Cabinet Meeting, 31.12.1951
Minister Moshe Sharett: With regard to reparations, the prime minister has already reported on the situation in one of our past meetings: (a) We have an agreement with the other side to publicly announce that the Bonn government has approached us and proposed negotiations; (b) it states that it accepts the claim formulated in our note to the occupying powers as a basis for negotiations.
We can now publicly announce these two statements. You are aware of Adenauer’s letter.1 The Germans request that it not be made public. Incidentally, one of their biggest problems at present is that they are under pressure from the United States, England and France to introduce sums for payment to the occupying powers into their budget. The talk is about 13 billion marks needed for financing Germany’s participation in the defense of the West. They are apparently
1 Moshe Sharett is relating to Chancellor’s Adenauer’s letter from December 6, 1951, to Dr. Nahum Goldmann:
Dear Dr. Goldmann,
In connection with the declaration of the Federal Government in the Bundestag on 27.9.1951, in which I announced its readiness to open negotiations with representatives of the Jewish people and the State of Israel regarding compensation for the damage invoked in the days of the Nazi regime, I want to inform you that the Federal Government is of the opinion that the time has arrived to start these negotiations.
I would like to ask you, in your capacity as Chairman of the Jewish Conference of Claims from Germany, to inform this to the Conference and to the government of Israel. I would like to state that the Federal Government views the compensation problem, first and foremost, as a moral duty and deems it that the honor of the German people obliges it to do whatever is possible to amend the wrongs done to the Jewish people. The Federal Government will pursue a positive attitude in this context towards the possibility of contributing to the buttressing of the State of Israel through transfer of goods. The Federal Government is prepared to accept the claims formulated by the government of Israel in its note of 12.3.1951 as the basis for these negotiations.
Very sincerely, Adenauer
137
Cabinet, 31.12.1951
keeping this secret, although these issues will come to light and will benefit neither the powers nor us. They have informed us that they are bent on our claim being arranged. This was conveyed to us on Adenauer’s behalf, and he requests that we understand the difficulties of this situation.
I would like to open my speech in the Knesset plenum with a brief statement on the facts and conclusions of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. I will certainly be called upon to speak again during the debate, and I presume that the prime minister will also speak. We will have to reply to what we hear in the debate, either during it or at its conclusion. I do not want my speech to open the debate.
On Tuesday, January 7, 1952, after the highly important meeting of the coalition members, there will be a meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on reparations. I suppose that at this meeting I should speak at greater length on the negotiations between us and the Western powers about which the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee has never been apprised.
The committee should be informed of the responses we have received; we have received none from Russia. They may ask about the statement we received from Germany, whether it is oral or in writing, and if it is in writing, then what is its content, but the situation is such that we cannot convey its content, even in confidence, to the committee. On this issue I have considered long and hard about what to say. In my opinion it would be better not to tell the committee members about the letter, but rather to say that we have received information through official channels.
A factual comment: we have been informed that (a) Adenauer has informed his cabinet of this matter; (b) the wording of his letter will serve as a guideline for the German delegation to the negotiations; (c) they are going to appoint their delegation, or might have already done so, but in any event the name of the delegation’s leader has been announced; (d) they expressed the hope that our delegation would not be excessively large.
Minister Rabbi Yitzhak Meir Levin: I must remind you that no discussion was held and no decision was made in the cabinet. There was only the prime minister’s report in the cabinet meeting of December 16, 1951. I think that we should have a brief discussion here since we are aware of the delicate situation for all sides involved, and we are also aware of the country’s economic situation – a drowning man must grasp at straws – and we must exploit anything that may be of help.
There are two sides to the coin. On the one hand we say: “Hast thou killed and also taken possession?” There is no forgiveness here. But this matter has another side too: Adenauer writes a letter and each time the Germans announce their intention of Wiedergutmachung [rectifying the wrong]. They think that they will do so by paying money. It is not that simple. Let nobody assume that by receiving reparations we will forgive, which is how they interpret it. (Minister Moshe Sharett:
138 Cabinet, 31.12.1951
So what are we to do?) We must decide yes or no. We are now hearing that the Germans are emphasizing their financial difficulties to us. What has that got to do with us? We remember Germany. In the previous war it borrowed millions from America and then went bankrupt. Two things might possibly happen: they will not give us the money, and negotiating with Germany will cause us grave moral harm.
I do not know if we will receive money; I do not know if the money we will receive will save us. We must think long and hard before we decide. (Prime Minister David Ben Gurion:You have had time to think. What is your opinion after having thought?) I have been thinking day and night. I cannot vote in favor.
Prime Minister David Ben Gurion: I would like to take issue with two things that Rabbi Levin said. (a) He said we are taking action because of our need for money. I would not disagree with Rabbi Levin regarding the need, but that is not the reason. It is our due. We must not waive even part of the plunder owed us by the Germans if it can be claimed. Even if we were not in dire straits, that money must not be waived. (b) I disagree that there is moral harm in negotiating. We know that those opposing reparations are foolish followers of the Soviets, or hypocrites – and most of them are hypocrites – they write and type on machines purchased in Germany. (Minister Yitzhak-Meir Levin:
When I remember my murdered grandchildren I am unable to support this.) When I remember my niece who was murdered there, mustn’t I say, “Hast thou killed and also taken possession?”A moral harm would be caused if we forgive them.
Will it be respectful of the dead and the murdered if we do not claim, at the very least, a significant part of the plunder? We are demanding its restitution to the Jewish people. It is the duty of the Jewish people not only because we are in such dire straits. We are duty-bound to do it. I do this with the same feelings you have, but a person should not be blamed for the harsh words he utters in his grief. That they might cheat us is possible, but that does not relieve us of the duty to make an effort to get what we can from them.
