The Claims Conference has become so independent,that it sees every potential heir of Jewish property in

Germany, for instance, as a potential enemy, as someone who is liable to endanger the legacy it would

otherwise receive from property without heirs, as described above.

This is the way of bureaucracy, which tries to maintain its strength in any possible manner, even if its

composition is anachronistic. The Claims Conference, with all of its significant merit, is no exception.

Holocaust survivors who want something must apply to the Claims Conference, in which their status, rather

than being influential and decisive, is quite inferior.

Why? The partial answer is that until recent years Holocaust survivors, for their own reasons, wanted to

stay in the background, not to make noise, not to arouse jealousy. They had not yet come out of the sealed

rooms. And even so they were labeled as insatiable money-grubbers. Aside from this, while they were

young, they left the distant past and looked to the future. In this, their interests and those of the State

coincided. Now, with the future behind them, they have returned to the past. They are free to deal with

But the Claims Conference refuses to recognize this. Why? Because!

It has done very well with an almost petrified composition. This is factually correct, but it is unacceptable

that it continue in this manner, and logic and justice demand immediate change, now, while the remaining

Holocaust survivors are still among the living. The chairman must bang the gavel to close this lengthy

session and decide on a new meeting with a different composition.

Claims Conference On jewish Material Claims

The Claims Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany was set up after the Second World

War to negotiate with the government of Germany over compensation for Jews who were persecuted by

the Nazi regime. Over the years, the organization has conducted negotiations on a variety of issues

connected with compensation and the criteria for the receipt thereof for the survivors. In the past decade,

the organization has dealt with obtaining compensation for the victims of Nazism - elderly Jews residing in

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union who did not meet the criteria for receiving compensation until

As part of its job as manager of compensation funds for the German government, the Claims Conference is

a partner in the negotiations for the restoration of Jewish-owned property in East Germany, central Europe

and Austria as well as in discussions taking place with the German and Italian insurance companies

regarding insurance policies of Holocaust victims issued before World War II.

1998 was a successful year for the compensation funds that the Claims Conference manages. Most of the

funds expanded their activity. Successful negotiations with the German government enlarged the number of

claims that could be submitted for compensation.

The main achievement of the Claims Conference were:

* Expanding the scope of activity of the individual compensation programs managed by the Claims

* Increasing the budgets of the Clause 2 Fund and the Hardship Fund.

* Concluding successfully the negotiations with the German government, enabling 26,000 additional

claimants to receive compensation in the various frameworks.

In accordance with the agreement with the Central and Eastern European Fund (CEEF), some 18,000

survivors of Nazi and Communist persecutions will receive compensation for the first time, in a direct and

ongoing manner. This arrangement doubles the number of survivors who are receiving compensation.

The Claims Conference is recognized as a "successor organization" by German Law. This status accords

the Claims Conference the standing of a successor to the property of Holocaust victims for whom no heirs

In 1998, the Claims Conference received, in its status as a "successor organization", some 130 million

dollars from the proceeds of the sale of heirless Jewish-owned property in East Germany. This brings the

total funds from the sale of unclaimed Jewish assets (property and money) to some 330 million dollars.

About 77 million dollars have been allocated to projects for the welfare of survivors in 24 countries. The

total transfers in this framework to the end of 1998 come to 237 million dollars. The funds are earmarked

for housing and caring for Holocaust survivors as well as research and academic programs.

At the end of 1998, Mr. Saul Kagan ended his role as vice-president after 47 years of work as part of the

Claims Conference. He has worked with the organization since its establishment. Mr. Gideon Taylor has

Negotiations with Germany led, during 1998, to greater flexibility in the compensation eligibility criteria for

survivors over 70 who had not met the tests of the Hardship Fund programs. From 1998, additional

groups of survivors have been brought into the new criteria framework: survivors of special camps in

Austria, labor camps and mines on the Austrian-Hungarian border and survivors of labor camps for

Hungarian Jews on the Ukrainian border. Some 7,500 survivors meet the criteria for receipt of

compensation from this fund. The Claims Conference continued to hold negotiations to increase current

and one-time payments. In 1999, the Claims Conference reached an agreement with the German

government on a financial commitment for the years 2000-2003 for the "Clause 2" Fund and the Hardship

The Claims Conference continues to help those who seek to file compensation claims, aiding in locating the

various documents which are required in order to claim benefits. Some of these documents are located in

German, Israeli and Russian archives which are difficult to access.

