From Indifference to Compassion:
How Israelis Reacted to the Shoah, 1945-1967

By Rabbi Jason Miller

The Holocaust has a very special and unique meaning in Israel .  The meaning of the Holocaust differs among nations depending upon national experience with Nazis and with the meaning of history and memory about Nazism in the present.  It depends upon their country’s degree of involvement during the Nazi atrocities: Were they an aggressor or bystander nation?  It also depends on the purposes of memory for present national survival.  For many years immediately after the liberation of the camps, the Israeli reaction to the Holocaust seemed to be one of shame and embarrassment.  In the first years after World War II, Israeli national memory rooted itself in heroic resistance and many Israelis reacted to Holocaust survivors by distancing themselves.  There are many possible reasons for this reaction: the wish not to have these terrible events be true; not to have them touch us; not to be too closely aware of what took place—a type of denial. [1]   At the end of the war, and more so once Israel declared its independence in May 1948, many survivors flocked to the reborn Jewish State only to find themselves neither accepted nor understood.  Israelis reacted to the Holocaust in a very peculiar way and harbored very negative sentiments about survivors.  The reasons for these feelings can be attributed to how the Yishuv [2] acted in the midst of the Shoah and also the cultural personality Israelis developed during their struggle for independence.

These negative feelings did not last; however, Israelis’ collective memory and reaction to the Holocaust and survivors changed from the end of World War II to the Six-Day War due to various events—most notably: Germany ’s reparations to Israel , the Yad Vashem Law, the Kasztner Affair, the Eichmann trial and the nation-wide observation of Holocaust Remembrance Day.  It was due to these crucial events occurring between the end of World War II and the beginning of the Six-Day War that Israelis’ collective memory with the Holocaust changed from indifference to compassion.  The reparations agreement with Germany in 1952 and the Kasztner Affair in 1954 moved large numbers of survivors to publicly voice their thoughts on the Holocaust, how the Yishuv [3] acted at the time and how Israelis later commemorated these events.  In addition, the Yad Vashem Law in 1953 and the eventual acceptance of the Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom HaShoah) revolutionized Israelis’ memory and reaction to the Holocaust.  However, no event changed the disdainful way Israelis looked back on the Holocaust as much as the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem in the early 1960s.  This change led to a greater understanding, acceptance, and compassion for survivors and their ordeal in Nazi Germany.

Before describing the reaction of Israelis to the Holocaust and survivors, it is necessary to briefly account how the Yishuv acted in time of crisis for European Jews.  Analysis of the Yishuv’s attitude toward the rescue of European Jewry centers on the crucial question: how, and to what extent, did the Holocaust affect Zionist policy and ideology while it was happening? [4]   In a time when one-third of Europe ’s Jews were being annihilated by the Nazi killing machine and Jews in Palestine were preparing to fight for a homeland, the Yishuv leadership faced many difficult decisions.  The Yishuv position on rescue and immigration priorities had a paramount effect on how Israelis viewed the Holocaust and survivors in its aftermath.  In Israel ’s first decades of independence, the horrific results of the Holocaust significantly influenced the forming of Israeli culture and mentality.  The assumption prevailing in Israel was that the Yishuv respected only those who took up arms in the Holocaust.  The rest were considered inferior human beings who went “like lambs to the slaughter.” [5]   During 1942, when the deportations to the death camps started, the reports that reached Palestine described passive, almost apathetic, Jewish communities.  The Yishuv concentrated on reports that Jewish leaders, members of the Jewish councils in the ghettos, and the Jewish police allowed themselves to be used by the Germans against their brothers. [6]   During the Holocaust, there were individual leaders and private citizens in Palestine , who felt impelled to respond to the disaster, yet the Yishuv never launched any unconditional, extraordinary action.  For the most part, the Yishuv continued its daily life as before; there was no mass display of outrage over the catastrophes in Europe , and attention was devoted chiefly to domestic problems, political factionalism, accelerated building, settlement, and industrial progress. [7]

The lack of any serious rescue attempt by the Yishuv coupled with immigration problems and economic hardship led to later animosity by Holocaust survivors toward Israelis.  Israeli reaction to the survivors compounded the issue.  In Palestine , since 1945, survivors of the camps were treated like outcasts, victims to be pitied at best.  The population gave them housing and commiseration, but little respect.  They were made to feel that they were to be blamed for their suffering and that they should have left Europe earlier, as they had been advised to do, or should have risen against the Germans.  To the strong and bold Israelis, the survivors represented the weak.  They personified the Jew in need of protection and the indignities of the Diaspora. [8]   After 1948, it was not uncommon for Israelis to remind the survivors or their children that “six hundred thousand of us defeated six well-equipped Arab armies.  Six million of you let yourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter.” [9]

The survivors in Israel after the war constituted a large and integral part of the population.  Nonetheless, like all immigrants to Israel , they were expected to forget their origins and become active citizens contributing to the building of the new state and fighting, both internal and external forces, for its survival.  The Holocaust survivors themselves had considerable difficulty finding words to describe their unspeakable and indescribable experiences.  They felt guilty at having survived, and shame at having been forced into experiences of dehumanization and brutalization. [10]   Israelis were more concerned with positive themes like rebirth, hope, and renewal than with how survivors suffered in the camps.  By and large Israelis did not want to know how they had lived through the Holocaust—except for those few survivors who were fortunate enough to have fought as partisans or been involved in active armed resistance (e.g., Warsaw and Krakow Ghetto uprising).  Some of these partisans were treated just as poorly as camp survivors, [11] while others were glorified and treated as heroes.  The first monuments erected in Israel were dedicated to the heroic fighters in the ghetto uprisings.

