Holocaust Survivors' Foundation - USA

A Numbers Game

2009-08-21T14:31:00.000-07:00

Commentary from Leo Rechter, President of National Association of Jewish Child Holocaust Survivors (NAHOS) from August 17, 2009 NAHOS Newsletter:

JTA managing editor Uriel Heilman sat recently down for a question & answer period with Greg Schneider, the newly promoted executive Vice President of the Claims Conference. During that interview, Greg Schneider recognized that among Holocaust Survivors “the suffering is tremendous” and there “are people who are desperately in need.” Yet, when asked why – in the face of such desperate needs – the Claims Conference still allocates 20% to ‘Holocaust education, documentation and research’, Schneider’s answer dodges the question by declaring that the amount allocated for Social Welfare had been increased to $116 million and that therefore the split was no longer 80%-20% (but about $84%- 16%). Schneider does not clarify that the same $18 million are still being allocated for questionable, non-social purposes. Percentages are meaningless in this case. Survivors cannot go into a store and buy groceries or medication for ‘four percent’ (the reduction in non-social allocations); merchants want actual dollars, not a numbers game.

The Claims Conference does not permit the Selfhelp organization (the largest Social Services organization in N.Y. for Survivors) to assist destitute survivors with more than $2,500 per year. (the money is not given to the survivors, but is being paid to providers: landlords, dentists; health-supplies, etc…). $18 million could have paid each year for an additional 7,200 cases, or 1,500,000 hours of home care, or have the $2,500 annual limit increased. To the question: “Why not give all of it to social welfare needs, especially if survivors are, as you say, in desperate need?”, Schneider answered that the money “ is from people who were murdered, and the board feels that there’s an obligation to remember who they are, how they lived and how they died.”

Later during the interview – in contradiction to his defense of non-social allocations – he envisions: “If allocations for social welfare were to drop off steeply, the result would be far too catastrophic to even contemplate. Not having that money would affect people’s lives – how long they live and how they live. This is unconscionable and cannot be allowed to happen.”

We are not faulting the professional Mr. Schneider for the contradiction between words and deeds; we are keenly aware that it is chairman Julius Berman who holds sway over the JCC board members.

In the spring of 2005, Mr. Roman Kent, the treasurer of the JCC-Claims Conference wrote: “Responsibility for educational projects, with the exception of a few primary institutions, should be borne by Kol Am Yisrael, the entire Jewish community, which in the last fifty years acquired tens of millions of dollars from Holocaust survivors. They also used the Holocaust as a fundraising tool for campaigns that had nothing to do with the survivors or our causes. Now is the time for the Jewish community, including Mr. Berman and the board of the Claims Conference, to take a step back and allow us, the Holocaust survivors, to decide how we use our money to take care of ourselves.”

Here is part of what I wrote on this subject in the March and April issues of 2005: “Mr. Berman fails to divulge the multitude of allocations to projects – sponsored by JCC board members- that have hardly any connections to the Holocaust. We published lists of some of these allocations in past issues.” Several years ago, the JCPA – the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, a coalition of 123 local and 13 national American Jewish organizations approved – at their annual Plenum in Baltimore – a resolution recommending to the JCC to cease diverting 20% of its discretionary funds for projects other than Social Services for Survivors. But Mr. Berman and the 22 non-survivors organizations on that board pretend to know better.

As a Survivor, I consider it the height of arrogance of any non-survivor to arrogate himself the right to surmise what the last wishes of Nazi-victims might have been. My martyred father, uncles, aunts, dozen of cousins are being remembered and honored in my heart and mind by me, my children and grandchildren. We don’t need outsiders, nor Mr. Berman to decree how the victims ought to be remembered.

Survivors are wholeheartedly committed to the notion of Shoah education and commemoration. Survivor volunteers have spent, and are spending, thousands upon thousands of hours in classrooms, before Jewish or non-Jewish audiences and in other public forums, to attest to the barbaric consequences of racism run amok.

Is it morally justifiable to keep funneling hundreds of millions of restitution-dollars, during the past and over the next decades, at Shoah education efforts and various other projects – which had and have plenty of other support – while neglecting the tragic situations of thousands of survivors in need? Either way, sooner or later the entire costs of future Shoah education will have to be borne by Kol Ysrael. Why not start now and use the $18 million annually to relieve some of the misery of the victims Nazi-brutalities who deserved to be feted as heroes, instead of repeatedly running into deception and neglect?

Throughout the years, hundreds of millions have been spent on allocations of no direct benefit to Survivors, How many hardships could have been avoided? How many lives could have ended in dignity instead of despair.

Where Are They Now?

2009-08-12T14:57:00.000-07:00

The Swiss Bank settlement brought together a fascinating cast of characters. Most have continued on with their careers. A few, like Judge Korman and various Court-appointed “Special Masters” have continued to administer the process over the years. Whether any of them now regret getting involved is anyone’s guess.

A surprisingly large number of central figures in this story, however, wound up in personal controversy. Here is a quick tour:

With ironic timing, UBS, the venerable Swiss bank company accused of Holocaust-era wrongdoing and signatory to the agreement eleven years ago, just today settled a lawsuit filed against it by the U.S. government seeking the disclosure of names of American tax-evaders allegedly sheltered by the bank.

Lawyer Edward Fagan, who played an instrumental role in advancing the original complaint against the Swiss banks, was eventually accused of mishandling Holocaust survivors’ trust money and disbarred this past June.

Another prominent plaintiff attorney and signatory to the agreement, Melvyn Weiss, pleaded guilty in 2008 to a kickback scheme and is currently serving prison time.

One of the key campaigners against the Swiss banks, Senator Alphonse D’Amato of New York, fell to defeat in 1998 in part because Jewish voters recoiled from his self-serving invocation of the Holocaust during the campaign. (also here)

Another influential New York elected official whose actions propelled the Swiss settlement, City and later State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, also saw an abrupt end to his political career when he pleaded guilty to defrauding the government.

