Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Meeting, 7.1.1952
Chairman Meir Argov: In accordance with our decision, we shall now discuss the question of reparations from Germany before the Knesset debate on this issue this afternoon.
Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett: I can report very briefly on the situation. On March 12, 1951 we submitted a note to the four occupying powers in which, for the first time, a claim was voiced in the name of the State of Israel and in the name of the Jewish people, for collective payment for the plunder and destruction of Jewish property. We received a reply to this note from the three Western powers.
To this day we have not received a reply from the Eastern power, although we have reminded it about this matter several times, both in writing and orally.
The Western powers responded as folows in almost identical wording, with slight variations, each according to its particular etiquette: it is not true that the Jewish people did not receive compensation. After the war it was decided that if any German gold was found and had not been converted into coins, it should be devoted to rehabilitation of the refugees, and German Jews’ deposits abroad were also set aside for this, and on this account we received $20-25 million that were transferred to Jewish institutions. It is also not true that no aid was extended to the refugees. Various countries threw open their gates to victims of the Nazi extermination. The compensation account of the powers with Germany has already been drawn up, although it is not yet final, and the dates of the final settlement have not been set. In any event the powers cannot oblige Germany to make further payments.
That, more or less, was the reply. They added verbally that it should not be perceived as the last word. They further said – especially the Americans –
143
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 7.1.1952
that since they are helping Germany, should Germany pay it cannot be at their expense. It can only be at Germany’s expense, not theirs.
We replied to this note. We argued what we argued and proved the special character of our claim, which does not fall into the category of the Allies’ war damage claims. We are not claiming war damages but damages for destruction and plunder of property. This plunder began before the war, it continued after the beginning of the war and is not necessarily connected with the war. The intention is not to obtain compensation from America but to obtain compensation from Germany, and the surprising recovery of the German economy and its increasing production prove that Germany can pay from its own resources without becoming a burden on the American taxpayer. We were told again verbally – in Washington and London – that without direct negotiations with Germany, they do not think we can advance our case. It was clear to us from the outset that possibly nothing will come of our claim, but this was not our intention; we did not submit the claim solely to pacify our historical conscience and to have it inscribed on tablets of stone for the sake of posterity, although that in itself was important. I have already stated that there are proposals whose failure is not in their presentation but in their non-presentation. However, I made it clear that if we aimed at concrete results, then even if we achieve results with the help of emissaries and envoys, or assistance from the powers, direct contact between us and the Germans on the form of payment is unavoidable. There are questions such as whether payment will be in currency or in goods, the quantity of goods and what kind, at what rates, and so forth. This is a very serious matter and every step we take is bound up with the state’s vital interests. In no way can we rely on an emissary to demand terms and have them fulfilled.
All this was clear from the outset. When we first realized that all this meant direct negotiations, we did not flinch from this conclusion. I do not wish to anticipate this evening’s Knesset debate. I will elaborate on this issue of direct contact there, but it was clear to us that it is no simple matter for us to propose negotiations. For while such a proposal will satisfy Germany - though it is altogether unclear if we will achieve any satisfaction - we have made it clear to these German authorities that we will not withdraw the claim and will hound them in the international arena at every possible opportunity.
The next stage was Adenauer’s statement at the end of September 1951 in which he admitted the atrocities committed against the Jewish people. Although he attempted to clear the majority of the German people of responsibility for them, he did admit the obligation of the German people to shoulder the burden of the outcome; he accepted the principle of a collective payment in addition to the arrangements already in place for compensating individuals, and he announced the readiness of the Bonn government to enter into negotiations with representatives of the Jewish people and the State of Israel to settle this matter.
144 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 7.1.1952
In the meantime, a conference of world Jewry – so to speak – was convened.
It was attended by 20 Jewish organizations from countries in which Jews are free to organize and express their views. Iraqi Jewry, for instance, was not included.
This conference was initiated and planned before any of us knew that Adenauer was about to make such a statement regarding reparations. The initiative for this conference began in August, Adenauer made his statement in September, and the conference was held on October 23-24, 1951 and addressed Adenauer’s statement. The conference supported Israel’s claim and declared that the claims of individual Jews must be met. The conference’s executive committee, which met immediately after the conference, accepted the principle of direct negotiations should Israel enter into such negotiations. They had no intention of entering negotiations without us. They accepted the principle of direct negotiations but made the cooperation of the State of Israel a condition of the implementation of their decision.
