49

[6] Compensation Claim From Germany; Release of Nazi War Criminals Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Meeting, 13.3.1951

Chairman Meir Argov (): At the last meeting, MK Peretz Bernstein raised the question of compensation from Germany. I brought this question to the foreign minister’s knowledge and he told me that he is prepared to provide details on this issue to the committee, as he is about to make a statement to the Knesset on this question.

Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett: Over the last twenty-four hours we have taken two steps, both related to the matter of compensation. One was towards the government of the United States in particular, by sending a note to the American ambassador here. The note expresses our protest against the policy adopted by General John J. McCloy in the commutation of sentences and release of a considerable number of principal Nazi criminals. This was done not by relying on reports published in the newspapers – I do not wish to say that the reports are incorrect, but that is not a firm basis for dispatching an international document – it was done on the basis of McCloy’s own report. McCloy’s report, officially published by the United States authorities, reached us ten days ago; our own note was composed on its basis. Today’s papers carry a condensed version of the note; the full text will be handed to members of this committee later today. This is a matter relating to a specific and special subject: the release, acquittal, commutation and remission of Nazi criminals adopted by the United States authorities in the zone in Germany for which they are still responsible. Quite naturally the note was submitted only to the United States as the party concerned. We expressed in it the profound frustration of the government and people of in view of this policy. We compared the spirit of the report with the spirit of the Nüremberg Trials, and elaborated what this means for the future of justice in the world. The note contained both an expression of regret and deep and grave concern; it also included a clause on the seven convicted persons who were not

DOI 10.1515/9783110255386.49, , published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. 50 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 pardoned, but whose sentences have not been carried out. In an oral addendum, strong emphasis was placed on these seven convicted persons still waiting for their sentences to be carried out, not because we are a people seeking blood and vengeance, but because this touches upon the core of world justice and is also necessary in order to deter future genocide. Unrelated to this document, yesterday we submitted to the four powers – the United States, England, France and the – an extensive document on reparation claims for the State of Israel. It is my intention to deliver a statement in this regard to the Knesset this afternoon on this subject, and I would like to convey to this committee a somewhat shorter but more detailed report since on the matter of reparations and procedure I am able to tell you more than to the Knesset. I shall read the contents of the document in the Knesset in full; here I shall do it in brief. In the middle of January we submitted a note to the four powers in which we discussed the questions of restitution of Jewish property and individual compensation. In the note we dealt with those issues for which there are laws in force, to one degree or another, in West Germany. The subjects of these laws are compensation claims of individuals for personal damages, personal injury, detention, property expropriated and not returned, and various other individual claims. At the time we made no new demands but rather submitted a demand for reparations regarding several specific matters. There were two main issues on which we demanded that the central government, not the Länder [states] governments,1 be bound, and expressed our reservations regarding the transfer of executive authority in these matters to the German authorities before the required procedure is ensured. In that note we stated that all these claims do not close the account between us and Germany and that we reserve the right to submit another note that will discuss the reparations problem. There is a difference between “restoration,” “indemnity”and other matters. We have termed the former “compensation” and the latter “reparations.” There is the question of German reparations to the Jewish people, and on this matter we are about to submit a special claim in the second note. In other words, we have drawn a distinction between the clearance of personal accounts and the closing of the collective-historical account we have with Germany. We submitted the second note yesterday, timing it in view of the present stage of preparations for the Four-Power Conference. We did not make our claim conditional on how it is dealt with at the conference, but submitted it as a definitive claim. If the powers, by their good grace, decide to release Germany from any compensation payment for themselves, we say that compensation, nevertheless, is still our due. We do not connect our claim with any existing division of compensation among the powers. Should they deem it necessary to include us in this matter, that is their business; that can be negotiated. We are not formulating the claim in this way; it stands by itself. Still, if our intention was