The two organizational representatives who signed the Swiss agreement on behalf of "world Jewry" wound up traveling interesting roads as well.

Rabbi Israel Singer, the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, was fired in 2007 (and then resigned the presidency of the Claims Conference) after a New York Attorney General investigation revealed that he had misappropriated WJC organizational funds for personal use and tried to cover it up.

Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Israeli parliament and top executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel, retired from politics and last year published a controversial book on Holocaust identity, Israel and Zionism, “The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise From its Ashes.”

Happy Anniversary, Swiss Bank Settlement

2009-08-12T14:15:00.000-07:00

Another year has passed, the eleventh since the celebrated Holocaust-related agreement was forged between a consortium of Swiss banks and attorneys representing Holocaust victims, with the “endorsement” of the World Jewish Restitution Organization (perhaps the only major Jewish organization in the known world that cleverly doesn't host a website).

The $1.25 billion settlement was touted as a way to avoid lengthy and unproductive litigation that would leave masses of claimants out in the cold. The largest portion of the settlement ($800 million, or two thirds of the total) was allocated to cover claims for “Deposited Assets” – looted and dormant bank accounts owned by victims of the Holocaust. The process has been overseen throughout by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman.

The Deposited Asset claims process has proceeded achingly slowly, now largely forgotten and out of the public eye. As noted in a previous post, a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS (a third of the funds originally earmarked for “Deposited Assets”) remain unspent and undistributed today.

The recent Conference on Holocaust Era Assets in Prague expressed unprecedented concern over the rising incidence of survivor poverty – some literally “out in the cold” –and carried heartfelt calls for action from Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and former U.S. envoy Stuart Eizenstat. In this context, the pool of Swiss “Deposited Assets” funds sitting unused raises troubling questions about the course of “justice” envisioned by the Court.

Let me share a few reflections.

The process to find legal claimants and return family assets from Swiss accounts stalled out a long time ago. When approved claims slowed to a trickle, Judge Korman in 2003 felt compelled to seek recommendations from his court-appointed advisors and then the public on how anticipated “residual” funds might best be used. The resulting crush of interest groups and organizations seeking funds for their projects – many only tenuously connected, if at all, with the welfare needs of Holocaust survivors – threatened to obscure and marginalize the very people for whom the fight for justice was supposedly waged. Korman soon put consideration of “residual fund” schemes on hold.

Over the years, the administrators of the claims process have adopted a series of confusing and generally unsuccessful mid-course corrections to try to boost payouts, including the creation of a special category of fixed $5000 payments for “plausible undocumented claims,” an unsatisfactory (and for some survivors, insulting) catch-all humanitarian-type payment not anticipated when the claims process was launched.

The quest for looser claims rules unleashed controversy. In 2002, a team of high-profile independent jurists assigned to make decisions about individual claims resigned in protest over new, streamlined payout rules, which they felt threatened the integrity of the process. (more here)

Still more public debate erupted over the Court’s decision to allocate 75% of over $200 million in so-called “Looted Assets” – another piece of the overall settlement – to programs serving needy survivors in the Former Soviet Union, leaving little left over for more numerous survivors living in poverty in the United States and elsewhere. The Judge ruled against formal objections, but the episode left a bitter taste with many in the Jewish community.

In 2006, a new controversy erupted over the request by Burt Neuborne, appointed by the Court to serve as “Lead Settlement Counsel,” to be paid substantial attorney’s fees of almost $5 million out of the settlement fund. The request was roundly decried by survivors, who felt it spotlighted what was wrong with the whole process. Neuborne had misled them, many charged, and had not represented – and at times had worked against – their interests. In the end, Neuborne’s fee was approved but substantially reduced. The issue erupted again in early 2008 when a tone-deaf Neuborne approached the Court to try to collect interest that had accrued during the initial controversy.

The claims process has continued to crawl along. During the second half of 2008, an additional 161 claimants received awards, years after their claims were first filed.

By the end of 2008, a new scheme was floated: recalculate the awards already granted to several thousand claimants and make supplemental payments to them, thereby using the remaining funds. HSF and the State of Israel have both filed formal objections to that recommendation. The idea remains under consideration by the Court.

Just last month, a bewildering controversy over claim awards came to light, involving an heir who received an award payment but is now being asked to return the funds because the claims administrators believe it was invalid. Perhaps it is surprising that this kind of thing isn’t more common.

The Swiss bank claims process has had to navigate tricky legal and political waters all along. But has justice been served? Is anyone else even asking that question anymore? With thousands of destitute survivors in the U.S., Israel and Europe, it is not an academic exercise.

(Postscript: There is a side story to tell about some of the individuals who were instrumental in the original agreement eleven years ago. I will post separately on that.)

About That Criticism...

2009-08-05T00:09:00.000-07:00

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.

What won’t work is open-ended appeals to simply “trust” the leaders some more, circling the wagons around the status quo, or responding to criticism with counter-criticisms aimed primarily at an audience of political insiders.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

2009-08-04T21:29:00.000-07:00

A postscript to my previous post on Greg Schneider's recent JTA interview:

Almost ten years ago, in November 1999, the same JTA reporter, Uriel Heilman, did an analysis of the Claims Conference titled "Who controls the Claims Conf.'s billions?" Read the full JTA story from 1999 here. An excerpt:

When a small group of non-elected representatives controls the distribution of billions of dollars to tens of thousands of Jews, discord is inevitable. And when the recipients are aging Holocaust survivors and the money at issue is restitution for their suffering at the hands of the Nazis, differences of opinion carry the weight of moral debate.