In many respects, the years 1946-49 were the formative years for ideas of commemoration in the Yishuv and later in Israel .  These ideas were influenced heavily by the political struggle for a Jewish state and the direct encounter with Holocaust survivors.  When Palestinian Jews met with survivors in detainment camps and elsewhere in Europe , and when they saw the sites of destruction, their reactions were extremely complex. [12]   Commemoration progressed very slowly in Israeli society through the years after the war.  Collective memory about the Holocaust was complicated to achieve in Israel chiefly because of the attitude of Israelis toward Nazis’ victims.  It is evident that Israelis who knew that their relatives or friends had perished remembered their loved ones by reciting the yearly Jewish remembrance prayer (Kaddish) on the anniversary of their death, and by kindling a memorial (Yizkor) candle on that day. [13]   The information about date of death was very limited and after the war had ended, many were still searching for relatives and reliable knowledge about their fate.  This lack of burial site and precise date of death made it impossible for survivors to follow the traditional Jewish rituals regarding the dead.  In the Yishuv, it became necessary to observe a collective Memorial Day to remember those who had been murdered by the Nazis.  At first, two dates were set aside to remember the Nazi atrocities: the date of the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and the traditional date of the general Kaddish, which was determined by the chief rabbinate of the Yishuv.  Honoring those who resisted, and did not go like “lambs to the slaughter,” became a necessity for any formal Holocaust commemoration in Israel and helped shape Israeli memory.

In 1945 the Israeli government established a national committee responsible for commemoration.  It included representatives of institutions in the Yishuv among its members.  The committee was named Yad Vashem. [14]   On September 16, 1946 , a subcommittee was appointed to offer concrete plans for commemoration, taking into account the different perspectives that had been raised in the previous discussions. [15]   The link between the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel was referred to as Shoah U'tekumah (Holocaust and rebirth).  This concept dominated the minds of Israelis and became a central part of their society.  Even before the establishment of Israel , the responsibility of the Yishuv to preserve the memory of the Holocaust was acknowledged as part of its commitment to provide a haven and a home for survivors.  The War of Independence and the subsequent immigration of large numbers of people to the new nation took up the attention of the Yishuv; however, and stalled the initial progress of memory preservation. [16]   This delay was increased in March 1949, when members of the Yad Vashem Committee resigned in protest of the inability to act because of a lack of funding.

In addition to the problems that slowed down any possible progress in instituting a statewide commemoration for the Holocaust, another conflict arose.  During the first years of statehood the commemoration of those killed in the Holocaust had to compete with the remembrance of the soldiers who died in the War of Independence. [17]   Approximately 1 percent of the total population of Israel perished fighting for statehood in the war and was considered national heroes unlike the hopeless victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.”  It was not until April 12, 1951 that the Israeli parliament—the Knesset—passed what became known as the Yom HaShoah Law.  This edict set aside the twenty-seventh day of the Hebrew month of Nissan as the formal Holocaust Memorial Day.  For many years, however, a majority of Israelis did not observe this day that was selected to remember the Holocaust.  These dissenters would go on with their lives on this day and ignore sirens intended to halt all business and movement for a national moment of silence.

During the 1950s, approximately 350,000 of the immigrants were Holocaust survivors and, more than half of all Israelis had some direct or indirect connection to the Holocaust, by either losing family or friends. During the early part of this decade, many survivors preferred not to identify themselves as such in public, and most of their commemorative activities were centered in their own intimate social circles. The general atmosphere in the country did not encourage discussion about the past, for it was considered an obstacle to the survivors’ rehabilitation.  In Youth Aliyah (a Zionist youth group), for example, the formal policy for counselors was specifically not to provide a time or place for discussion of the past.  In Israel , the survivors’ new lives began when they immigrated to the new nation. [18]

Some survivors initiated the construction of the first commemorative sites, shipped the ashes of Jews murdered in Poland and buried them in cemeteries in Israel , and published Yizkor books for different communities.  Some wrote their memoirs in their native Polish or Yiddish and had them translated into Hebrew.  However, the large majority of survivors were not involved in any commemorative attempts or plans.   This changed after the Six-Day War in 1967 when it appeared that the Arab countries in the region would “drive Israel to the sea.”  Universities established courses focusing on the horrors of the Holocaust, survivors began compiling memoirs, and films focusing on the war years were made.  This change also occurred in Israel .  As will be shown, it was not the Six-Day War alone that paved the way to a large increase and change in the focus of national commemoration and Holocaust education in Israel .  The events that transpired during a much less explored period in history, 1945 to 1967, set the stage for Israelis’ modified reaction to the Holocaust and survivors that peaked after the Israeli victory.