Individual Compensation under the Hardship Fund

In 1998, Hardship Fund payments of DM 5,000 to 15,054 Holocaust survivors were approved. A total of

181,428 survivors have received payments from the Fund. In 1998, 16,672 claims for compensation were

A law passed by the German parliament in 1990 grants a stay of two years for Jewish property claims.

The Claims Conference has filed 80,224 claims with respect to heirless Jewish-owned property in East

Germany. By the end of 1998, the courts had considered 39,933 cases. As of 1998, 8.4 percent of the

claims were accepted by the courts. The remaining claims await hearings in Germany.

1992 was the last date for claiming Jewish-owned property by its owners or successors in East Germany.

Most of the property was indeed claimed and returned by this date, but survivors and heirs continued to

arrive even after the cut-off date. In 1996, following international advertising, 1,000 claims for Jewish-

owned property in East Germany were submitted to the offices of the Claims Conference. Through the

Goodwill Fund, the Claims Conference distributes money from the sale of unclaimed Jewish property to

survivors and heirs who have not received their property. The rest of the money goes to welfare programs

In 1998, the criteria were agreed for compensating victims of the Nazis in the former Soviet Union and

Eastern Europe. Some 18,000 people receive a monthly payment of 250 DM. The criteria for entitlement

to compensation are identical to those for entitlement according to the "Clause 2" Fund. According to this

agreement, Germany will remit 200 million DM to the Fund during the coming four years.

In 1998, private German industries participated for the first time in the negotiations over compensation for

The Claims Conference, as manager of the Hardship Fund, is an active participant in the negotiations

between a group of German companies and representatives of the German government, on the one hand,

and the governments of Israel and the US, on the other, over compensation for forced labor done by Jews

in German factories during the war years.

The Hardship Fund has opened an office in Vienna with the aim of accelerating the negotiations with the

Austrian bank that benefited from profits deriving from forced labor and the purchase of property and

objects of value from Jews at below their true worth. The Hardship Fund is a partner in the umbrella

organization of Jewish organizations in Austria which was set up with the aim of combining the demands of

the Austrians and presenting them to Parliament and the relevant agencies.

The Claims Conference is continuing its efforts to implement the commitment of the Austrian government to

award grants to organizations that provide shelter and welfare services for elderly survivors. The Austrian

authorities approve each project separately, which complicates the process. So far, 23,500 million dollars

have been given for the welfare of Austrian Jewish survivors.

The Austrian National Fund for Nazi Victims

The fund, which was set up in 1995, awards one-time payments to Austrian Holocaust survivors world-

wide. The Claims Conference monitors implementation of this commitment.

The Claims Conference distributed funds to organizations from the proceeds of the sale of Jewish-owned

property sold between 1995 and 1998. First to receive funds were welfare programs for needy survivors

in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Of second priority were Israeli organizations that aid

At the end of 1996, 190 Righteous Gentiles received payments totaling 75,000 dollars.All but 17 of the

To the end of 1996, a total of 181,428 payments were approved from the Hardship Fund for survivors.

41,265 payments were under the Clause 2 Fund.

On April 19, 1946, the Polish government published an order "Regarding abandoned property and

property that had been German". Using this order, the Polish government confiscated most of the

privately-owned Jewish property in Poland for the state treasury.