Greg Schneider, then Chief Operating Officer, is quoted defending the anachronistic structure and composition of the Board of Directors, which continues to allocate full voting seats to several founding organizations even though they have shrunk dramatically into irrelevancy since the 1950s:

Is there any advantage to throwing them off?...The important thing is: Is there anybody’s voices who aren’t heard?

How about the grassroots voices of survivors, Mr. Schneider?

Time to Reallocate Claims Conference Funds

2009-07-29T13:40:00.000-07:00

Jewish news service JTA has shared excerpts from an extended interview with Greg Schneider, incoming Executive Vice President of the Claims Conference. The takeaway from Schneider reads: "Restitution money is running out, and Europe needs to step up."

Schneider dances around it, but the picture is clear enough: the Claims Conference intends to continue allocating millions each year to something other than survivor welfare, even in the face of a growing crisis among the aging & ailing survivor population in the U.S., Israel, Europe and everywhere. The Claims Conference has, by Schneider’s own admission, sheltered these funds from being diverted to humanitarian purposes, which must be a great relief to the grant recipients involved in “education, documentation and research.” The sad fact is that needy survivors would benefit enormously by an annual infusion of $18 million over current funding. Each dollar means an extra ounce of comfort and security for these people.

Jewish social welfare agencies know precisely what that money can do. In the face of the economic downturn, they struggle to do more with less, are desperate for funding, and have almost nowhere else to turn but the Claims Conference. Funding from some future agreement with Lithuania is just a concept that does nothing to address the current emergency. In Israel, the government has been pressured to step up direct aid to survivors, but Israel is unique. Everyone else depends on the Claims Conference. And yet the shameful policy of allocating an important chunk of resources to non-welfare purposes continues. The small minority of survivors who sit on the Conference’s Board have long opposed this policy, but they are perennially outvoted by the non-survivor majority – an insular hodge-podge of establishment organizations that have long ago settled into a mutual back-scratching society.

JTA’s Uriel Heilman asked the question the vast majority of survivors and their descendants demand to know: “With the survivors in their final years, doesn’t it make sense to put the education portion on hold and give all of the money to survivors’ welfare needs?”

Schneider’s ascendancy to the top professional post of this mega-Jewish institution (the largest Jewish non-profit entity in the world, controlling over $1.2 billion in assets in 2007, larger than the Jewish Agency, the JDC, or any of the large-city North American federations) has been accompanied by a PR initiative but no sign of substantive change. The “momentum” he describes coming out of the Prague Conference – or the part of it that might benefit survivors in some tangible way – is already rapidly evaporating. The Claims Conference in the meantime has held its "Annual Meeting" -- which produced no announced changes in allocation policy -- indeed, no public announcements at all other than Schneider's promotion. Status quo seems the operating order of the day.

As we wait for Europe to “step up,” it’s time for the Claims Conference leadership to wake up and reallocate its own funds to face the humanitarian crisis overwhelming our aging Holocaust survivors.

"Repeat Performance"

2009-07-28T13:42:00.000-07:00

Economist and Holocaust restitution expert Sid Zabludoff has published a new op-ed in New York Jewish Week, providing some critical analysis of the recent Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets.

An excerpt:

This conference placed much greater priority on the fact that the bulk of the stolen property will end up being “heirless” assets and these amounts should be mainly used to provide needy survivors with an adequate standard of living and necessary health care. This “new priority” has been understood for some time.

The conference’s minimal accomplishments thus include many thoughtful words on the issues. Its final pronouncement, the Terezin Declaration, acknowledges that “only a part of the confiscated property has been recovered or compensated,” that there are many difficulties ahead and that it is important to move swiftly since most remaining survivors are in their 80s. In addition, the European Shoah Institute in Terezin was formed to “promote developments in the areas covered by the Conference and this Declaration, and to develop and share best practices and guidelines in these areas ... of Immovable (Real) Property.”

At the same time, the Conference failed to take specific actions despite months of preparation work on the five key issues needed for success.

12,000 Needy Survivors in Israel Get Direct Payments of Restitution Funds

2009-07-14T08:56:00.000-07:00

Ha'aretz and other news outlets report on the direct payments planned over the next few weeks to indigent survivors in Israel. The $1500 payments are the second such distribution by the "Company for Restitution of Holocaust Victims Assets" -- a quasi-public, non-profit entity set up to "return assets of Holocaust victims to their rightful heirs and use heirless property to help survivors." The funds will have immediate benefits for survivors struggling with healthcare, housing and other urgent needs, who have fallen between the social service cracks. A third of survivors in Israel live in poverty. Some additional funds will be granted to welfare agencies serving poor survivors.

There is a certain refreshing simplicity to this kind of justice -- direct transfer of cash to people in need, without funnelling all the available funds through intermediary agencies. The law establishing the agency stresses aggressive searches for heirs and requires that assistance to survivors takes precedence when heirless funds are distributed. It is arguably more "just" and practical than the problematical Swiss Bank settlement awards (see previous blog post), and the free latitude of the Jewish Claims Conference to distribute restitution funds it controls for purposes far removed from human welfare needs, such as memorials and remembrance projects, including many grants to its own member organizations. Deep dissatisfaction and outright opposition to the old ways of handling unclaimed Holocaust assets and handing out precious funds in part led to the creation of the "Company."

The Israeli process has not been without its own administrative and accountability problems, and the direct payments also reveal the complexity of administratively and legally defining who is a Holocaust survivor. The historical categories are certainly real: those who fled but never directly suffered under the Nazis (mostly older Jewish immigrants from the Former Soviet Union) had a different experience and don't qualify for the payments.

It seems that, in Israel, their poverty requires another approach.