We said to ourselves, this statement of Chancellor Adenauer to the world is not enough for us. We want to know first what they think, whether they are thinking of tens of millions or hundreds of millions; whether they accept our claim as a basis for reparations; whether they are prepared to offer something definite on negotiations and whether it is clear that it is their initiative. These conditions have been met. At the beginning of December a letter signed by Chancellor Adenauer was handed over to the New York Claims Conference and the State of Israel. In this document he made his September statement in which he announced that his government feels that the time is ripe to enter negotiations; that they view this as a grave material burden but also as a moral duty; that they accept our claim, formulated in the note dated March 12, 1951, as the basis for negotiations – the German term used was “Grund Lage,” which means “on the basis of.” Based on all this, the government decided that we should enter into negotiations, and it is this decision that will be brought before the Knesset today.
David Horowitz (Director General, Ministry of Finance): Before the formal answer to our note was given by the powers, we were told in conversations that our demand has a very strong basis, that it is almost unquestionable. However, contrary to press reports at the time, the Western powers, for several reasons, are not interested to act on our behalf. They said they have their own financial interests in Germany and have no desire to become involved in a conflict with Germany on our issue. In Germany it is primarily the socialists who support the idea of reparations, although generally they are not too happy about cooperation with the ruling parties.
MK Zalman Aran (Mapai): It seems to me that in its claim for reparations, the government should emphasize that the claim is directed at both West and East Germany. We have not heard that the reparations claim is also directed at
145
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 7.1.1952
East Germany. They are the same Germans and the same race. I think that the government’s announcement should be so worded that it seeks the Knesset’s authorization to include the possibility of conducting negotiations. However, I understand from the government’s announcement that it is not yet demanding authorization for entering negotiations.
Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett: As far as I know, there is no intention to request Knesset approval for negotiations at this stage. The government sees no need for it.
The prime minister will open the debate, not I. I assume that it will be clear from his statement that the government thinks that there should be negotiations, or that we should be prepared for negotiations. That does not mean that the government will seek a Knesset resolution to conduct negotiations. I do not think there is a need for it. From a certain standpoint it could also cause damage. What the government will request from the Knesset is its authorization to act in this matter according to its understanding, but it will be clear to the Knesset that the government views the possibility of negotiations as realistic and a matter for the near future.
[At this point five committee members posed questions to the foreign minister.]
Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett: I shall answer several questions. We know nothing of the Bonn government’s intention to deduct any sum whatsoever on account of what has been paid so far to individuals, institutions or organizations.
They will possibly do the math themselves: when they argue that we have exaggerated in our estimation of their payment capabilities, they will say that they have already restored or are about to restore property the Nazis had plundered.
But we have taken this into account. In our note we stated that although certain actions of restitution in the sphere of compensation are already taking place, it does not settle the account. What Germany owes the Jewish people for property that has been lost cannot be set off and cannot be the subject of any form of accounting. We think, first and foremost, that Germany owes this to the State of Israel, if only because the State of Israel has rehabilitated 500,000 naked and penniless victims of the Nazi regime, and because the State of Israel is the Jewish people’s only state. We have no intention of retracting this statement, and we estimate the cost at $1.5 billion. Certain Jewish organizations disagree with this statement but not with the practical conclusions. While they unreservedly agree with submitting the claim, they did not agree with the basis of the claim. Had we asked the New York conference for its agreement to this basis we would not have obtained it since there are Jewish circles that do not accept the concept of a Jewish people as a single world entity and the State of Israel as an asset belonging
146 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 7.1.1952
to the entire Jewish people. They are prepared to help the State of Israel but without ideological commitment in this respect. It was stated categorically to the Germans that aside from what you have paid and will still pay to individuals and organizations, we estimate the sum due us at a $1.5 billion, and this claim is now acknowledged as the basis for negotiations.
Here I should add the following: when we used the figure of $1.5 billion, we used it in respect to all of Germany, West and East alike. And it will be only natural if the Bonn government says: “We have accepted this claim as the basis, i.e., we have accepted $1.5 billion as the basis. Let us assume that East Germany is one-third and we are two-thirds. What we have accepted as the basis means that we have accepted
$1 billion as the basis.” It would be logical for them to contend this.
With regard to the rumor spread by the London weekly The Jewish Chronicle, that we consented they should reach agreement with us, the account will be closed and they would no longer pay compensation to any individual, let me say this is utterly false. What is correct is as follows: when the Bonn people considered this problem, an argument was advanced: “We know what goes on inside the Jewish people. There are all kinds of Jewish organizations that do not admit that the State of Israel represents them. What will happen if we complete negotiations with the State of Israel – that contends that it speaks on behalf of the Jewish people – and then these organizations submit collective claims? We should say that we will meet a collective claim only once, and we want to be sure that if we complete the collective account, that is the end of the collective account, and afterwards we shall not deal with additional and pre-estimated collective claims.”