1 The governments of the states comprising the Federal Republic of Germany. Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 51 not merely to utter a heartfelt cry and to add one more document to the already rich body of literature dealing with the Holocaust and cleanse our conscience – if the intention is to make an effort to achieve something – there is a question of timing, of when the issue of Germany is dormant and stagnant, and when it becomes animated and active. Our reasoning was that it is better to submit this note at a stage when the issue of Germany is on the agenda anyway, all the more so when it is proposed as something that cannot be removed from the agenda. The aim of the Four-Power Conference is to terminate whatever remains of the postwar occupation regime and to restore Germany to the community of nations; thus now is the time to voice our claim. It is clear that submitting the note must be followed by exerting heavy pressure. Thus we are now entering a phase of action in the relevant capitals, first and foremost Washington, but also London, Paris and Moscow, although the chances of achieving anything in this matter with the Western powers and with Russia are highly unequal. In America, England and France we have embarked on a campaign to enlist the press and public opinion, first and foremost Jewish public opinion, to our cause. This is not happening in the USSR, where Jewish public opinion is not heard, and there is no possibility of influencing the press – the press there is part of the state machine. In Russia we are limited to contact with the government, while in the West there is room for wide action and influencing public opinion. This dichotomy between the open and closed worlds is well known. We shall take this action together with submission of the note, and accordingly we have already established contact with the appropriate Jewish organizations in America and England. An additional remark: This claim is addressed to the great powers, not Germany. We do not promise Germany anything in return for these reparations; we do not promise that if it is accomplished we shall forgive and establish relations. We say it is our due. We are prodding the Western powers to assist us in this matter. Our purpose is, first of all, to obtain from them an admission of the justness of this claim so that they make it part of their plans. The chances of this happening are unclear. While I shall not say this in the Knesset so as not to outwardly weaken the claim, I must admit here that it is rather difficult to be optimistic in this matter. We deem it incumbent that we must make a maximal effort towards achieving our aim, but at the same time it is our opinion that if our claim is not accepted, our initiative should not be considered the failure. It would have been, had we not submitted the claim, even though implementation is clearly important. I shall read the note in its entirety in the Knesset, and that will be its first publication. I could have handed the note over for publication and delivered only a speech in the Knesset. However, it seems to me that it is better that the document is first heard in the Knesset. In the note we take Germany to account and refresh the world’s memory of the Holocaust; we do not assume that the world remembers everything – one could write a whole book about it, and we are doing 52 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 it in five or six pages – but we thought that the best thing would be to cite quite a long passage from the Nüremberg verdict accepted by the four powers – what the trial found, what the Germans perpetrated against the Jewish people – it is a very detailed and very disturbing passage, for it contains details of how men, women and children were victimized. We submit this note saying that the damage caused to the Jewish people in Europe – to property, of course – is conservatively estimated at $6 billion. This is an estimate reached by the World Jewish Congress Research Institute; there can be no doubting the seriousness of their research, and there is no point in starting again from the beginning. They are conversant in these matters; they added one figure to another and reached a total of $6 billion. We say that material compensation can in no way atone for the crimes and deaths. There can be no atonement for the torture and death. There can be no atonement for the destruction of cultural values. But it is inconceivable that the German people continue to enjoy the spoils while restitution of the victims, those who were saved and remained alive after the Holocaust, is heavily burdening that same Jewish people. The survivors are owed restitution, and since the majority of the victims have found refuge here, we contend that compensation is due, first and foremost, to Israel. Second: Our state is the only one in the world entitled to make a claim in the name of the Jewish people. Do not look for a clear and absolute legal interpretation here, for this claim is not founded on conventional concepts. We constitute a special and extraordinary phenomenon: we have our own justice system and legal concepts. We say that there is a Jewish people. The damage was caused to that people as a whole. Six million souls, men, women, children, perished because they belonged to the Jewish people. When the victorious nations convened to discuss and obtain compensation, the Jewish people was not represented. Now the situation is different. Now there is a state – its embryo, the Yishuv of Palestine, existed previously. It fought, its sons and daughters fought in WW II, it always perceived itself as responsible for the Jewish people and its people took on that responsibility body and soul. It is now the claimant and it is claiming its due. We have calculated that together with the immigrants still to come, the State of Israel will have absorbed half-a-million victims, Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied countries in which Nazism destroyed Jewish life. We are submitting a claim for $1.5 billion. We estimate the damage caused to the Jewish people at $6 billion – and on the basis of this estimate we are demanding reparations in the sum of $1.5 billion, which they owe for the expense of restitution. There is a view that we will not achieve results in this matter without contacts with Germany through the Bonn government and that others will not do it for us. At present the Government of Israel has not established hard and fast principles in this matter, it has not contacted the Bonn government and is not contacting it. We do not know what the future holds, but we think that when we submit a Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 53 note to the powers for the first time, we must bring to bear all possible influence and pressure on them. We should not make their responsibility lighter by making direct contact or by an announcement that we seek a direct approach to the Bonn government. We shall probably have to consult further on this matter of direct approach, but the time is not yet ripe. We must first achieve the maximum possible effect from our approach to these governments, ensuring that our matter is discussed at the Four-Power Conference. We must do our utmost to influence and exert pressure during the conference deliberations.