The Disturbing Failures of the Swiss Bank Settlement

2009-07-14T06:52:00.000-07:00

Writer James Smalhout, writing on Barrons.com website, shares background and a personal family perspective on the failings of the 1998 Swiss Bank ("Holocaust Assets Litigation") settlement. Smalhout points out inadequacies & inconsistencies in the court-supervised claims process, and is incredulous about the large amount -- well over a quarter billion dollars -- of settlement funds still undistributed to victims and heirs over a decade after the settlement between the banks and claimant lawyers was signed.

Smalhout sees the actual claimants as effectively voiceless -- locked out of the process. And his essay raises questions anew about the motives and legitimacy of those who led the campaign against the banks. It is unlikely, though, that his call for enlarging the settlement to more closely reflect the true extent of the theft by the Swiss banks will be heeded.

The real battle is over the use of the remaining settlement funds. That decision remains in the hands of U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman in Brooklyn, and has turned into a disturbing and murky spectacle. Grassroots survivors seeking the immediate distribution of funds to address urgent medical and welfare needs of poor survivors living in the U.S., Israel and other countries are pitted against Jewish organizations with their own priorities and revenue needs, not all of which are in the best interests of needy survivors. Korman and his advisors have lately floated an idea designed largely to skirt the conflict over the remaining settlement pie -- recalculating awards and enlarging payments to claimants. It seems more like a political solution than anything else. The soaring rhetoric about Justice we heard back in 1998 feels like a distant, corrupted echo today.

"Should the Killers Be the Victims' Heirs?"

2009-07-13T22:17:00.000-07:00

Commentary by Esther Toporek Finder, member of U.S. delegation to the Prague Conference.

Rep. Robert Wexler's Address in Prague

2009-07-09T19:09:00.000-07:00

Here is the text of Congressman Robert Wexler's speech at the Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets on June 29, 2009:

It is an extraordinary honor to be here, as a member of the American delegation to the Holocaust Era Assets Conference in Prague, with so many distinguished delegations, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and Holocaust Survivors and their representative organizations.

I want to especially thank the Czech government for hosting this Conference and raise the extraordinary efforts of the Friends of the Chair, the advisory board, working groups, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Ambassador J. Christian Kennedy, and countless others who have worked tirelessly over the past year to ensure the success of this Conference and finalize the Terezin Declaration -- in the noble pursuit of justice for Holocaust survivors.

Sixty years after the end of one of the darkest periods in history, it is clear there will never be perfect justice for victims of Nazi crimes, it is the moral obligation of the international community to continue to address outstanding Holocaust-era issues, including addressing welfare needs of Survivors, opening archives, expanding the reach of Holocaust education, protecting Judaica and Jewish Cultural Property, and ensuring that victims receive restitution or compensation for immovable property and Nazi confiscated or looted art.

Since the end of World War II, a concerted effort has been undertaken at the governmental and non-governmental levels to assist victims of Nazi atrocities. This process has been painstakingly difficult with many obstacles and setbacks. Despite courageous individuals, governments, and dedicated organizations – fighting to ensure a measure of justice for SHOAH victims – we are here today in Prague, 10 years after the Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets, to again address outstanding Holocaust-era issues.

It is self-evident that the international community has a moral responsibility to the victims of the Holocaust and to seek justice for those individuals who survived the SHOAH.

What primarily motivated me to participate in this Conference is the opportunity to again be an advocate for the needs of Holocaust Survivors in South Florida. I am particularly humbled to be in Prague, participating at this Conference with Alex Moskovic, a Survivor from South Florida and a leading member of the Holocaust Survivors' Foundation, who has testified before the U.S. Congress and is well-respected in Washington.

In October 2007, Alex, who is the only one of 41 family members to survive Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald, emotionally testified before the Europe subcommittee about the grave plight of aging survivors in the United States, including many that live below the poverty level and lack proper medical care. I was shocked by his stark description of the situation facing many survivors, in their advanced age, which is simply unacceptable and must be addressed.

Fortunately, the Terezin Declaration recognizes, what Alex and countless others have advocated for some time, the importance of addressing the welfare of Survivors and victims of Nazi persecution. The Declaration states that “it is unacceptable that those who suffered so greatly…should live under such circumstances at the end.”

While the Prague Conference and the Terezin Declaration clearly raise awareness and offer rhetorical support for addressing Holocaust survivors’ needs, it is essential that we act over the coming months and years to ensure that survivors, who endured immeasurable suffering and trauma and have special medical and social needs, are properly provided for by the international community.

I want to offer my support for the establishment of the European SHOAH Legacy Institute in Terezin. As envisioned, the Terezin Institute will follow-up on the work completed at the Prague Conference, breathe life into the Terezin Declaration, and serve as a central clearinghouse for Survivors, NGO’s, and governments as they determine the best methods and practices to assist needy Survivors.

The Terezin Institute will also focus on the restitution or compensation of immovable property. While many European nations have sought to resolve the complex problem of illegally confiscated private and communal property, there are governments which have made numerous promises but have not implemented legislation to provide compensation or restitution to victims of confiscated property or their heirs. Now is the time for these nations to follow the positive examples of their neighbors, and take bold steps toward enacting comprehensive property restitution or compensation legislation.

Again, I want to thank the Czech government and Conference organizers for giving me the opportunity to address this distinguished audience. I look forward to working with all of the conference participants in the coming months to implement the Prague Declaration and assist needy survivors in America and across the globe.

At Least Someone's Pleased

2009-07-01T11:56:00.000-07:00

"Israel satisfied with outcome of the Holocaust Era Assets Conference"
Statement from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

"Caring for our Aging Survivor Parents"

2009-07-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

Formal presentation by Esther Toporek Finder
Special Session: Caring for Victims of Nazism and Their Legacy
Holocaust Era Assets Conference, Prague - Czech Republic, June 28, 2009.