In the years since publication of the order, Jewish properties have been transferred from the state treasury

to local and other authorities. Jewish-owned property which was stolen at the time of the Nazi occupation

was transferred by the Nazis to local authorities, who sold it to any interested party. The sale of properties

to third parties by the authorities prevents the restoration of these properties to their Jewish owners. There

is no doubt that this is one of the reasons for the sale of Jewish properties on such an extensive scale by

It should be noted that the Polish authorities sold not only privately-owned Jewish properties but also

properties owned by Jewish communities or other public bodies.

The Polish authorities are also holding Jewish-owned property which was stolen by the Germans and other

Jewish property in Poland that the Germans did not manage to steal, but which was confiscated by the

Polish authorities. During the Communist regime, they excused the theft on ideological grounds but since

1990, with the collapse of the Communist regime, the ideological excuse has also collapsed.

The Polish authorities are not returning any properties to Jews of their own good will. Only those survivors

with the emotional strength and the means to conduct an exhausting legal battle against the Polish

authorities and who, in the first years after the Second World War, succeeded in registering their rights in

the properties in their name at the Land Registry, are likely to achieve restoration of their properties. Few

individuals have succeeded in reclaiming their properties in Poland. When Jews appeal to the courts, they

are often met by the vast mechanism of the Polish authorities who are fighting against restoration of any

Jewish owned property. This does not prevent Poland's representatives in the world from arguing that

Jews can obtain their properties by applying to the Polish courts.

This is the first deception of the Polish government, which is trying to create an impression that Jews can

obtain their property through the courts. The Polish delegations do not disclose that cases which could

possibly succeed in the courts are few and that an overwhelming majority of Jewish property owners or

their heirs have no chance of reclaiming their property.

There is no doubt that the Polish authorities are holding Jewish-owned property illegally and in violation of

the international convention that Poland has also signed. It should be noted that even the representatives of

the Polish government do not dare argue, outside their own borders, that Poland has rights to Jewish

properties. On the contrary, in one of the proposed bills for privatization, the government explains the need

for the law, inter alia, by saying that in the absence of a law, claims will be filed against Poland under

international law at Strasbourg. In the first decade after Poland was liberated from the Communist regime,

nothing was done to correct the injustice and to return the theft, either of property stolen by the Germans

and held by the Poles or that confiscated by the Poles themselves.

THE BIG DECEPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF POLAND

Governments of Poland have promised, over the last decade, that the matter of the restoration of privately-

owned Jewish property would be resolved in the context of a privatization law which it was proposing to

the Polish parliament. Some years ago, we were informed that a privatization bill had indeed been

submitted but continued to gather dust until 1998. The proposal, which should have been good news for

survivors from Poland, contained two provisions that would have frustrated any possibility for restoration

of Jewish property in Poland. According to one provision, the privatization would apply only to a property

which, at the time of its confiscation, was owned by a Polish citizen. The other provision was that, when

the law came into effect, the property owner had to be a Polish citizen and, in the case of an heir, also a

resident of Poland. As stated, these provisions would have blocked off any possibility of restoration of

Jewish owned property, apart from the handful of Jews who have remained in Poland.

In 1998, as pressure increased on the Polish government to cancel these two provisions, mainly by the

"Polonia" (Polish immigrants in the U.S.), the Polish government drew up a new draft bill and its

representatives rushed off to Israel and to the Jews of the U.S. to give them the good news about the

absence of the two provisions in the new proposal. Surprisingly, the representatives of Poland succeeded

in their deception. State Department officials as well as Polish Jewish leaders in the U.S. were convinced

that the Polish government was about to submit a bill that would enable the Jews to receive their property

or compensation in lieu thereof. While the new bill does widen the privatization possibilities for various

groups of Poles, it narrows (almost to nothing) the possibility for Jews to obtain their property.

