Recently an op-ed appeared by Menachem Rosensaft, a member of the U.S. delegation to the Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets held earlier this summer. It was titled: "Stop Personal Attacks on Claims Conference Leaders."
I have no doubt Rosensaft, who is an active ‘2G’ (child of survivors) and serves as Chief Counsel of the World Jewish Congress, cares deeply about the condition of destitute survivors and wants to see that tragic issue addressed forthrightly. But curiously, his column – coming just weeks after the conference wrapped up – didn’t actually focus on any concrete issues emerging out of Prague, nor did it elaborate on potential solutions that will help us meet the needs of aging survivors in poverty. Instead, he chose to deliver a vigorous defense of the Claims Conference leadership, some of whom, he lamented, have been the target of unfair and “disingenuous” personal criticism (although he did not identify any critics or share any examples).
I may be misreading his message, but Rosensaft basically seems to be saying: the Claims Conference is the eternal lead agency representing the interests of Holocaust survivors. Its leaders have really good resumès and work tirelessly. (A few are even survivors themselves!) They’re doing everything they can, and the rest of us should trust them to continue negotiating with Germany, overseeing $1.2 billion in assets and allocating hundreds of millions annually to a mix of programs they have decided are best. Above all, stop slamming them so much. Certain criticisms are OK, but not ones that are disrespectful and “illegitimate.” This distracts the leaders from their important work.
The op-ed confirms two things in my mind: Holocaust restitution issues are thoroughly enmeshed in Jewish institutional politics, and the Claims Conference has a serious legitimacy problem on its hands.
The overriding purpose of this op-ed was political. The writer could have provided a personal report on the Prague conference, laid out an action agenda and raised public awareness of the issues affecting survivors. But no, the real objective here was to voice political support for the Claims Conference, its leadership and the way it does business – a defense of political turf on behalf of leaders he is closely associated with, in more ways than one.
When he asserts that there are “legitimate” and “illegitimate” types of criticism, Rosensaft opens up a highly political question that is rarely resolved.
This is all “inside baseball” to the casual reader. (To those outside the Jewish community, it is downright baffling; when Rosensaft tried to post his article in the general blogosphere on Huffington Post, the only response was a flurry of disjointed comments that focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Without any context or detail, one gets the impression that there is some kind of conflict going on and one side is taking pot-shots at virtuous Claims Conference leaders. Rosensaft thinks critics are “out of control” and need to tone things down. But when a columnist feels the need to attack (unnamed) critics for their perceived attacks and in the same breath suggests everyone stop attacking and get “constructive,” you know you’ve entered a ripe political zone.
That the Claims Conference (directly or through its various allies, defenders or dependents) feels the need to mount this kind of defense suggests a good deal of insecurity on its part.
Legitimacy is an essential but elusive quality in the organized Jewish community – hard to see and measure, but necessary for an organization to successfully claim it is representing the Jewish “public interest.”
In order to survive, the Claims Conference must continually justify its unelected and self-defined role as the designated representative of survivor interests. This is no easy task nowadays. Back in the 1950s it was all so much easier (see here for more background) – no one questioned the right of eminent organizational figures to assume the mantle of leadership on Holocaust restitution matters and the welfare of survivors. They didn’t have to worry about being accountable or defending their status. They were showered with thanks.
But since the mid 1990s, the role and reputation of the Claims Conference has been seriously tarnished by internal rivalries, public controversy, lack of transparency over its large property portfolio in Germany and, worst of all, a growing realization that they have failed at their central mission: taking care of needy survivors. Its legitimacy is slipping.
For the record, I disagree with Rosensaft about the nature and degree of personal attacks directed against Claims Conference leaders. It is well known that distrust of the organization runs deep among survivors, but their criticism does not hinge on personal attacks. Rather, survivors and others have raised a wide range of well-grounded and substantive critiques of the Claims Conference’s policies and lapses in accountability (which go a lot deeper than, as Rosensaft describes it, disagreements over “individual allocations and actions”). The criticism is organizational, not personal.
Those who wear the mantle of leadership, especially in such a large and prominent organization as the Claims Conference, must be accountable to the community. Sometimes that means doing without public thanks and appreciation. Sometimes that means facing criticism frankly and directly. Sometimes that means undertaking fundamental reforms.
Posts