Finder is a member of the Coordinating Council of Generations of the Shoah International (GSI), President of The Generation After (an organization for children and descendants of Holocaust survivors in the Washington D.C. area) and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the Prague Conference.

Wexler Comments

2009-06-30T07:18:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from a Radio Free Europe interview with Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who attended the Prague Conference and delivered a keynote address on Monday.

RFE/RL: You're here in Prague to take part in the conference on the assets of Holocaust victims. Are you satisfied with the proceedings?

Wexler: I'm satisfied that the interests of Holocaust survivors are being better addressed in this conference than they would have, certainly, been without this conference. And there has been, I think, urgent discussions on the issues of importance, such as property restitution, the collection of Nazi-looted art, and there's a very limited window of opportunity to help Holocaust survivors in their waning years.

And this conference -- and I applaud the Czech Republic government for sponsoring it -- this conference represents the last best hope to address the needs of Holocaust survivors, particularly in the context of the number of Holocaust survivors in America, internationally, who are in a condition of poverty. And the ability to provide restitution -- the monies to be used for the needs of Holocaust survivors -- is a noble cause. And I think we will be much closer to achieving a measure of justice for these Holocaust survivors, which is what we need to do.

Prague Conference Documents

2009-06-29T09:59:00.000-07:00

Conference organizers have posted several documents on their website.

The Terezin Declaration is the cautiously-worded non-binding multinational agreement emerging from the conference. It will be signed on Tuesday at a public ceremony at the former ghetto site of Terezin (Theresienstadt), located 60 km. from Prague.

An additional formal Joint Declaration was issued by the European Commission and the outgoing leadership of the European Union-Czech Presidency.

A video gallery provides links to streaming video of several of the plenary sessions, which are conducted in English.

Word Cloud of Terezin Declaration

2009-06-29T09:30:00.000-07:00

Click on the image below to view a Word Cloud of the Terezin Declaration text.

A "word cloud” is a visual depiction of a document that provides a way to describe its content and meaning. The cloud gives greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text. In the Terezin Declaration, the word "property" is much more prominent than the words "survivor" or "victims," which in turn are more prominent than "welfare."

The prominence of words is one way to understand the importance or priority of ideas or commitments reflected in the Declaration.

Things, Not People

2009-06-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

Jewish news service JTA today posted an op-ed by the chief executive of B'nai B'rith. It's all about Holocaust material claims, without a mention of survivors as people. Justice for living Holocaust survivors, an appalling number of whom live in poverty and inadequate health care, is not an abstract concept. It has direct consequences for the quality of life of survivors. It is the fundamental reason all this is being done: doing right by and for the survivors.

Sometimes advocates for resolving Holocaust assets issues remember to talk with some compassion -- even if it's just lip service -- about the survivors among us. But today, that seems to have slipped the collective mind of B'nai B'rith's leadership. It makes one wonder about the real motives behind efforts in 2009 to revive the Holocaust assets campaigns. If those claiming to "lead" the effort have such myopia, what moral standing can they really claim?

"Toothless Declarations"

2009-06-28T06:58:00.000-07:00

Marilyn Henry, a reporter and author who has covered these topics for a long time, has this commentary in today's Jerusalem Post.

More Than Just "art restitution"

2009-06-27T19:39:00.000-07:00

Participants might be surprised to hear that, according to the New York Times, they are at an "art restitution conference" in Prague. It is of course much more than that.

On Friday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives joined the Senate and unanimously passed their resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) supporting the goals of the Prague Conference. The resolution's sponsor was Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), joined by 28 co-sponsors. Wexler will be in attendance in Prague on Sunday.

Wexler issued the following statement:

"Passage of this resolution sends an unequivocal message that Congress and the American people strongly support the goals and objectives of the Prague Conference. It is imperative that the United States and Prague Conference participants resolve outstanding issues, including implementing property restitution and or compensation legislation, and make certain that growing Survivor healthcare and social needs are met as they age."

Wexler's colleague, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), added the following statement in the Congressional Record:

"While it is largely unspoken, many Holocaust survivors lack the means for even the most basic necessities, including proper housing and health care. We have a moral obligation to uphold and defend the plight and dignity of Holocaust survivors and to ensure their well-being. The Prague Conference is a critical forum to effectively address the increasing economic, social, housing, and health care needs of Holocaust survivors in their waning years...I express strong support for the decision to make the economic, social, housing, and health care needs of Holocaust survivors a major focus of the Prague Conference. Finally, this Resolution urges the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which have not already done so, to return looted and confiscated properties to their rightful owners or, where restitution is not possible, pay equitable compensation to the rightful owners in accordance with principles of justice and in an expeditious manner that is just, transparent, and fair."

"Expert Conclusions" Skewed Against Survivors

2009-06-27T00:25:00.000-07:00

A set of "Expert Conclusions" was published Thursday in advance of the Prague Conference. They cover findings and recommendations in each of the five issue areas discussed at the conference.

The “Conclusions” addressing the topic of survivor welfare fail miserably to come to grips with the real issues affecting survivors and demonstrate what has been wrong with the conference process from the outset.

Because of the long disagreement and delay over even allowing the topic of survivor welfare on the agenda, the time devoted to developing these "Conclusions" was too short in comparison to the other issue areas, and lacked any significant deliberation and broad input. No formal preparatory meeting was held and key stakeholders were not asked to participate or provide their input.

The Conclusions are objectionable on a number of points:

There is no commitment to accountability over past and existing restitution-related funds, only calls for more settlement agreements yielding more funds controlled by a narrow, unaccountable group of agencies.

There is no acknowledgement of the substantial existing amount of unallocated funds such as Swiss Bank Deposited Assets, large reserves in the control of the Claims Conference, and other funds.These funds should be fully accounted for and directed to address the urgent needs of survivors.