The sponsors of the new bill did not merely leave the provisions of the previous bill in place and cancel the

two restrictive provisions. They changed the structure of the bill, which states that the privatization law will

apply to properties which were confiscated in accordance with the 14 laws and orders named in a list

which was attached to the bill. This list is closed and cannot be added to. It turns out that the above

mentioned order, "Regarding abandoned property and property that had been German", of April 19,

1946, according to which Jewish owned property had been confiscated, is not on the list and, therefore,

the privatization law will not apply to properties confiscated thereunder, making it impossible for Jewish

owners to claim restoration of their property. Indeed, the new bill contains no provision for individual

The goal of the Jewish Organization for Restoration of Privately Owned Property - is to restore the

property of those who died in the Holocaust and of Holocaust survivors to its owners or their heirs. The

time has come for Jewish organizations throughout the world to fight to rectify the injustice in many

countries, and particularly in Poland, where the theft of Jewish-owned property is vast and the authorities

The writer is the Chairman of the Organization for Restoration of Privately Owned Jewish Property

The Holocaust Of The Jews, Compensation To The

Suppose German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party initiated a program, according to

which, "compensation funds from Switzerland and Germany and the pensions of dependents of survivors

of World War II would be given to the Palestinians." There is no doubt that such a foolish program would

cause an outcry in the Israeli media and throughout the world. They would certainly say that the German

Foreign Minister wanted to obliterate the memory of the Holocaust and even to deny it, since he used the

term "survivors of World War II" rather than the accepted "Holocaust survivors." Any German who

initiated such a program would rightly be called an anti-Semite.

Let us make another supposition, that the proposal to pay compensation to Palestinian refugees from

compensation funds that were meant for Holocaust survivors came from the Chairman of the Palestinian

Authority, Yasser Arafat, or some other Palestinian leader. In Israel, an almighty outcry would certainly

arise. But - there's no help for it - such a stupid proposal did not, and could not, come from any normal

German politician, and not even from a Palestinian leader who has studied and is aware of the special

Israeli sensitivity to the Holocaust. This idea is entirely a Jewish product, and therefore it has not aroused

any particular response in the media except for a few letters to the editor of Ha'aretz.

On July 15th of this year, Ha'aretz published a letter by Moshe Karif of the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow,

an organization founded by a group of intellectuals of Middle Eastern Jewish origin ("Mizrahim"), which has

taken up the fight against discrimination against Mizrahim in Israel. In this letter, Karif addresses the

intention of Jewish organizations such as the World Jewish Congress to begin payment of compensation to

Jews from Arab countries. He also addresses the approach that has been accepted in Israel, at least so

far, linking the return of abandoned Palestinian property in Israel to the return of Jewish property that was

left in the Diaspora. Instead of these complex calculations, which will be done in the future in negotiations

on comprehensive peace agreements with our neighbors, the spokesman for the Rainbow took a shortcut:

Pay the Palestinians compensation from the funds that will come from Switzerland and Germany which are

meant as delayed compensation for Holocaust survivors. Karif even has a "social" argument for this bizarre

process: "Ashkenazi" Holocaust survivors used the compensation payments from Germany to improve

their own social status and that of their families, while the Mizrahim came to Israel without property or

money and remain at the bottom of Israeli society to this very day. One can almost hear in his words that

Holocaust survivors are part of that "enactment of mechanisms of social, economic, and educational

oppression of the Mizrahim" with malice aforethought.

Before we discuss the meat of the matter, it is worthwhile to correct a widespread error which Karif also

expressed. In the compensation payment agreement with Germany in 1952, Germany granted the State of

Israel 820 million dollars to absorb the refugees. However, in actuality, this money was used for the mass

immigration that came to Israel during that time, including the immigration from the Arab countries.

Accordingly, the claim that the payments served to form an economic basis for "Ashkenazi" Holocaust

survivors is baseless. The money from the payments was used just as much for establishing an economic

base for the Mizrahim, because the State of Israel invested the money it received from Germany mainly in

infrastructure (equipment for the electric company, development of the railroad, purchase of cargo ships,

Another problem is the personal compensation payments to Holocaust survivors, which were paid to the

survivors themselves, or the money that came from Jewish property without heirs in Germany, that was

targeted for funding various services for needy Holocaust survivors, as well as for funding Holocaust

research and memorial projects. For Karif, it is all jumbled together in a distorted view, as though the

Holocaust survivors immigrated with all of their property and money, as opposed to the Mizrahi immigrants

who arrived penniless. As if the "Ashkenazi" Holocaust survivors of the Nazi concentration and death

camps fell directly into the flesh pots of Israel, especially prepared for them. For Karif, it is not all clear if

the Jewish Holocaust survivors from Europe (and, by the way, Jews of Libya and Tunisia also fell into

Nazi hands) are even eligible or authorized to receive any compensation. "Excuse us for surviving, Mr.