MK Menachem Begin (Herut): I shall begin with the matter of the war criminals. I am sorry that the note ends with an expression of regret. When he raised this issue before the Knesset,2 our faction member MK Aryeh Ben Eliezer made a concrete suggestion that the government demand the extradition to Israel of these war criminals who participated in the extermination of Jews. I am aware that according to the agreement concluded between the great powers during WW II it was determined that German war criminals would stand trial in the countries in which they committed their crimes, and I am aware that the formal legal aspect here is questionable. On the other hand, in my opinion there is no doubt that there is a legal element in this demand. The Nazis annihilated Jews in numerous countries, not just in one, or in other words, the committing of the crime cannot be delineated by the borders of a specific country – they committed crimes in Europe, and it may be said that they committed crimes in large parts of the world by incitement to racial discrimination that also occurred in America. Once the matter of specific borders falls, there is a basis for a legal demand for extradition, and the country bound by unbreakable ties to the victims is entitled to demand that those people, who committed crimes against its citizens’ brethren be brought to a court of justice within its borders. With regard to the pardon and release of criminals there is a precedent in the case of General Alexander von Falkenhausen, who was unconditionally released by a court in American-occupied territory, and six months later, as a result of the Belgian government’s demand, was extradited to Belgium, stood trial and was sentenced. In other words, we, too, are entitled to demand, not only from a moral but a legal standpoint, that people exonerated by a denazification court, or by a court in occupied territory, be extradited to the State of Israel to stand trial here. Whether this demand will be met is another question. Here I must allude to the words of the foreign minister, that there are claims whose failure is not in their non-achievement but in their non-submission. This applies, first and foremost, to the demand I am talking about. I do not think that in the face of the inordinate release of Nazis, the State of Israel and its government can make do with an expression of regret, but a note such as this must include a concrete

2 On March 7, 1951. See Divrey HaKnesset, vol. 8, pp. 1297-1298. 54 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 demand that if the four powers do not wish to deal with them, they should be extradited to Israel, stand trial, and the court will judge them. I propose that the committee pass a resolution on this matter and convey it to the government. I would like to express my regret that on matters such as both the first and second notes, the government did not deem it necessary to consult this committee. Ultimately, this is not a matter of partisan politics. It is a grave matter that touches the heart of every Jew, and it would have been better had there been a meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee before the two notes were sent, and the foreign minister would have heard the committee’s recommendations. That did not happen (Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett: The committee knew that we would submit such a note. The matter was publicized.) This must be axiomatic, that at least on a matter such as this there be a prior discussion and not an ex post facto one. But that is water under the bridge. I have not fully understood – and if I am mistaken I ask the foreign minister to correct me – if the demand for compensation is with regard to everything the Germans inflicted upon us, or just for the plunder of property. This, from my viewpoint, is a fundamental difference. We shall be committing a grave sin if we demand monetary reparation for what the Nazis inflicted upon us (Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett: Not only are we not demanding it, but we are saying that there is no compensation for it.) The demand can only be one: to restore the material property that was plundered by the Nazis. The account of human life is completely different and there are no reparations for it. If the demand is for the restitution of the plundered property, then I must express my great amazement that we are demanding only a billion and a half when the damages have been estimated at six billion. As we are speaking of six million that perished, this seems incorrect. In my opinion it is a grave mistake to demand that Germany compensate the victims in the State of Israel, and that we specify what will be done with the money for the plundered Jewish property. Do we need a further explanation to justify this claim? Is justification on humanitarian grounds for the compensation of the victims necessary at all? If we assess the plundered property at $6 billion, we should demand $6 billion, and what we do with the money is our affair. The demands of Jews and of public bodies can also be included, as well as a collective demand for full payment for the plundered property. With regard to the calculations and accounting, that is a different phase. The impression will likely be that first of all we are reducing the overall estimate, which I am not sure is exaggerated. There is no doubt that this property is estimated at billions of dollars. We are submitting a demand that sounds like a big one, and then, immediately afterwards, in order to receive part of it, we stop at only part of the sum due to us in accordance with justice and fairness. This is gives a bad impression. The assumption could be that the sum of a billion-and-a-half is exaggerated, and it will be a bad thing if we give the impression that we are haggling. We must demand payment for the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 55 plundered property without any further explanation of what will be done with the money in Israel. I ask that the committee discuss my request to recommend to the government that this wrong be rectified and that our demand from Germany should be payment of all damages.

Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett: The debate has covered a very wide area3. I would very much like to clarify several fundamental points, but it is getting late and I do not know if I will be able to discuss each proposal in detail, although I would be happy to do so. A clear distinction must be drawn between the scope of the matters discussed in the first note and those discussed in the second. This is not simply a matter of convenience or because of the sheer magnitude of the material. It seems to me that several members have discussed the two notes without distinguishing between them. There is the question of individual claims. This could be because a person was in a concentration camp and is due compensation for every day of his imprisonment; it could be because his property was confiscated and now he is laying claim to it; it might be that the property was not confiscated but he wants to sell it and invest the proceeds here, not there; it might be because he was physically injured or because his bank deposits were confiscated; it could also be community property – this is one aspect regarding which there are laws in West Germany, which to some degree are satisfactory and which are enforced to one degree or another. Numerous Jewish organizations, a body called JRSO [Jewish Restitution Successor Organization], the Jewish Agency and the Joint Distribution Committee, the World Jewish Congress and other bodies are already entering this arena. That is not to say that Israel has no say on these matters; it is entitled to demand amendments and improvements. However, Israel appears here as the representative of its individual citizens’ interests; it cannot appear on behalf of masses of individuals throughout the world, for these people will say, “Who appointed you?” There are American citizens who do not want the State of Israel to represent them. It could also be a German citizen, residing in Germany, who has an account to settle and does not want the State of Israel interfering in his affairs. Any initiative by Israel in matters not concerning it will generate conflict with institutions and opposition by individuals, as a result lead to the weakening of its status. This is not the case in the second sphere, dealt with in the second note. Here the State of Israel stands alone. Inasmuch as a collective inclusive, claim on behalf of the Jewish people is submitted, the State of Israel will rouse no competition. First of all, nowhere else in the world is there such a concentration of Jewish responsibility. We need to inculcate the moral-political awareness