Minister Moshe Shapira: The cabinet must be aware of a future wave of vicious propaganda against us at home and abroad. This does not mean that we should cease taking our path, but the cabinet should be warned; it should stop keeping silent. We have an Information Department which provides no information to the public on this issue. Nobody is going to attack Jewish organizations abroad. All the criticism is going to be directed against the government of Israel. Mapam’s daily Al Hamishmar today published an editorial under the headline “Last Warning.”
The members of Mapai Party may all be immune to propaganda and vote as one man, but the situation within the other parties is different; their members are not so immune to the vicious propaganda that has already begun to circulate.
Those responsible for the Information Department should start working. Thank
139
Cabinet, 31.12.1951
heaven, we have the radio, the press and public Forums at our disposal in which to inform the public. Let us be on guard.
Minister Ben-Zion Dinur: Anti-reparations propaganda is immoral since all those opposing compensation on the national level are at the same time individually endeavoring to get what is personally due them. Suddenly, an effort to obtain what is due to the Jewish people is considered immoral. In this regard, we must adopt an assertive position. We must not be on the defensive. Indeed, what we are witnessing here is not only an immoral stance but one of our common weaknesses:
lack of sovereignty for 2,000 years has taught our people lack of responsibility. A strong position on our part is necessary here. We must attack this chutzpah and irresponsibility. Everyone does as he likes for his own benefit and no one asks if doing so is permissible, but when it touches upon the property of the Jewish people, he becomes a righteous saint. This is one of our society’s calamities. The state must take the initiative and shoulder the task of enlightening the general public. Members of the cabinet should be active in this field week by week.
Minister Moshe Sharett: I would like to caution the cabinet against talking around in circles. We must come to a decision: negotiations yes or no, for we are liable to miss the hour of opportunity.
We have been criticized for the tardy submission of the claim. I reject this criticism, for had we submitted the claim two years ago it would have been unrealistic to claim $1 billion from Bonn. Now it is realistic, in view of their immense industrial output. It is significant that the Americans and the British are confident that very big payments can be imposed on them for financing the occupation armies. We cannot drag the matter on and on. We must enter negotiations immediately, without further delay.
Prime Minister David Ben Gurion: I propose that we decide to enter negotiations with the West German government on the payment of reparations on basis of the claim we submitted to the four powers.
It was decided:
(By eleven votes) that the Government of Israel will enter negotiations with the Federal Government of (West) Germany on the matter of reparations on the basis of the claim submitted to the occupying powers. The foreign minister will make a statement in the Knesset to this effect.
140
[16] Reparations: Permissible or Forbidden? Kosher or Non-Kosher?
Excerpts from a speech by Moshe Sharett, election meeting, 5.1.19521
The State of Israel is saying: we are owed a debt by the country that exterminated six million Jews and plundered vast amounts of Jewish property.
There is no repayment for the blood that was spilt. There is no forgiveness for the torture. But we must take the plundered property back from that country so that it does not remain in its hands but instead will be devoted to the building of the State of Israel.
The two political fringes, Left and Right, who do not shoulder the responsibility of building up the state, permit themselves to incite the people against the government that is claiming reparations from Germany. They seek to influence not the mind, but the embittered Jewish heart, and both are maliciously distorting the main question.
What is the situation today? The country is full of German machinery. Any Jew who survived and owned property in Germany is entitled to go there and claim his property. And if his house no longer exists and if he cannot identify his goods, he demands and receives compensation in German marks. He does not take those marks out of Germany, but purchases a machine or other goods with them, and imports them to Israel – to be used or sold – thereby increasing the assets in Israel which are our means of production.
Is this permissible or forbidden? Is it kosher or non-kosher? Any Jew, a
“General Zionist” or a member of a Mapam kibbutz, who has claims against Germany, goes and claims his due and for that he is to be commended, for he is increasing the wealth of the State of Israel. But does this apply solely to an individual Jew who has survived? What about the property of the millions who were exterminated and who have neither relatives nor heirs? They too have an heir and savior. It is the State of Israel!
1 The speech was delivered during the election campaign to the local council of Beit Dagan on behalf of the Histadrut, dominated by Mapai.
141
Moshe Sharett speech, election meeting, 5.1.1952
What did Hitler want? He wanted to exterminate us, to trample upon our honor and erase our name. Well, he is gone and we fought and we are alive. We are members of the United Nations while Germany is still knocking at its door. But we have not completed our work. We live in order to build a solid, strong state, and for this we need all the Jewish property. Had the Jews of Germany and the German-occupied countries survived, we would have had the hope of bringing them to Israel – them and their property – and would have benefited from their help in building the homeland. But having been Hitler’s victims, should we waive their property? We need it for the benefit of the masses of Jews immigrating to Israel with only the shirts on their backs, Jews who are penniless and must be given everything here – from a roof over their heads to clothing, from work and production tools to schools and clinics. The plundered Jewish property is devoted to the Jewish people who are building its homeland.
Jewish property was stolen and plundered, but if there is someone to whom we can submit a claim – if the debt is acknowledged and payment is promised – should we stand aloof? Would this not be a moral act, a Zionist, national act, befitting the Israeli labor movement?
Everyone knows that we need great resources for building our country.
Everyone knows that we seek help from Diaspora Jews and the countries of the world, and especially from the United States, and we hope to receive help in the future as well – and here, too, Mapam is hindering the enlistment of help – but can we demand help from others if we waive what is ours, what is our due?
What is permissible for every individual Jew is permissible for the Jewish people, and for the State of Israel it is clearly a necessity.
142