Gelle 1

Kelsi Gelle

Dr. Katherine Gilbert

HNRS 302

14 May 2021

Monetary Reparations for Holocaust Victims

Beginning in the late 1940s, Israel had more than five hundred thousand Holocaust

survivors arrive to its new Jewish state. The estimated cost of this resettlement was about $3,000

per immigrant in order to account for the necessary components such as food and shelter. In

1951, Israel’s foreign minister Moshe Sharett submitted a note to the four allied governments

(US, USSR, UK, and France). Sharett's claim was based on the financial damper put on Israel

from the rehabilitation of Jews who escaped or survived the Nazi regime, and it claimed global

recompense to the State of Israel for $1.5 billion from the German Federal Republic. In January

of 1952, the Israeli parliament (also known as the Knesset) assembled to discuss the possibility

of a reparations agreement with West Germany. At the same time, the future prime minister of

Israel, Menachem Begin, gave large speeches that provoked violent reactions among the Jews of

Israel because he did not believe in the reparations from Germany. The actions ranged from

denunciation to assasinatin plots, and there were also several bomb attempts. After six months of

negotiations as well as outbursts against the reparations, an agreement between Israel and West

Germany was finally signed, where Germany agreed to pay Israel more than $7 billion in today’s

money. Negotiating reparations with Germany caused enormous controversy in Israel on

political and moral levels but led to monetary compensation for the Jews who were victims of the

horendous genocide by the Nazis.

 Gelle 2

After the devastating mass murders were carried out by the Nazis during World War II,

Germany began the process of making amends for its survivors. In 1952, there was a reparations

agreement made between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) to make

up for the huge campaign of discrimination and murder. The negotiation was presented by the

State of Israel to allow the country to “meet the cost of resettling large numbers of immigrants,

principally by providing the means to expand opportunities for the settlement and rehabilitation

of Jewish refugees in Israel, mainly by the delivered goods from Germany” (Honig 566). The

“large number of immigrants” mentioned was referring to the half a million new Jewish settlers

in Israel, which was why the country needed so much money. In order to “meet the cost,” West

Germany agreed to pay more than $7 billion, and the reparation money allowed Israel to “expand

opportunities for the settlement and rehabilitation of Jewish refugees in Israel” by receiving

goods and services from Germany and distributing them to the Jews. The new and improved

materials that Israel was receiving offered positive repairs to the country for the victims of the

Holocaust.

In Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “The Case for Reparations,” he explored several examples of

repair including the monetary reparations for Holocuast victims in Israel. Within his discussion

about reparations, he writes, “Israel’s gross national product tripled during the 12 years of the

agreement. The Bank of Israel attributed 15 percent of this growth, along with 45,000 jobs, to

investments made with reparations money. But Tom Segev [Israeli historian] argues that the

impact went far beyond that. Reparations ‘had indisputable psychological and political

importance,’” (Coates 71). The repairs that Coates talks about in this statement signify the

success of Israel with a large Jewish immigration and show that the country stood up for victims

of Nazism in order to give them what they deserved after intolerable levels of hardship. The
 Gelle 3

“psychological and political importance” refers to the repair to the most important factors for

Holocaust victims. The Holocaust left Jewish families with long-term psychological wounds, and

Israel tried to help with those issues by providing with them with what they needed to live as

normal and healthy as possible. Israel had to be strong to ensure that the horror of the Nazi

massacre would not recur by forming solutions for each side. Germany signed the agreement to

Israel to compensate for the crimes they had committed and the Holocaust surivors got to live in

comfort, even though the memories would be there forever. The monetary reparations gave Israel

the opportunity to grow their country and gave the victims the help and structure they

desperately needed.

Even though positive outcomes came out of the negotiation with Germany, there were

several Holocaust victims in Israel who did not agree with the financial reparations. Not only did

this stem from their experiences in the Holocaust but also from Menachem Begin, the future

prime minister of Israel. When he spoke out in front of several Jews, he exclaimed that Germany

had “plundered the lives, labor, and property of his people” (Coates 70) and also claimed that all

Germans were Nazis who were guilty of murder. He urged the crowd to stop paying taxes and

claimed that the Israeli nation marked the fight over whether or not to accept reparations as a

“war to the death.” He wanted them to believe that Germany was only going to give them

monetary reparations to kill them and start a war between the nations of Israel and Germany.

From the first time Begin spoke out, the conflicts slowly worsened where two hundred civilians

and one hundred and forty police officers were wounded, and nearly four hundred people were

arrested. The Knesset discussion about reparations from Germany was stopped in order to put

down the violent outbursts.