There is no mention of the need to create a centralized fund devoted exclusively for survivor care. Formal recommendations to establish an international fund for survivor care were submitted to conference organizers by economist Sidney Zabludoff, an expert in Holocaust restitution. Some of his ideas are summarized here. Zabludoff was not subsequently contacted by the conference organizers or the coordinators of the “Special Session” on survivor welfare. His recommendations are entirely absent from the Conclusions.

The Conclusions explicitly place survivor welfare and Holocaust education/remembrance needs on par – in other words, essential food, housing and medical care is seen as of equal importance with the maintenance of memorial sites and cemeteries. This recommendation flies in the face of widespread opposition among survivors in many countries and among agencies providing essential welfare services.

A call for “permanent funding” of memorial sites and cemeteries directly conflicts with the priority of addressing to survivor welfare. It was pushed by agencies and institutions that do not serve the humanitarian survivors and would result in a diversion of urgently-needed resources to activities other than the care of survivors.

The Conclusions include shallow, formulaic calls for “coordinated efforts, ” monitoring activities, and greater “financial support” of services for survivors without a mechanism to assess and measure global need, or allocate resources in a transparent or accountable fashion within a broader consultative or decision process. To the great discredit of the authors of the Conclusions, no explicit mention is made of the severe and tragic levels of poverty among survivors, or of the need to include legitimate survivor representatives in decisions directly impacting the lives of survivors.

Together, these “Conclusions” reflect the interests and priorities of established organizations and reinforce the status quo. It does not reflect the concerns of grassroots survivors and signals to them that the conference does not take their welfare seriously.

Early Reports from Prague

2009-06-26T15:54:00.000-07:00

A few news stories in English are coming through. Conference hosts held a news conference before the official start of the agenda. The French wire service AFP reports on opening remarks by Elie Wiesel, who expresses anger at the many decades of inaction on Holocaust compensation & restitution. Our eyes and ears at the Conference note that Wiesel pointedly mentioned directly the plight of survivors in need.

The Associated Press reports on the background, noting how the conference organizers worked to shut out those advocating individual asset claims cases. The story also includes a quote from HSF on the marginalization of survivors at the Conference.

A few other short reports stress the looted art issue almost exclusively. Typical is this from the BBC. Headlines like "Summit addresses Nazi-looted art" probably please the art activists.

Holocaust Asset Recovery a Messy Business

2009-06-24T21:16:00.000-07:00

While leading voices try to keep the focus on certain East European countries in the run-up to the international Holocaust assets conference, certain chickens are coming home to roost in Israel, particularly for Bank Leumi, one of a number of Israeli institutions accused of profiting from the Holocaust by keeping and basically absorbing dormant accounts or assets invested by Holocaust victims before the Second World War instead of seeking out rightful heirs or otherwise admitting what they had.

It's an old story with a new chapter -- formal legal proceedings brought by claimants against the bank are about to begin.

Senate Supports Prague Conference

2009-06-24T07:28:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Senate on June 18 passed by unanimous consent a resolution in support of goals and objectives of the Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets. The resolution (S Con. Res. 23) was sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and 8 co-sponsors. It is the kind of symbolic message nobody objects to but that carries little weight. Still -- thanks, Senate, for paying attention.

The resolution includes language applauding the expansion of the original agenda to include the key issue of survivor welfare as a "major focus," but Cardin doesn't seem to have gotten the memo: in his statement for the record, the sponsor makes no reference to actual survivors or their urgent social, housing and health care needs, which would seem to be a key reason for holding the conference in the first place. Or is it?

The Senate resolution has been sent to the House for concurrence.

Prague Holocaust Conference

2009-06-23T11:36:00.001-07:00

The Conference on Holocaust Era Assets is scheduled to get underway in Prague, Czech Republic this Friday. Some early media coverage is beginning to appear and, as expected, reflects the priorities and desired spin of the main institutional players at the conference, primarily the Jewish Claims Conference, which has played a major role in shaping the goals and structure of the conference (and packing the speaker slots).

The priorities of the Claims Conference are art restitution and return or compensation of property -- particularly former Jewish communal property -- in eastern European countries like Poland and Lithuania, where open issues remain from six decades ago.

The formal sessions and speakers scheduled at the Prague conference reflect these priorities, but that really means issues of most direct concern to survivors are going to be given short shrift. The conference program does not bode well: a "special session" on survivor welfare was added relatively late in the process, without any working group of experts or stakeholders meeting over the last few months to consider ways to address the painful and tragic issue of survivor poverty, and to build consensus on practical solutions. It will likely mean symbolic talk, and no action.

Instead, we are going to hear a lot about stolen artworks and Judaica, and the need for more research and commemorative projects.

And many European governments, frankly, would like the conference to come & go with as little attention as possible, allowing them to duck potential public pressure to fulfill past promises or do more to address historic wrongs.

For most of the Holocaust restitution "establishment," survivors are a secondary concern, and even an annoyance at times. Just a handful have been granted speaking roles in Prague.

So, we will soon witness an international conference on the Holocaust play out with living survivors made to stand on the periphery, barely seen, with the pressing issue of survivor poverty relegated to the edges of the agenda.

It is a profound failure of leadership.

"Surviving Surviving"

2009-06-16T19:21:00.000-07:00

An eighth grader from Long Island has made a remarkable documentary focusing on survivor poverty. The video, "Surviving Surviving" can be viewed here. As part of a thesis project, Joe Klein interviewed survivors and staff from several New York-area agencies providing services to survivors living in poverty.

The video is also the focus of a feature article in the Jewish Star (Long Island, NY).

"Surviving Surviving" is honest and outspoken, a call to conscience. Elie Rubenstein, the Executive Director of Blue Card, Inc . (a non-profit social agency serving survivors), boils it down to the basics:

"If we allow...Holocaust survivors to live in poverty, I think it tells something about us as a community...people would like to ignore and not talk about it."

