The main difference between the two issues is, that while one can put a price tag on the value of stolen property, the value of indemnification for suffering cannot be assessed and any attempt to quantify it smacks of immorality, tantamount to desecrating the memory of the 6 millions Holocaust martyrs. This is also why many people find the dealing with Holocaust restitution “distasteful”. In contrary to these reactions of understandable repulsion, there should be no qualms, while pressing for reclamation of the robbed possessions, unreturned for two generations after the commitment of the crime.

The merger of the two issues leads to a cynical misuse of the cliche saying, that “no amount of money could do the justice and compensate for the sufferings of Holocaust”, being often a cover-up of withholding the property which should be fully compensated. Such was the case, when ICHEIC offered the 8A1 Humanitarian award of 1000 $, while turning down many requests for a full compensation of documented policies on formalistic grounds. One has to wonder also about the statement of the German ambassador, Mr. Scharioth, emphasizing his government’s acknowledgement of historical responsibility for the Holocaust, while opposing a disclosure of the insurance records. Yes, the German state has certainly gone a long way to atone for the terrible crimes of the Nazis Reich and to reach genuine reconciliation with the Jewish people. Unfortunately, as long as there is a suspicion that some of the booty remained unreturned, any talk about assuming moral responsibility has got a hollow ring. This is even worse, if the suspicion is substantiated by a continuous refusal to disclose information necessary for the recovery. In order to restore the trust, absolute transparency should be established, clearing all obstructions on the path to justice.

The arguments brought up against the HR1746 are unjustified and even annoying. The claim, that no one will negotiate increased funding for Holocaust survivors, if HR1746 should be accepted, is an excellent example of mixing up the two different issues: moral and material. It is tantamount to threatening: “If you will press to get back what has been robbed from you, you will get no compensation for the injuries inflicted upon you during the robbery.” Regretfully, Mr. Scharioth’s warning, that HR1746 “would jeopardize future agreements that would really serve to benefit Holocaust survivors in dire need of help”, appears to bear a similar stance.

Coming to the ambassador’s statement that “Claimants with sufficient documentation can still file their claims…even after the ICHEIC process has been concluded” Mr. Scharioth and Ms. Friedman should ask themselves, where such documentation can be found 60 years after the Holocaust. They also ought to understand, that if such documentation existed, it would have been already submitted to ICHEIC before.

Another detail, which has been omitted, is the fact, that the German insurers will not accept new claims that do not name companies. However, such information cannot be unearthed by claimants at this time, unless some new archival material should become available. The Arolsen archives will probably yield only scarce information about confiscated property, which will be searchable only in the future. The only untapped source, containing such information, are the “Declarations of Jewish Property as of April 27, 1938″, which all the Jews in the German Reich, have been forced to submit. Those declarations provide a comprehensive list of all possessions and assets and they can definitely serve as a unique source of detailed information about the insurance policies, such as name of company, policy number and amount insured. However, they remain practically inaccessible, being scattered throughout the various official archives in Germany and with a complex procedure for the clearance of the documents. Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney raised a question about the property declarations during the hearing on HR1746 and Ambassador J. Christian Kennedy, State Department’s Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues promised to look into this matter.

Let us conclude with the quotation of prophet Elijah, asking King Ahab, who murdered Naboth in order to seize his vineyard, coveted by Queen Izebel: “Hast thou killed and also inherited?” (1 Kings 21:19). The prophet would never rest, until the murderer, besides being punished for his crime, would return the robbed booty and he would surely turn down with disgust any proposal of “legal peace” if such arrangement would be existent in his times.

The Jewish leadership has given us years and years of exploitation, secrecy, double talk, hypocrisy, cronyism, subjugation, corruption, wasteful spending and Eagleburger, Neuborne, Kagan, Singer and Taylor.

Wexler, Frank, Arbeiter, Dubin, Rechter, etc. give eloquent voice to the rights, freedom and the pursuit of happiness for Holocaust Survivors.

Holocaust Survivors and the Jewish community need new Jewish leadership. The old guard needs to be replaced by intelligent, enlightened, democratic leadership that understands and practices Jewish traditions, teachings and values.

The Bad Arelson information should be made available to everyone without restrictions immediately. No excuses. We are in the information and technology age. Limiting access is undemocratic and not the Jewish way to go. Lets not repeat the mistakes of the Dead Scrolls.

Although ICHEIC’s dealing was a disaster, far from what is described in this article (for example, they spent almost 100 million dollars for their operational budget, something that isn’t mentioned) I am not willing to discuss its misdeeds. Suffice is to say that no matter how prominent Mr. Eagleburger was in the past, he did a very poor job of managing ICHEIC and the organization turned into a huge and expensive bureaucracy. For each claim they paid something (around 47,000), they spent $ 2,000 in operational expenditures, double of the $ 1,000 they paid to 34,000 claimants who received the Humanitarian Award.

What I wish to tell you is that your perception of Bill 1746 is totally wrong. The intention is to get all European insurers (mainly Generali, the biggest ganef among them) to disclose the list of Jewish policyholders who probably perished in the Holocaust. The insurers refuse to make such list public because they know that they STOLE billions of dollars from those victims and are unwilling to return those looted amounts back to their legally entitled owners – namely US, the survivors and heirs of victims. Bill 1746, if enacted, would correct that absurd injustice.

Just think about one single question: why would the Germans (or any other countries who collaborated with the Nazis and stole Jewish assets) be entitled to LEGAL PEACE? Do we, the survivors or relatives of our murdered families members, have been granted any kind of PEACE? Do our murdered beloved REST IN PEACE? Will we ever have PEACE OF MIND? So why do you advocate PEACE for those who knowingly STOLE from us and after 60 years keep denying their abominable crimes?

In the span of the primary elections, we have seen Ms Clinton and her campaign cause divisions within NARAL, NOW, the Labor movement, the Black and Hispanic communities, and the Democratic Party.

When Clinton supporters of NOW publicly attacked Ted Kennedy, an ardent supporter of women’s issues for decades, where was Ms Clinton with her 35 years of experience to set the record straight? When Clinton supporters publicly called Oprah and Caroline Kennedy traitors to all women because they supported Mr Obama, where was Ms Clinton to put out the fire? When the Clinton team made robocalls about John Edwards in his home state of South Carolina, where was Ms Clinton to say, that’s over the top? When the Clinton campaign passed out flyers in New Hampshire, lying about Mr Obama’s 100% NARAL rating, why didn’t Ms Clinton put a stop it? Why did Ms Clinton tell young women in Iowa that Obama was weak on choice? Why did Ms Clinton allow her campaign supporters in Nevada to file a lawsuit aimed in suppressing the vote of culinary union members? Why did the Clinton campaign actively work to suppress the votes of Iowa students? Why did Ms Clinton allow her surrogates to falsely write e-mails about Obama being a Muslim? Why did Clinton delve into the issues of drug use, kindergarten papers, making an issue of Obama’s middle name, baseless charges about words, and arguing that voters supporting Mr Obama are somehow delusional or cult-like, while arguing that Mr Obama was offering false hope? Why? Sadly, we know the why to all of these questions.

If Ms Clinton is the superior candidate with superior policies, then why has she constantly gone negative throughout this election? If Mr Obama had not entered this campaign, is there any doubt that Clinton would have used similar negative tactics against Mr Edwards or Mr Biden or Mr Richardson or Mr Dodd? The fact is, with all of the experience in being a part of so many political campaigns, Ms Clinton was not ready on day one to win the democratic presidential nomination.