Property Restitution Only Certain Jews Qualify Slyomovics

How to Accept German Reparations, by Susan Slyomovics. 2014

Victimhood Competition and Restitution Monies: Which Jews are Worthy? Gentiles Excluded. Orwellian Notions

Susan Slyomovics is the descendant of Czech Jews who had been under the Nazis. She focuses on the initial conflicts, faced by her mother, over the acceptance of blood money. (e. g, p. 3). The author raises a number of issues that inadvertently show the flawed nature of the entire process that has increasingly come to be known as the Holocaust Industry and even the restitution mafia. These are the focus of my review.

JEWS WHO COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS OFTEN DID SO WILLINGLY

Jewish collaboration with the Nazis is usually dismissed or redefined as “choiceless choices”, while the collaborative acts of other peoples usually are not. Interestingly, Slyomovics describes her mother’s decision, which pointedly implies that Jews were not necessarily forced to collaborate with the Germans. She comments, “In Plaszow, my mother refused Nazi ‘invitations’ to become a camp prostitute or privileged female work leader (BLOCKÄLTESTE). She encountered Oskar Schindler in the Plaszow Camp, who informed her that she was ‘ineligible’ to work in his factory unless she agreed to be separated from her mother.” (p. 139).

HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY: JEWISH FORCED LABORERS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION: NON-JEWISH FORCED LABORERS ARE NOT

Slyomovics writes, “In many North African camps, researchers noted that both Jewish and non-Jewish inmates were interned together, with Jews constituting a minority of inmates.” (p. 227). Yet there is a clear double standard in force, as is made obvious by the author, “Despite Jews as a minority of internees, Foundation Law recognized INDEMNITIES FOR JEWS ONLY as a people persecuted because of their ‘race’ and only during the Vichy period defined by Germany from October 1940 until November 1942 in Algeria and Morocco and additionally from November 1942 until May 1943 in Tunisia.” (p. 227). As if attempting to make this travesty even more explicit, Slyomovics adds that, “…in Algeria, all Vichy-era camps were included AS LONG AS THE CLAIMANT WAS JEWISH.” (p. 228; Emphasis added).

HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY: JEWS FIGHT IT OUT OVER WHICH JEWS ARE ENTITLED TO MONIES AND WHICH JEWS ARE NOT

Despite the fact that large parts of North Africa were under Nazi German occupation at the height of the Final Solution in German-occupied Europe, Nazi plans to systematically shoot or gas North African Jews never went beyond the talking stage.

This has led to overt victimhood competition, between Jews themselves, about which Jews are deserving of Holocaust restitution and which Jews are not. Slyomovics remarks, “Establishing the fact of forced labor in North Africa faced obstacles. American and German researchers repeatedly mentioned resistance among European Jewish Holocaust survivors who themselves were administrators at the Claims Conference offices. Providing compensation to Jews in North African camps was not an obvious case BECAUSE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THEIR SUFFERING DID NOT MATCH EUROPEAN JEWISH SUFFERING.” (p. 228; Emphasis added).

For more on this subject, see my review of the recent work edited by Boum, THE HOLOCAUST AND NORTH AFRICA.

—

GERMAN-VICTIMIZED JEWS AND JEWISH-VICTIMIZED PALESTIANS: ORWELLIAN LANGUAGE ON REPARATIONS MONIES

The author discusses reparations monies paid, by the State of Israel, to Palestinians, in the wake of the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers. (pp. 254-256). Without using this term, Slyomovics is candid about the doublespeak involved, as she quips in her subtitle, “Paying Reparations by Calling Them Something Else (2): PITSUYYIM Not SHILUMIM to Palestinians”.

The foregoing Orwellian semantics is based on the following, as described by Slyomovics, “The Hebrew word in certain cases is PITSUYYIM, which translates to ‘damages, compensation, workmen’s compensation,’ and cash awards to Palestinians. In contrast, the Hebrew word SHILUM in the singular is ‘reward, requital, payment: bribery,’ while the plural SHILUMIM is ‘reparations (especially from Germany), reward, remuneration, retribution, restitution.’ The plural form became the term used by Israelis specifically for Germany’s Holocaust reparations.” (p. 254).

CONCLUSION

Clearly, the whole Holocaust restitution movement is inherently inequitable. It exists to benefit some victims but not others.