Karif," as Ha'aretz entitled the letters of response that it published.

It is not clear whether the astonishing opinion of the Democratic Rainbow's spokesman is just his personal

opinion or whether it reflects the position of the organization he represents. Some say that Karif's words

also created controversy among the members of the Rainbow; however, if such controversy exists it has

received no publicity. Moreover, even if what Moshe Karif wrote is only his personal opinion, it echoes a

real problem that may exist in Israeli society.

However, before making several comments on this issue, justice must be done with Mr. Moshe Karif. It is

not he who invented the distorted and foolish idea of paying compensation to Palestinian refugees from the

money of Holocaust survivors. Karif plagiarized this idea from a respected professor at the Truman

Institute of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Clinton Bailey, who is also a visiting professor at Trinity

College in the U.S. On May 1 of this year, he published an article in the noted daily newspaper, the

International Herald Tribune. It is the professor's learned opinion that the billions that Jewish organizations

will receive from Swiss banks, insurance companies, and German firms (for slave labor) should be used to

compensate the Palestinians, in exchange for Israeli-Arab peace. Among his ideas is the need for

rehabilitating Palestinian refugees. Indeed, it will be necessary to rehabilitate Palestinian refugees within the

framework of peace treaties, and Israel will have to contribute its share. However, why should this be from

the money of Holocaust survivors? Prof. Bailey does not explain this. His article implies that there is today

a "deficit" of live Holocaust survivors, and there will be no one to whom to pay the funds that will be

For some reason, Moshe Karif, spokesman for the Democratic Rainbow, rushed to adopt this idea. Let us

hope that this can be attributed to the bitterness that arises from time to time in Israeli society, and to

nothing more. Nevertheless, this episode is a fitting opportunity to present a problem can hardly be

overstated: In what way has Oriental Jewry, and especially the second and third generations that were

born and grew up in Israel, internalized the heritage of the Holocaust?

The problem is not in any way presented here as a provocation. At the end of the millenium and the

beginning of the twenty-first century, it is utterly clear that the Holocaust is one of the central, basic

components of Jewish identity, both in Israel and in the world, at any rate for secular Jews, who constitute

the majority of the Jewish people of our day. And the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow, which is

fundamentally a secular organization, is not exempt from dealing with this question. The Holocaust as a

central component of Jewish and Israeli identity has many and various aspects. In Orthodox religious

circles, the Holocaust is understood as punishment for the sin of moving away from religion; the more

extreme among them even see it as punishment for Zionism... Some of these have internalized the lessons

of the Holocaust as a reflection of a national world view. Others have drawn universalistic, humanistic

conclusions from the Holocaust. There is a difference in its internalization between those who lived through

it personally, and those whom fate kept out of the reach of the murderous Nazi arm. There is a difference

between the response of the second and third generations of survivors and those who grew up in families

for whom the Holocaust was not a direct, personal experience.

On the level of what is known as "political correctness," or the ceremonial level, there is, of course, no

difference. Everyone stands at attention on Holocaust Remembrance Day. However, the impression is that

an in-depth examination of this question is for the meantime more or less taboo in Israeli society. In the

background, there is apparently a fear of dealing with this delicate problem lest it "cause splintering of the

people." But by the very fact of its existence, even if merely hinted at, this fear demands explanation. In any

case, it is surprising that to this day there is no systematic research or survey dealing with "The Holocaust

and the Mizrahim." To what extent is the Holocaust understood as an "Ashkenazi" affair? At first glance

this question appears provocative, but it is a question that demands an answer in a society that is becoming

fragmented and, in which a "culture war" is expected break out at any moment.