3 After MK Begin, seven members of the FAD Committee took the floor. 56 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 that Israel is the body authorized to submit demands in the name of the Jewish people. There is no other State that can submit such a claim, that can employ diplomatic channels and which can exert a degree of pressure. The second note deals solely with the second question, not the first. Questions regarding the first question could have been raised in the committee when that note was submitted on January 16. Two months have elapsed since then. I do not oppose calling a meeting dedicated to clarifying on what JRSO is, what is the state’s position on this question, what is the relationship between the state and the Jewish Agency, what has been achieved and what has not. However, I shall have to summon experts to illuminate these issues. I shall therefore not address the first issue, but only the second. Our approach to the second issue derives from two points of departure. The first is moral, the second practical. Our aim in this matter is not only to proclaim our right and duty to voice our claim, so it is heard the world over and convinces all that our claim is morally justified and that it should be inscribed to our credit in the annals of history. I do not belittle this moral aspect of our claim. In fact, as you will gather from the wording of the note, it attempts to emphasize it. But that was not our only intention. The intention was to achieve a concrete, maximal result. As I have already said, our claim is definitive; it is not conditional upon any outside factor or circumstances such as whether the Four-Power Conference convenes or not, nor upon any reciprocal move on our part, such as establishing diplomatic relations with West Germany or forgiving the German people. No. Our claim for reparations is not dependent on any previous or future development. However, since right from the beginning we had a concrete aim in mind, the submission of the claim was accompanied by several fundamental considerations regarding the sum to be demanded. It may be argued, as I have already – and it gives me pleasure that MK Begin accepts my formulation – that there are claims whose failure is in their non-submission, but if the intention is to achieve something, then there is a world of difference between a claim which would could be perceived as reasonable by public opinion, and one that must sound fantastic; in this situation one can only be guided by intuition. There is also the issue of substantiating the claim. If the State of Israel voices a claim from Germany of only $1.5 billion, no one will say that a claim of $1.5 billion is too modest. It is a very substantial sum. If the powers are going to raise the question of the sum, we shall point out that a billion-and-a-half dollars amounts to West Germany’s exports for 1950. Possibly, they might say in response: “You want Germany to give you a whole year of its exports? It subsists for a whole year on that.” One cannot ignore such an eventuality. Regarding the sum to be claimed, there is also the question of coordination between ourselves and other Jewish organizations which should not compete with us. If we demand the entire sum we will be inviting competition, for Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 57 it will include what is due to individuals and what organizations are attempting to obtain. If it is to cover compensation costs, it would include the restitution of survivors emigrating to America. There is already a great deal of friction between us and the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization. They can also argue that they are dealing with various individual claims and oppose our entering this realm. What is the conclusion to be drawn in view of all this? That we should first convene a meeting of the Jewish organizations and reach an agreement with them to appear on their behalf – but if the State of Israel appears on behalf of those organizations it would weaken its own position. Second, my own experience has taught me that reaching an advance agreement with Jewish organizations is a hard nut to crack and takes an eternity. We should demand aid and support from Jewish organizations because their opposition and competition would certainly limit our achievements. Evidently, this makes claiming the entire sum impossible. Third, it may be argued that from the practical standpoint it is regrettable that we have waited until now, that we should have submitted the claim the morning after the declaration of the state, the problematic international situation at the time notwithstanding. However, if the claim is presented as a moral one, it can be submitted any time. Fourth, there is the question of the timing our submission of the claim. Perhaps we were mistaken in this, but it seems that now, at this juncture, prior to the Four-Power Conference, the time is ripe. And finally, if this were only a moral issue, there would have been no difficulty linking it with an effort to arouse the press and public opinion abroad and to enlist various personalities to exert pressure on our behalf. However, if we want to accomplish this, we must submit a reasonable claim acceptable to these organizations abroad. My answer to members of this committee who posed the question of the form German payments will take is that obviously a state can only pay compensation in goods. How did Germany pay compensation to the Allies after WW I? Only through exports. Even if it does not pay in goods, it has to sell goods so that it has the money to give. Therefore, our note stated that part of the sum will undoubtedly be paid in goods. This means that goods would be imported into Israel and that some of those goods would be sold on the world market – by Israel – in order to obtain either currency or other goods. There is no other way. However, there is no question that this would mean the establishment of commercial ties with West Germany. One of the obstacles we shall have to surmount is that of the monies Germany admits are due to individual Jews, for what can we do with German marks? We can only convert them into goods. The American authorities object to this. They say: should Germany sell goods for dollars, they should go the USA, since it is the USA that has rehabilitated Germany. That is one of the reasons we approached 58 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 the powers. It is one of the reasons for my optimism in this matter. We have been deliberating this issue with the Americans, and I am confident we can reach a positive outcome In response to questions raised by members of the committee, I would now like to devote a few minutes to a description of the background to Germany’s integration into the international political arena – how it is being accomplished and what problems we face as a consequence. This process is already taking place, and we are already encountering and sitting shoulder to shoulder with Germans. Germany is a member of the International Food and Agriculture Organization of which we also are members, and we regard our membership highly. We objected to Germany’s acceptance into this body. We voted against it but we were in the minority. The majority accepted them. They came in – we did not leave. We sit together at the same table. Germany is also a member of the International Wheat Council, and we hold our membership in it in high regard – obtaining wheat and ensuring that we are not being discriminated against pricewise is of vital interest to us. At the time we raised our voice against Germany’s acceptance into this body. We voted against and again we were in the minority. They came in – we did not leave. Germany is presently knocking on the doors of two UN institutions endowed with moral significance: the UN Economic and Social Council and UNESCO. Israel is not a member of the central council of ECOSOC, but it is a member of its important sub-council – the Social Council – and we viewed our entry into it as highly beneficial for we can learn a great deal there. Germany is knocking on the door of this body, and I have no doubt that it will be accepted – and, if so, we shall not leave. Germany can gain membership in any UN body of which we are members. It is presently also seeking admission to UNESCO, which requires a two-thirds majority. We shall speak and vote against its admission. I hope we succeed, but I fear there will be a majority in favor and consequently we shall be sitting with Germany in this very highly valued institution, established for international cooperation in the spheres of education, science and culture. There are numerous other international organizations to which Germany seeks admission, such as the International Students Association. Our branch has decided to campaign and vote against its admission, but Germany will certainly be accepted. Shall we leave? No. We want to isolate Germany, not become isolated ourselves. But by pursuing an ostracizing policy we are risking that. The part of my speech at the General Assembly devoted to Germany can be construed as a demonstration of our isolation, for it was the only voice of warning against Germany; judging by the response it was a voice crying in the wilderness.4 Afterwards, I was approached by the French and the Yugoslavian

