Ever
since the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) announced its intention
to launch "Operation: Last Chance"(O:LC) in Hungary,
there has been a lively debate in the Hungarian media about
the project. While the attitude of many journalists was skeptical,
few were in a position to comment intelligently about the
background of the project, its historical context and its
probable consequences. Thus the opinions of local Holocaust
historians assumed special significance and invariably it
was Laszlo Karszai who was asked to comment on O: LC.
At first glance, Karszai would appear to be a natural supporter
of the project, given his chosen profession of Holocaust
scholar and family background, but that is clearly not the
case. If anything, the professor from Szeged seems obsessed
to publicize his adamant opposition. Not content with the
interviews in practically every newspaper, television, and
radio show, he also felt compelled to write a lengthy and
particularly vicious article in Elot es Iradalom, in which
he not only dismissively attacked the project, but also cynically
belittled its sponsors.
To summarize his arguments, Karszai claims that the reasons
I presented to justify the project are not valid in Hungary
since many Hungarian Nazi war criminals were prosecuted after
World War II and thus the country is not in need of such
a history lesson. But even if that were not the case, Karszai
claims that the prosecution of elderly defendants would serve
no educational purpose and is basically an exercise in futility
since such cases are impossible to prosecute so many years
after the crimes. In addition, he notes that O: LC has hereto
failed to produce a single trial and even the State of Israel
no longer seeks to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. In
short, the project is a "superfluous, harmful, and hopeless" initiative,
which was launched to prove that the Wiesenthal Center in
Jerusalem is worthy of financial support.
While on the surface, such arguments may appear convincing,
they are based on numerous fallacies, inaccuracies and omissions
which Karszai is either unaware of or simply chose to ignore.
For starters, I never claimed that no organized trials of
Nazi war criminals were ever held in Hungary. On the contrary,
I am well aware of the fact that nearly 27,000Hungarians
were convicted of war crimes after World War II. What Karszai
neglects to mention is that the people's courts which tried
these defendants were politically-motivated with a strong
Communist influence, a fact which very much taints their
credibility in the eyes of many Hungarians. (A similar problem
exists in all post-Communist societies. Thus, for example,
despite the fact that numerous Croatian Nazi war criminals
were prosecuted in postwar Yugoslavia, the 1999 trial in
Zagreb of former Jasenovac commandant Dinko Sakic-which was
facilitated by our office-had a particularly powerful impact
on Croatian society since it was conducted in an independent
Croatia.)Under such circumstances, the prosecution of a Hungarian
Nazi war criminal by democratic Hungary assumes unique significance,
since unlike past trials it cannot be dismissed as politically-motivated
or as Communist propaganda. The problem is, however, that
the "new" democratic Hungary has hereto failed
to investigate, let alone prosecute, a single such case.
As far as Karszai's claim that the prosecution of elderly
defendants is an exercise in futility, the numerous convictions
of Nazi war criminals achieved in recent years clearly disprove
his arguments. Thus during the period from January 1,2001
until March 31,2004,twenty-seven convictions of Nazi war
criminals were obtained in six different countries. In addition,
from April 1,2003 until March 31,2004, 355 new investigations
of Nazi war criminals were initiated in ten different countries
and as of April 1,2004,there were 940 investigations of Nazi
war criminals currently underway in about a dozen countries,
unequivocal proof of the fact that in many countries the
prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators is still considered
a worthy endeavor. The fact that Israel is no longer active
in this field does not corroborate Karszai's claim that such
efforts are worthless. It stems primarily from the country's
continuing security problems, its obvious desire not to turn
into a "dumping ground" for such criminals and
the understanding that such trials primarily resonate when
they are held in the country in which the crime was committed.(Imagine
the difference in the coverage and significance of a trial
of an Arrow Cross killer in Hungary and in Israel.)
It is also important to get beyond Karszai's fallacious
arguments regarding the age of the suspects and reiterate
several of the SWC's cardinal principles. The first is that
the passage of time in no way diminishes the culpability
of the perpetrators. The fact that a criminal is able to
elude justice for forty or even for fifty years does not
make him or her innocent. The second is that the key element
is not necessarily a person's chronological age, but rather
his or her health and mental state.
Less than a month ago, we exposed the former Ustasha police
chief of Slavonska Pozega in Croatia, Milivoj Asner, who
at age 91 is still active in Croatian politics and not long
ago founded a new political party. He is so healthy, in fact,
that following our launch of O:LC in Zagreb, he went into
hiding. I do not see any reason to ignore his crimes simply
because he was born in 1913.
To emphasize this point, allow me to make it more personal.
Imagine for a moment that the person who murdered your grandmother
was suddenly found living in Hungary and he was 82 or 84
or even 86 and in good health. Every day, he went swimming,
walked his dog and worked in his garden. Assuming there was
credible evidence against him, is there any reason to ignore
his crimes? Wouldn’t you want this person to be punished
for his terrible crimes? In this context, a criminal's rank
becomes irrelevant and the important principle of the responsibility
of all the killers-and the inacceptability of the "superior
orders" defense-is clearly demonstrated.
This brings me to another extremely important point. Karszai
cynically attributes my efforts to mercenary motives, derisively
referring to "self-appointed Nazi-hunters,” thereby
ignoring our most basic motivation-the sense of obligation
which we feel toward the victims of the Holocaust. Believe
it or not, Mr. Karszai, there are some Jews, like Aryeh Rubin
and myself, who strongly feel that our generation has an
obligation to those murdered that a serious effort be made
to bring their killers to justice. It is true that success
is quite difficult to achieve and that we long ago lost the
battle for complete justice, but the effort itself is worthy
for two important reasons. The first is that it sends a clear
message that genocidal and anti-Semitic crimes will never
be ignored. The second was noted by Croatian President Stipe
Mesic who last month praised O:LC because its launch would
mean that Nazi war criminals "would no longer be able
to sleep peacefully at night."
In that respect, I sincerely believe that Karszai's assessment
of O:LC as a failure is premature. It is true that it has
not produced a trial yet, but the nineteen murder investigations
already initiated may result in several trials and the educational
dimension of our project should not be underestimated. The
public discussion and debate regarding the complicity of
the local population in the crimes of the Holocaust which
took place in the wake of the launching of O:LC in every
country, are an important contribution to public education
on the Holocaust and, ultimately, part of a process which
will hopefully significantly reduce anti-Semitism.
When O:LC ends it will be easy to determine who was right,
but until that time, the least I would expect from a serious
Holocaust historian is a measure of respect regarding our
intentions and a more accurate presentation of the contemporary
situation vis-à-vis the current investigation and
prosecution of Nazi war criminals all over the world.
Dr. Efraim Zuroff is the Simon Wiesenthal Center's chief
Nazi-hunter and the director of its Israel office. He earned
his Ph.D. in the history of the Holocaust from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. |