In conversation, Dr. Irit Avramski-Bloy, who is responsible for Hebrew and Russian courses at Yad

Vashem, admitted that to date no systematic research or survey has been done on the issue of the attitude

of Eastern Jewry toward the Holocaust. She recalled a survey that was done following the Demanjuk trial

that examined the exposure of the Israeli public to information that had appeared in the media about the

trial. This survey did not find significant differences between Western and Eastern Jews with regard to

frequency of reading about the trial. In any case, Dr. Avramski's impression is that Eastern Jews, especially

the second and third generation, have properly internalized the lessons of the Holocaust, although she

admits there may be marginal ethnic groups that would like to manipulate this area. In Avramski's opinion,

the point of view of Orthodox religious groups on the Holocaust is more problematic than the ethnic

aspect. Here, there are no differences between "Westerners" and "Easterners". Dr. Avramski further noted

that Yad Vashem is endeavoring, through implementation of very comprehensive educational programs,

not to accentuate the differences, but rather to emphasize the common ground in attitudes toward the

Holocaust as a basic component of modern Jewish identity.

However, after the age of the "melting pot," Israeli society has developed in recent decades into a multi-

ethnic society that preserves the experiences and traditions of countries of origin. This year in particular,

while Israelis of Moroccan origin continue the tradition of Mimouna, which has become part of the Israeli

mosaic, immigrants from the former USSR wanted to declare a new holiday in Israel, "Victory over the

Nazis Day," almost as a counterweight to the Mimouna. It appears that in this reality, there is no choice

other than to examine the problem with all the objective and scientific investigatory tools available.

We should hope that the indifference to Holocaust survivors in Israel that Moshe Karif showed in his brief

letter to Ha'aretz, and the attempt to lay at their door some of the responsibility for the discrimination

against the Mizrahim, reflects nothing more than a personal opinion. In this respect, it is very encouraging

to see Viki Shiran's documentary film about children in the Holocaust, which was presented at the last film

festival at the Jerusalem Cinematheque. Viki Shiran created an exceptionally sensitive and original film,

based on thousands of photographs of Jewish children who perished, photographs which have been

preserved in the Yad Vashem archives. As many will recall, a decade ago Viki Shiran was among the

founders of the movement of Mizrahi intellectuals, and was a militant spokeswoman on the ethnic problem

in Israel. When she spoke about her film at the Cinematheque she defined herself as "a Mizrahi artist," and

emphasized that she particularly chose to deal with the subject of the Holocaust. The truth is that she, Viki

Shiran, handled the problem of the Holocaust in her film as a Jewish artist, and proved that at least when

dealing with the Holocaust, no distinction of "Western" or "Eastern" artist should be made. Viki Shiran

was, in this case, "just" an artist -and that is definitely encouraging.

Eichmann is in Jerusalem again. But as opposed to the last time, when Israel made a special effort to bring

this "bureaucrat of death" here in order to judge and hang him, this time, they wanted to get rid of him

quickly. We are referring, of course, to Eichmann's memoirs, which he wrote in an Israeli jail between

December 15, 1961, and May 31, 1962, during the time between his sentencing and hanging. Eichmann's

diary, some 1200 folio-sized pages in crowded, hard-to-read, gothic script, were left in the States archives

for some 35 years and almost forgotten until they suddenly became a kind of "hot potato" that no one

Eichmann's manuscript was recovered two years ago almost by accident. Eyal Sivan and Roni Brauman

were searching the State archives for material for a film on Eichmann and ran across the manuscript and

memoirs. Their documentary film about Eichmann, "The Specialist," has been completed in the meantime,

and was even shown in Israel and abroad. At base, the filmmakers accept the theory of the "banality of

evil" that was formulated by Hannah Arendt after Eichmann's trial. In the film, as in Arendt's theory, Nazi

ideology is almost totally ignored. In general, in the last generation there has been a tendency in Holocaust

research to diminish the power of Nazi ideology as the murderers' motive, and to place the blame on

personality characteristics, such as careerism, blind obedience, opportunism, and so on. The movie, along

with Eichmann's memoirs, raise anew the discussion on these important issues for understanding the

Holocaust and the behavior of the Germans.