4 The allusion is to Moshe Sharett’s speech in the General Assembly, Sept. 27, 1950, in which he called for the admission of Communist China into the UN and opposed the admission of the Federal Republic of Germany. Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 59 delegates, and others, who said “Well done” – but not one of them dared open his mouth on the podium. We must not flinch from taking similar steps whenever questions of morality arise in matters touching upon the life of the Jewish people. However, in view of Israel’s interest in international cooperation, are we to leave any international body if Germany becomes a member? This would obviously be senseless. There is currently a German consul general in New York. If he sends a note to our consul general there, asking for an appointment, our consul may respond in the negative, but all other members of the consular corps in the New York do meet with him. There are gatherings that our consul general must attend; there are also consular corps business meetings at which various rulings are determined – should Israel relinquish its place at them in view of the German presence? It cannot. A further example: Our consul in Zurich was elected doyen of the consular corps. For the consul of Israel to be elected doyen of that body was a big honor for us, for this means that not only is Israel’s stature respected, but the consul’s personal standing is highly respected, too. His honor is Israel’s honor. He has elevated Israel’s stature, and that is quite exhilarating. However, the doyen of the consular corps cannot boycott any other member of the corps. Should the German consul have a complaint and seek satisfaction from the doyen, the doyen cannot reject him. The ultimate result is that an Israeli holding a high diplomatic office receives the German consul as he does all others. We can continue following this policy of ostracizing for a generation or two, thus erasing the issue of our relationship with Germany from the agenda of the generation that experienced and witnessed the Holocaust horrors but, in fact, we encounter Germany wherever we go and in practice we are not boycotting it. We shall be with them everywhere. We must realize that our attempts to prevent Germany’s admission to international bodies on moral grounds is bound to lose any significance whatsoever, while in return for our unavoidable compromise on Germany’s admission into the family of nations of which we are part, we shall receive nothing – Germany will gain admission gratis. If this is the way the wind is blowing, then at least while it is not too late – while Germany’s authorities are still sensitive to this issue – we should exert pressure on them so they know that if they want to achieve further progress in this process of their integration into the family of nations, they must pay, they must compensate the Jewish people. There is a lever at our disposal here for obtaining something. This is what we shall tell the powers, and the Germans will realize it themselves. A few remarks on the question of war criminals. I cannot accept the Herut proposal, which was also expressed in the Knesset – I was absent from that session – that we demand the extradition of the Nazi criminals into our hands for the same reason I would oppose demanding the entire sum of $6 billion: it is a tremendous demand. The same applies here. We must always consider what 60 Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 13.3.1951 is construed as reasonable. If we demand: “Those whom you have decided to hang – hang!” that is one thing; if we demand their extradition so that we could hang them – that is an entirely different matter. I do not think this claim had anything to do with reality. I was asked why a statement on this matter of German war criminals should not be included in our note. That was our intention at the outset, but after further consideration we came to the conclusion that the matter of reparations, historically and practically, is so important that nothing should be added to it.

Chairman Meir Argov (Mapai): I put to a vote the proposal to request the government to also deliver a statement to the Knesset today on the matter of the release of the Nazi criminals. The second proposal is to do so at the nearest opportunity.

The vote: In favor of expressing a protest in the Knesset today regarding the release of Nazi criminals – three votes. In favor of doing so at the nearest opportunity – the majority. It was decided that a protest statement on the release of Nazi criminals be delivered on another occasion.

MK Menachem Begin (Herut): I would like to make a two-point proposal: The Government of Israel will demand from the German occupation authorities the extradition to the Government of Israel for trial of the war criminals who took part in the annihilation of Jews. These war criminals will stand trial before an Israeli court, even in absentia.

Chairman Meir Argov (Mapai): I put MK Begin’s proposal to a vote and also the proposal to remove it from the agenda at this stage.

The vote: In favor of MK Begin’s proposal – two votes. In favor of the second proposal – the majority. It was decided to remove this proposal from the agenda at this stage.

Chairman Meir Argov (Mapai): To sum up: A statement will be made today in the Knesset on behalf of the government on the matter of the note demanding compensation from Germany. The Speaker will announce a debate on the statement to take place next week.