That is a logical stance. It may be assumed that Adenauer’s letter to the New York conference, which recognized the Jewish organizations that carry some weight, and linked them with the State of Israel, was sent with this consideration in mind. Thus the German negotiators thought that if they negotiate with both the State of Israel and the Conference of Jewish Organizations together, success would be guaranteed.
Chancellor Adenauer’s letter contains no hint of this rumor, but at a press conference in London he said that after the New York conference was convened it would be possible to negotiate with a unified body and not to deal with a new body of organizations popping up later saying, “You have settled with the State of Israel; now we submit a fresh collective claim.”
This version, to the effect that it makes the collective claim final, does not apply to individuals. On the contrary, in the sphere of individual claims the New York conference thinks that if it enters negotiations – and it will if we do – it will present all kinds of demands for legislative and procedural amendments regarding the restitution of private property, etc. There are various loopholes that they know must be plugged, and the issue of legislation and procedure must be dealt with, too. The sum that this legislation would enforce
147
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 7.1.1952
is not predetermined. We cannot know in advance how many Jews in Uruguay or Portugal are owed compensation for property in Germany.
As far as diplomatic and consular relations are concerned, we have no such relations with either West or East Germany. There is no intention to establish such relations and no intention to agree to a German initiative to establish them if such an initiative is taken. There are consular relations with the occupying authorities in West Germany. We applied for establishing a consulate in the East, but no response was received.
The negotiations will not be conducted in Germany. The intention is that they will not be on German soil, but neither will they be conducted in Israel. They will take place in a European country, a West European country, of course.
When comments from Germany began to be heard to the effect that
“Adenauer has stated that he is prepared to conduct negotiations. Why aren’t you ready?” We said: “That is not enough. They must clearly state how they intend to deal with the negotiations.” As a consequence, we received Chancellor Adenauer’s letter on behalf of the Bonn government. I am unable to show the letter to the committee. I have seen it. It is not long. It contains but a few paragraphs:
The basis is the September statement by the Bonn government saying that the Bonn government is prepared to discuss reparations with representatives of the Jewish people and the State of Israel;
The Bonn government feels that the time is ripe for negotiations;
The Bonn government views this not only as the resolution of a very important material matter but also as a moral duty;
The Bonn government views it as its duty to make a contribution to the rehabilitation of the State of Israel;
The Bonn government wishes to convey this statement to the Government of Israel and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany;
The Bonn government states that it accepts the claim formulated by the State of Israel in its note to the occupying powers dated March 12 1951 as the basis for negotiations.
MK Eliezer Livne (Mapai): To the best of my understanding, the question of the German reparations is extremely grave and not procedural. It is perhaps the gravest issue placed before the Knesset since its inauguration. There are two hypotheses here, both are correct and possibly contradictory. The first is the practical conduct – not only the stance – of the Jewish people vis-à-vis the German people. I have to admit that for me this is the main question. The German people exterminated one-third of the Jewish people. Hundreds of thousands of
148 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 7.1.1952
Germans took part in the acts of extermination. Millions of Germans knew about them. The death march of the Dachau inmates1 was witnessed by millions of Germans. They exterminated the Jewish people not as soldiers at war but as a nation. Like the Amalekites, they murdered children and the elderly, the sick and disabled, out of a lust for annihilation. The stature of a people in history, and its stature in the community of nations, its honor in its own eyes and in the eyes of others is determined by two things, defined by the late publicist Asher Ginzberg as “The power of memory and the power of hope.” Thanks to the power of our memory, we have not forgotten the destruction of the Temple for 2,000 years.
In accordance with this event we determined our attitude towards the Romans, and they did not exterminate us like the Nazis. We fought them and revolted against them, but our attitude towards them is determined, to this day, by what they did to the Temple and the Jewish people. We have not forgotten the Spanish Inquisition, and the acts of the Spanish Inquisition were child’s play compared to what Germany did to us. For centuries we did not return to Spain even though those expelled from Spain were allowed to take all their possessions with them.
In accordance with this event we determined our attitude towards the Romans, and they did not exterminate us like the Nazis. We fought them and revolted against them, but our attitude towards them is determined, to this day, by what they did to the Temple and the Jewish people. We have not forgotten the Spanish Inquisition, and the acts of the Spanish Inquisition were child’s play compared to what Germany did to us. For centuries we did not return to Spain even though those expelled from Spain were allowed to take all their possessions with them.