After a certain amount of ambivalence, the Attorney General recommended the academic publication of

Eichmann's apologetic composition in German, along with the necessary explanatory notes. In fact, there

was no other choice. It is not possible to demand that the entire world publish all documents related to the

Holocaust, and not to do so in Jerusalem. However, what is amazing is the decision of the State Archives

to hand over the publication to a historical institute in Germany. And why did such Israeli institutions as

Yad Vashem and Israeli Holocaust researchers so easily relinquish Eichmann's manuscript, even if, as Prof.

Yehuda Bauer - who was able to look at the manuscript for a couple of hours - states, "There is no

historical interest in Eichmann's tale of lies. It is not our job to publish in German the boring manuscript of a

Even if Eichmann's manuscript is deathly dull, it hard to accept the decision that it bears no historical

interest to Holocaust investigators in Israel. Just as Eichmann was brought to Israel, tried and hanged here,

so too this manuscript was written in Israel, and should therefore be handled here. Even if there are no

outstanding no insights in it, Eichmann is one of the key figures in the implementation of the "Final Solution."

Therefore, an attempt to dig into his motivations would be appropriate.

Eichmann wrote his memoirs in an Israeli jail, certainly with that same air of self-justification that was heard

in all of his testimony before the judges in Jerusalem. He excused all of his actions in that he "did not initiate

anything, and only carried out the orders of the leaders, in the spirit of obedience in which he had been

brought up in his homeland." He dealt with the organization of the shipments to Auschwitz as though they

were shipments of potatoes. This is, indeed, the "banality of evil."

As a journalist, I covered Eichmann's trial, and, indeed, the first time I saw him in the glass booth in the

Beit Ha'am hall, I thought to myself that if I had met him in the street he would not have drawn my

attention. Eichmann did not have the face of a born criminal, but then you don't need to be an ideologue to

organize shipments of potatoes. However, to organize shipments to Auschwitz, an ideological motivation is

necessary. In this respect, it can be said that Eichmann was "an absolutely normal Nazi."

It is impossible to explain Eichmann's deeds by motivations of mere careerism, as Hannah Arendt tried to

do. Indeed, he did testify during his trial in Jerusalem, that he had not read "Mein Kampf." However, he

also testified that he was attracted to the Nazi movement in his youth, carefully read all publications of the

Nazi party, joined the SS in 1932, before Hitler's rise to power, and very enthusiastically welcomed the

Nazi takeover. Eichmann may not have read Hitler's "Mein Kampf,"but he did read Herzl's "Judenstaat" -

the better to know his Jewish enemy. It is not for nought that his personal card notes "his unrestrained

dedication to the National Socialist world view..." Eichmann claimed that he did not hate Jews. And this is

exactly the point: he could not tolerate them as a race. Nazi anti-Semitism was not the usual, traditional

anti-Semitism. It was a special kind of murderous, "scientific" racism. Even from this aspect,there is

historical importance in the publication of Eichmann's memoirs, written in the Israeli jail, together with the

comprehensive interview that he gave to a Dutch pro-Nazi journalist, Wilhelm Sasan, half a year before he

was caught, in which Eichmann freely lays out his Nazi world view.