In thirty short minutes, Joe Klein's film gives voice to survivors and raises more awareness about their plight than practically all Jewish media coverage on the issue over the past few years.

It's worth a look.

Breaking News on German Ghetto Pensions

2009-06-05T15:49:00.000-07:00

(received from Leo Rechter)

In a case involving two Holocaust survivors, a German Court has ruled that survivors who worked in ghettos are entitled to German Social Security pensions, even if they cannot prove that they had worked for remuneration. This is a reversal of previous decisions.

90 percent of the 70,000 claimants who had previously applied had been rejected because of lack of proof. Now there is new hope. Details will follow.

Please note: These pensions are only for survivors who worked for remuneration, (ghetto money or extra rations, etc.) out of their own free volition. It is not for forced laborers or slave laborers.

HSF Statement to President Obama

2009-06-04T07:55:00.000-07:00

Holocaust Survivors' Foundation-USA has issued a statement coinciding with President Obama's visit to the Buchenwald memorial in Germany urging the President to address the needs of living survivors. The text of the statement can be viewed here.

Why Me?

2009-05-31T18:04:00.000-07:00

By January 1945, as the Soviet Army was getting closer to Birkenau, mentally and physically I felt better about myself and even dared to think that there was a possibility of leaving Birkenau normally (not through the chimney).
By the middle of January cannon fire was heard in the distance, this was more hope. A few days later, our barrack was awakened earlier than usual and each one of us were given 2 portions of bread, lined up outside of the barrack and camp “A” was evacuated (luckily prior to this time, I was able to acquire some additional food and winter clothing with boots while working on the scheise commando). We were joined by other camps in Birkenau and the “death march” started on a cold winter day in Poland.
For the next 27 hours, we marched on the snowy, windy roads stopping occasionally to relieve ourselves in the fields and swallowing snow as our liquid with a few bites of bread. If anyone could not walk others helped him for a while till they got tired. When someone fell to the ground, he was dragged to the side of the road and shot in the head. The following morning some of us arrived in Gleiwitz concentration camp. Immediately I found a barrack to rest, placing my back-pack as a pillow on the concrete floor and slept for a few hours.
I woke up in the afternoon and went looking for my friends. While walking, I met people from other camps and started to look closer for someone from Sobrance. For a while I had no luck . With thousands of people aimlessly walking around it was not an easy task. Just about the time I was ready to give up, I saw a group of people huddled together (apparently to try to keep warm), I walked toward them and as I got closer, someone’s back looked familiar to me. I circled around this person till I was in front of him, we made eye contact. Both of us recognized each other; it was my brother Zoltan. We hugged each other and cried, there was so much to say but neither one of us could find the right words. After a while we separated and I turned to the right and saw the face of my father (Josef). We hugged, kissed and cried; I could not believe in this miracle. After a while we settled down and made some future plans to stay close together, if possible. Everyone knew the war would probably soon be over.
A few days later, the three of us were placed in open coal cars. Twelve days later we arrived in Buchenwald, this was the beginning of February. In Buchenwald we stayed together in a men’s barrack. Unfortunately, about a month later, my father became very ill and was taken to the hospital. Sadly this was the last time we saw him.
Next, my brother and I were placed in Barrack #66 with over a thousand boys. At the beginning of April 1945, as the U.S. Army was getting close to Buchenwald another death march was planned. My brother (Zoltan) was picked to leave immediately on this march. I was younger and I was not picked to leave on that day.
Those of us who were left, were sent back to our barracks to await another death march. This second death march never materialized because Buchenwald was “found” by the 6th Armored Division of the 3rd U. S. Army on April 11, 1945.
The boys in Barrack #66 were placed in the Guards’ Barrack for seven weeks which was set up as a hospital. Each one of us was examined by a U.S. Army doctor, and appropriate medical treatment was provided as needed. At that time my weight was 66 pounds and I just turned 14 years old. We were fed cooked cereal with vitamins and cared for by the U. S. Army Doctors. Their aim was to make us well again in order for us to travel to our homes and other places.
After my return to Sobrance, I found out that from my extended and immediate family of 41, I was the sole survivor.
On July 3, 1946 I arrived in the United States.
My survival was a miracle. By immigrating to the United States I had many opportunities to rebuild my life. I married and had two sons, grandchildren and had a successful and gratifying career. I now focus on working on issues to help indigent survivors, and also speak in schools re: the Holocaust. My life is very fulfilling and I am grateful to have the health and energy that enables me to “give back”. Someone up there must have been watching over me!

The Last Survivors

2009-05-26T21:05:00.000-07:00

Additional thoughts from Leo Rechter that appeared in the May issue of NAHOS newsletter:

# # #

The distinguished scholar Michael Berenbaum wrote an essay in the ‘Forward.com’ April 24^th issue in which he gives credit to the contributions of survivors. [Link to article]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We are grateful to Professor Berenbaum for his moving essay and his recognition. We hope other non-survivors will concur with his findings about our contributions.

There was only one sentence that we were wondering about. After the statement: “All too soon, there would be no survivors” professor Berenbaum reports: “The membership of every institution acknowledged the problem and dreaded that moment.”

Forgive us, professor Berenbaum if we question the all-encompassing reach of that statement. “Every (?) institution” and “dreaded” (?).

Undoubtedly, most museums and memorials will deplore the loss of valuable input, but the sentiment among the survivor population is that most American Jewish non-survivors organizations are not overly concerned with the fate of Holocaust survivors.

They were not overly concerned when we first came to these shores (especially in the larger cities); they do not seem concerned with the current obscenely high level of poverty among survivors; they are not concerned that the rights of survivors - of deciding over their rightful restitutions - are being usurped by the Claims Conference’.

