The Opinion of Professor Asa Kasher

Tel Aviv University – Department of Philosophy

Asa Kasher – Professor Emeritus of the Chair in Professional Ethics and Philosophy of Practice, and Professor Emeritus of Philosophy. 

May 17, 2016

To:

Yuval ElpanThe Committee for the Recognition and Commemoration of the Heroism of Jewish Rescuers During the Holocaust

Dear Sir,

At your request, I hereby present my opinion regarding the appropriate ways for the State and the public to recognize and honor the Jews who demonstrated extraordinary heroism in rescuing fellow Jews from the Holocaust during the Second World War.

The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. The fate of the Jewish people, past, present, and future, stands at the center of its existence as the nation state of the Jewish people. The State is expected to give appropriate expression, through its laws, institutions, and conduct, to its relationship with the central components of Jewish destiny. In the history of the Jewish people since the destruction of the Temple nearly two thousand years ago, no event surpasses the Holocaust in significance, scope, and meaning.

It is self evident that the State of Israel must properly express, through its laws, institutions, and conduct, the appropriate national and public attitude toward the period of the Holocaust. Does the State conduct itself properly in expressing this attitude toward all aspects of the Holocaust? This is a question that the State of Israel must answer fully and convincingly to itself and to its citizens.

The complete answer is complex. There are aspects of the Holocaust period toward which the State expresses the appropriate attitude, but there are other aspects toward which the appropriate attitude is not reflected at all in the laws, institutions, or conduct of the State.

The State and the public express themselves in a dignified, consistent, and moving manner regarding the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, collectively and, as much as possible, individually.

Alongside this central aspect of the Holocaust period, several additional aspects stand out, and it is appropriate to ask, regarding each of them individually, how the proper national and public attitude toward them is expressed. These aspects, whose importance cannot be overstated, are all aspects of the struggles that took place during the Second World War against the Holocaust and against those who carried it out. I shall mention here three such aspects:

(a) The efforts of Jews to save fellow Jews from their enemies, the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

(b) The efforts of non Jews to save Jews from their enemies, the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

(c) The participation of Jews, within the armies of the Allied forces, in the war against Nazi Germany and its partners, in ways that contributed to victory in the war, hastened its end, and brought an end to the extermination activities of the Holocaust.

Of these three aspects, the second receives the positive recognition it deserves. The third receives only marginal recognition, though I will not discuss it here. The first, however, receives treatment that is clearly inappropriate.

I believe the State should have established a national and public framework to honor, in a dignified and enduring manner, all Jews who risked their lives, even to the point of self sacrifice, in efforts to save other Jews, to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances of their activities. The State should have established such a framework alongside the honorable system created to recognize the “Righteous Among the Nations.” Reason cannot tolerate the disparity between the treatment of the Righteous Among the Nations and the treatment of Jews in the context of dangerous and sustained rescue efforts aimed at saving Jews from those seeking their harm and destruction. Suppose that, under certain circumstances, one Jew and one non Jew participated together in the same rescue mission. Together they planned, together they risked their lives, together they succeeded in what they attempted, and Jews were saved because of them. Is it conceivable to honor the non Jew through many distinguished means, as is customary regarding the Righteous Among the Nations, while remaining silent about the Jewish participant in that same heroic effort? Such a distinction is, in my view, entirely immoral.

I am familiar with two attempts to justify this distinction. Neither succeeds in truly justifying the distinction between non Jews and Jews in the context of efforts to rescue Jews. Let us examine them from the less serious to the more serious.

One attempt points to various activities carried out within Yad Vashem to honor Jews who participated in dangerous rescue missions. Such an argument does not justify the existence of an organized framework for honoring the Righteous Among the Nations while there is no organized framework whatsoever for honoring Jewish rescuers. Why is an organized framework necessary if a long list of activities can suffice? Why does the State not settle for conducting many activities, but instead establishes and maintains a structured framework for the Righteous Among the Nations? If a structured framework is necessary to provide official, dignified, permanent, and prominent recognition for the Righteous Among the Nations, why should activities alone suffice when it comes to honoring Jewish rescuers instead of establishing an organized framework granting equally official, dignified, permanent, and prominent recognition for Jews?

Another attempt at justification is value based. It seeks to justify the distinction between non Jews who risked their lives to save Jews and Jews who risked their lives to save fellow Jews on the basis of the distinction between those who acted beyond the call of duty and those who acted because they were obligated to do so. According to this argument, Jews had a duty to save other Jews to the extent they could, whereas non Jews did not have such a duty, and therefore those non Jews who acted are regarded as Righteous Among the Nations and deserving of special recognition.

I do not accept this argument, because, in my opinion, none of its assumptions are correct. First, I have read interviews with Righteous Among the Nations in which, when asked why they did what they did despite the mortal danger involved, they answered in terms of a sense of duty that compelled them to act as they did. Some believed it was their duty as devout Christians. Others believed they were obligated to act as Muslims, such as the Turkish consul in Greece, for example. More than a few explained that it was their duty as moral human beings. I would not be surprised if most of the Righteous Among the Nations acted מתוך a sense of obligation. Yet this does not diminish in the slightest the honor they deserve or the national and public recognition that should be granted to them.

Likewise, the Jew who risked his or her life in an attempt to save fellow Jews, acting מתוך a sense of duty to save members of their people from those seeking to destroy them, is worthy of honor and recognition. Whether such rescue efforts were part of the Jews’ duty is irrelevant. First, they demonstrated extreme courage, literally risking their lives for others. For this alone they deserve honor and recognition. Second, they did so in circumstances where many others did not, for one reason or another. They stood out among the many who did not act as they did. For this as well they deserve honor and recognition.

As an aside, I will allow myself to note that a similar argument once arose regarding medals and citations awarded to soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces, claiming that no one deserves praise merely for fulfilling their duty. However, I am personally familiar with the failure of this argument, given the citations and medals awarded to fighters even though one could say they were simply fulfilling their duty, such as the duty not to leave a wounded comrade behind in the field. Praise is deserved both for courage involving self sacrifice and for displaying such courage in circumstances where not many others do so.

I therefore warmly and unequivocally recommend adopting the proposal of the Committee for Honoring the Heroism of Jewish Rescuers During the Holocaust to take national legislative measures and establish an organized framework, parallel to that of honoring the Righteous Among the Nations, also for Jews who risked their lives to save fellow Jews during the Holocaust.

With warm regards and great respect,

Asa KasherProfessor EmeritusTel Aviv University – Department of PhilosophyChair in Professional Ethics and Philosophy of Practice