During the period of the increase d normalization" of the Holocaust and the years-long campaign of

denying and obliterating the memory of the Holocaust, Eichmann's testimony, both during the trial in

Jerusalem and in thismemoirs has additional importance: Eichmann does not deny the mass murder of

European Jews. During his trial, he even said, "The murder of the Jews is one of the most atrocious acts of

human history." He did not hide behind the "I didn't know" that was commonplace among many of the

Moreover, there is a passage of his memoirs that Eichmann wrote in May, 1960, during his first month in

the Israeli jail, before the beginning of his trial, which was recently published by the German daily "Die

Welt". Here, Eichmann clearly discusses "the F?hrer's order" for absolute destruction of all the Jews of

Europe. He relates that he was sent to tour Treblinka, Minsk, Libov, and Auschwitz to report on the actual

results of this "F?hrer's order." And in writing the dry orders, Eichmann also wrote the following sentence

on what he saw during this tour of the East: "Corpses, corpses, corpses, killed by gunshot and by gas.

Corpses in various stages of decomposition, nightmares of blood coming up out of mass graves. Inferno,

hell. I myself did not know if I had been stricken by madness or if all of this was true... Even after the

passage of so many years, the pen hesitates to write these words..." It is difficult to believe that this was

written by Eichmann, who organized the human shipments who became corpses... After all this, it is

certainly possible to pose the question: Why did Israeli Holocaust researchers pass up Eichmann's diary in

Bubis: Expression of "normalization" and protest against it

"Every person in German sees himself responsible for Schiller, for Goethe, and for Beethoven, but no one

is responsible for Himmler..." These bitter words were spoken by Ignatz Bubis, chairman of the Central

Council of Jews in Germany. Several weeks before he died last August, he asked to be buried in Israel so

that neo-Nazis would not desecrate his grave in Germany. Bubis is one of those Holocaust survivors who,

immediately after the Holocaust, chose to live in Germany, an unpleasant phenomenon in and of itself, to

phrase it delicately. For the last seven years, Bubis served as spokesman for the Jews in his country.

During his term in office, the Jewish community in Germany tripled, principally by immigration of Jews from

the former Soviet Union. Today it numbers some 100,000 people. The German Jewish community is the

only one in the world (except for Israel) that has continuously grown numerically. President Ezer Weizman

said during an official visit to Germany several years ago that he cannot understand the Jews who live in

Germany. On the other hand, the official German establishment sees this as an expression of post-

Holocaust normalization. The existence of a large Jewish community in Germany is the ultimate expression

of this normalization. In his public activity, Bubis expressed this normalization. Against this background, he

became a moral authority in German public opinion. His words gained an enormous echo in the German

media, well beyond his personal weight and the weight of the community he represented. The gates of

government were wide open to him. He contributed to correcting the distortion in the compensation

Indeed, at every opportunity Bubis denounced revelations of anti-Semitism and xenophobia in modern

German society. When he appeared, he also touched several modern raw German nerves, including what

might be termed "Holocaust fatigue," a sense that bobs up from time to time as socially accepted "political

correctness". In this regard, Bubis found himself at the center of a public storm when he debated one of

Germany's senior authors, Martin Nolzer. And so it was that, at one and the same time, Bubis was both an

expression of Jewish "normalization" in Germany and a prophet at the gates of the city warning against it.

This was certainly a most uncomfortable position. He said that a quarter of the German population had

anti-Semitic prejudices. But he was quick to emphasize that this is the accepted level of anti-Semitism in

other Western countries, as well. In his personality, Bubis embodied a tragic contradiction: he saw himself

as a German citizen, but he could not identify as a German Jew.

Toward the end, in an interview with the German weekly "Stern" that was a sort of spiritual testament,

Bubis expressed his profound disappointment. "Germans and Jews remain strangers to one another," he

said. "I personally have not had any influence at all... Most (Germans) don't even understand what I

want..." While still alive, Bubis was unable to draw personal conclusions. Only in death did he draw the

conclusion, unlike his daughter Naomi, a journalist and writer. In response to xenophobia in Germany in

the mid-nineties, she immigrated to Israel. For her, Germany was just not worth living in.

"The Bubis principle, of living in the Diaspora and being buried in Israel, is a purer refinement of the

Diaspora style of being," wrote author Meir Shalev. When it comes to Germany, how much more so.

Back to top