The USHM Museum is not concerned that most survivors will have passed from this world before the Museum will have put valuable information about the fate of their murdered relatives on the Internet; the large Jewish Foundations who give away sizable funds to all kinds of fashionable causes while ignoring the plight of destitute survivors who cannot afford their medications, seem also not concerned.

Let’s face it: There are numerous Survivor voices who refused to be treated like sheep; who object to have non-survivors decide over their fate and their restitution-funds; who resent seeing the deprivation of many of their fellow survivors. Their voices have been and are a constant irritation to the conscience of the “machers” of many Jewish institutions. They do not actually wish the passing of the last survivors, but – judging by the belief of most survivors -- it is unlikely that they would “dread the moment.”

Shameless Coercion

2009-05-26T00:27:00.000-07:00

Leo Rechter, a Survivor and President of The National Association of Jewish Child Holocaust Survivors (NAHOS), as well as a founding Board member of HSF, recently penned the following commentary in the May 2009 NAHOS newsletter. (NOTE: The entire newsletter & previous issues are available at this link.)

# # #

The Haaretz of May 8th reports that the ‘Claims Conference – JCC’, “the world’s richest Holocaust restitution organization” has offered to give funds to Israeli Survivor organizations provided they stop criticism of the JCC. The umbrella group ‘The Centre of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Israel’ has rejected the offer and called it: “an insulting bribe meant to silence legitimate criticism.” Apparently. the ‘Centre’ had financial difficulties and the “Claims Conference offered a no-interest, 12-month loan of $200,000 to the Centre of Organizations in an internal, unsigned contract, obtained by Haaretz. The loan, intended ‘to prevent the Centre’s economic collapse,’ is conditioned on the Centre ‘aligning itself’ with the Claims Conference and refraining from voicing any criticism.”
The Haaretz further reports:
“The final clause in the proposed contract stated that, should the umbrella group take the money and then criticize the Claims Conference, it would be required to repay the debt immediately, and the Claims Conference would halt future funding.” And:
“Welfare organizations in Israel are on the brink of bankruptcy and the Claims Conference is trying to take advantage of this. Is worse than offering a bribe: It’s a dictatorial attempt to silence opposition.”
The Claims Conference does not deny having made this conditional offer, but contends it was necessary because of “irresponsible and damaging behavior” by people from the ‘Centre of Organizations’. The JCC also asserts that the ‘Centre’ had not asked for funding of welfare projects, as usual, but for funding of ‘operational costs’. A board member of the ‘Centre’ refutes this assertion and reveals that the JCC “had funded operation costs for years, before pulling the plug two years ago.” “Now it’s conditioned on servility” he said.
A spokesperson for the Claims Conference complains: “People from the Centre of Organizations have recently lashed out at the Claims Conference, damaging both bodies. It’s unthinkable for the Claims Conference to be expected to fund a body which behaves like this without making sure it acts responsibly for the common goal of helping survivors.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Editor: We applaud the board-members of the ‘Centre’ who rejected the debasing offer. In our opinion any attempt a stifling criticism is an outrageous affront to the survivor community. We believe in free, democratic expressions of opinion and in a free marketplace of ideas. We scorn and challenge the JCC’s attempts at authoritarianism and dictatorship. Today’s adults are quite capable of discerning where the truth lies and what to believe.
Furthermore, these funds are not private funds that the JCC magnanimously provides from its own pockets. These are funds that were merely entrusted to them – for the benefit of survivors – from German and other restitutions and compensations and from the sale of properties of other Nazi-victims that did not survive.
In our opinion, there never was as justification to use these entrusted funds according to the whims of the JCC. There is no justification to cover ‘operational costs’ of other organizations. How does the JCC record these expenditures? As Welfare benefits? As educational expenditures?
This practice of providing ‘operational funds’ has led to the formation of a number of small and servile survivor groups; afraid of expressing their honest beliefs; afraid of openly and effectively struggling for survivors’ rights; afraid of demanding full and transparent oversight over all financial expenditures. Now the JCC is attempting to extend its control over the entire survivor community; is arrogantly trying to stifle all voices of dissent. We must not, we will not let this happen! Never!

Claims Conference spins new agreement as victory for themselves...but is it?

2009-03-26T23:29:00.000-07:00

The Claims Conference announced on March 19, 2009 a new agreement with the German government that allows needy survivors from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) who had been unfairly rejected for benefits in the past to reapply. Although no mention is made in the official press release, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that the agreement to allow FSU survivors to reapply to the Hardship Fund is actually designed to settle a lawsuit brought against the Claims Conference. An Israeli court ruled in June 2008 that the group improperly misled thousands of claimants and denied them of their benefits.

In their statement, the Claims Conference repeatedly blames "German rules" and "German government criteria" for the past rejection of survivor claims under the Hardship Fund. This is nothing more than face-saving spin. In its June 2008 ruling, the District Court in Tel Aviv placed the responsibility for misleading and denying claims squarely on the shoulders of the Claims Conference (not the Germans, as the Claims Conference attempted to argue) and ordered it to pay damages to the victims. The court action came six years after a lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of survivors from the FSU alleging the Claims Conference followed its own criteria that were not part of the German government's conditions for the Fund. Judge Oded Mudrick found that the "Claims Conference owes the obligation of fidelity to the plaintiffs. It owes them an obligation of moral responsibility. It violated its concrete obligation toward them because it did not provide them with the proper tools to make their decisions. The main thing is that they did not provide vital information."

The Claims Conference had petitioned the Israel Supreme Court seeking to overturn the ruling, but the new agreement with Germany suggests the matter will now be quietly dropped; the attorney for survivors said he expects the appeal to be withdrawn, and for many thousands of survivors who were not covered by the lawsuit to be compensated as they deserve.