 Gelle 4

The people who were on the opposing side of reparations considered the money to be

blood money and felt it would wash away the status of crimes Germany had committed. They

believed that reparations could not make up for the murder done by the Nazis and that Germans

would not consider themselves responsible, no matter what. In Belinda Cooper’s Jewish Claims

Against East Germany: Moral Obligations and Pragmatic Policy, she analyzes the negotiations

and the opinions at the time. She writes, “The fact of paying reparations did not in itself signify

German society's acknowledgement of responsibility for the Holocaust” (Cooper 149). The

statement acknowledges how some people thought Germans failed to recognize the moral

reasoning behind reparations. Very few Germans believed the Jews were entitled to anything, let

alone restitution from Germany. However, those who opposed receiving reparations from

Germany only saw the negative factors that played into monetary reparations when Israel was

trying their best to help the victims.

The State of Israel wanted the best for its Holocaust victims and had the opportunity to

support them with the reparations from Germany. Once approved, the funding allowed survivors

to receive better quality home care, food items, transportation, and medical services (Coates 70).

Israel strived to help them to their greatest ability because they knew the dark times the victims

had gone through. The government of Israel also understood that materials could not replace the

dreadful memories, which was a reason that the opposing side of victims had. Frederick Honig, a

Barrister-at-Law in London, wrote “The Reparations Agreement Between Israel and The Federal

Republic of Germany” where he discusses what reparations were given and how Israel used

them. In it he states, “It was clear that no amount of material reparation could possibly repair the

grievous damage done, and it was equally clear that, even from the purely financial point of

view, Israel could not hope to receive full compensation for the material losses suffered by Jewry
 Gelle 5

as a result of German depredations” (Honig 564-565). This indicates that Israel was not implying

that reparations would be given for the total loss suffered but would be given to keep the victims’

lives going in the right direction. The survivors who landed in Israel were relying on the country

to take care of them, which was exactly why Israel proposed the possible reparations to

Germany.

The decision for reparations between Israel and Germany was the most effective at the

time. The State of Israel found and explored solutions that were grounded in repair and justice,

even though the horrible memories were still present. The agreement was a historic model of

universal importance, a contribution to the human community’s law and justice, and a lesson that

conflict between people could be overcome. Yechiam Weitz, an Israeli professor and historian,

wrote The Reparation Negotiations in Israeli Politics where he breaks down the agreement and

analyzes its uses. Weitz writes, “Indeed, ridden as our world is with ingrained enmities, it is

possible time and again to point to what ensued in Israeli-German relations and learn from it that

no such thing as ‘eternal enmity’ is acceptable. In spite of a history of terrible shedding of blood,

reconciliation is always possible” (Weitz 378). Weitz suggests that even though the Holocaust

greatly impacted its survivors, there was still a chance to mend the broken pieces and give them

life they deserve. Israel demonstrated an example of reconciliation because they proposed a

solution that would help both the Holocaust victims and Germany in the end. The survivors

could be given a chance to flourish and recover from their sufferings while the Nazis needed to

realize what they had done and pay the price for the difficulties they had caused.

Negotiating reparations for Holocaust victims with Germany was a subject of enormous

controversy in Israel on political and moral levels but grounded a solution in repair and justice

that had emerged from the issues at hand. The large number of Holocaust victims who flooded
 Gelle 6

into Israel gave the country the opportunity to ask for reparations from Germany in order to

provide for the survivors. There was a divide between the survivors when the question about

whether or not the reparations should be negotiated was raised. Some thought reparations could

not make up for the murder done by the Nazis and that Germans would not consider themselves

responsible. Violence broke out but eventually faded away once the agreement on reparations

between Israel and West Germany was signed and put into full effect. The event allowed justice

to take a powerful stride and kept people moving along a continuum toward repairing the

considerable amount of harm experienced by a great injustice.

Works Cited
 Gelle 7

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case For Reparations.” Atlantic Media Company, June 2014,

moodle.drury.edu/pluginfile.php/1282539/mod_resource/content/0/%232%20Coates

%20Case%20for%20Reparations.pdf.

Cooper, Belinda. Jewish Claims Against East Germany: Moral Obligations and

Pragmatic Policy. vol. 19, no. 2 (59), 2001, pp. 148–155. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/23740604. Accessed 21 Apr. 2021.

Honig, Frederick. “The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic

of Germany.” The American Journal of International Law, vol. 48, no. 4, 1954, pp. 564–

578. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2195023. Accessed 21 Apr. 2021.

Weitz, Yechiam..(2020, April 01). “The Reparations Controversy : The Jewish State and

German Money in the Shadow of the Holocaust.” 1951, Retrieved April 21, 2021, from

https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/28248