By Ezra
Over at BeliefNet's Virtual Talmud blog, there's an interesting argument over the utility of reparation payments for the Holocaust. West Germany paid restitutions in the 50s, and the united Germany set up a fund for needy Holocaust survivors in the 90s, but pressure continues against Austria, various corporations that profited from Jewish slave labor, and the many Swiss Banks who sheltered funds stolen from the victims -- and some studies argue that even under the agreements signed, $175 billion is still outstanding.
At the VT blog, Joshua Waxman argues that the scale of the crimes "preclude any talk of justice." As such, reparations should be seen "as an attempt to assist aging survivors in need and not as compensation in any shape or form for the indescribable suffering they experienced as their families and communities were systematically destroyed." Susan Grossman, by contrast, believes "there is a form of justice in such an admission" as reparation payments, and that "by acknowledging guilt, reparations can open pathways for reconciliation."
I've always found reparations -- particularly when most of the victims are dead, and a number of generations have elapsed -- a tricky issue. I'm pretty sure Grossman is wrong about their role in reconciliation, at least on the corporate level, specifically when so much time has passed since the actual event. She uses Chrysler as an example of a corporation that should pay in apology, but Chrysler and the Jewish community aren't particularly at odds. Thoughts?