The Yad Vashem Law TOP

            Although the Yom HaShoah Law designating a formal day of remembrance was passed in 1951, this day was not widely accepted nation-wide until after the Six-Day War in 1967.  Two years after it passed, the Knesset debated the Remembrance of the Holocaust and Heroism Law, known as the Yad Vashem Law. [19]   The law provided the framework of commemoration and also defined its content and goals. [20]   The preamble to the law conveyed the three basic concepts of the Holocaust as Israelis saw it: Shoah, Gevurah (heroism), and Ozruah (the courage of the spirit). [21]   These concepts were to be integrated into one memorial that would encourage the collective memory of the Jews.  The memorial, which would also be named Yad Vashem, [22] would initiate activities, public ceremonies, and other cultural projects to transmit information about the Holocaust and foster patterns of commemoration.  When David Ben-Gurion, then Prime Minister, and his colleagues finally decided to pass this Knesset bill creating the Yad Vashem memorial, the emphasis was on courage.  Resistance fighters were presented as a kind of elite, while the victims—the dead and survivors alike—deserved at best compassion and pity.  The subject of the Holocaust in Israel continued to be considered an embarrassing one. [23]

            Following the ratification of the Yad Vashem law, the government set aside a site for the complex.  They chose to construct the memorial on the slopes of Mount Herzl [24] in Jerusalem , where soldiers who have fallen in Israel ’s wars and heads of state are buried.  The way to the historical museum takes the visitor past two rows of carob trees; this is the Avenue of the Righteous Gentiles, named for the non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis.  Yad Vashem attempts to portray the Holocaust not in a despairing way, but rather with rays of hope and heroism, much like the way Israelis tried to recall the Holocaust in the early years of independence.  Yad Vashem’s scholarly responsibility was to collect and publish the testimonies of survivors and to promote historical and social research about the Holocaust.  Its Israeli and Jewish viewpoint obliged Yad Vashem to convey the heroism and spiritual courage of the Jews to future generations. [25]   About halfway through the museum—a bit after the most horrifying of the pictures—there is a placard that tries to raise the visitor up out of the depths of despair and explain that the death of the Jews in the Holocaust was not in vain.  The placard proclaims that they died martyrs. [26]   The visit to the museum concludes with the establishment of the State of Israel.  The museum leads the visitor inexorably “from Holocaust to rebirth.” [27]   After the Declaration of Independence in 1948, Mordecai Shenhabi, the chairman of the Yad Vashem Committee, began to emphasize that a memorial site was necessary to establish clearly for the entire world the link between the extermination of the Jews and the establishment of the state.  He demanded Yad Vashem be granted a monopoly on the memorialization of the Holocaust. [28]

In 1990, the current director of Yad Vashem, Yitzhak Arad, said what the head of the museum would never have said in previous decades.  He noted that as far as he was concerned, the term “heroism” could be done without; “Holocaust” is sufficient.  He added that young people who hear him speak now seldom denounce, as they once did, the Holocaust’s victims for not having fought back.  He rarely hears the once-frequent charge that they went “like lambs to the slaughter,” he said. [29]   This change, while mostly motivated by the Eichmann trial and the national attention surrounding it, happened gradually and would have been impossible without the hard work initiated by the Yad Vashem committee, and in accordance with the new law, in creating a national Holocaust memorial in Israel .  A demonstration of Israel ’s special relationship to the Holocaust can be seen in the fact that foreign dignitaries who visit Israel are taken to Yad Vashem to view the history and pictures of the Holocaust.  Although, the over-arching motif of the museum is still that of hope and heroism, the message delivered to foreign visitors today is that the Holocaust is a theme central to an understanding of contemporary Israel and its current situation. [30]

The Reparations Agreement TOP

            It is uncertain who was the first to suggest that the Germans would have to pay reparations for the property they had expropriated from Jews and for the suffering they had caused. [31]   The idea seemed to have been thought of during the war, most likely sparked by the war reparations imposed on Germany after the First World War. [32]   While the reparations agreement helped to change Israeli public opinion regarding the memory of the Holocaust, it also created much debate and disagreement throughout the small nation. [33]   The Israeli public followed the negotiations closely and was divided by the ethical questions they posed.  Passions were aroused, as though a religious war had erupted. [34]   The argument that money from the Germans should be accepted by Israel was made by Ben-Gurion and Nahum Goldmann, but Menachem Begin affirmed that Jewish blood was not for sale and the Jewish dead were not to be used for bargaining.  Most survivors were generally against such a reparations agreement.  Petitions were constantly circulated in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem , and daily demonstrations were held.  Debates raged in every Israeli community arousing antagonism and disdain.  Some Israelis believed that the money [35] would be the first step toward a premature normalization.  They felt that the agreement would certainly foster economic and political collaboration between Germany and the Jewish State leading to a betrayal of the memory of the dead.  The other argument was that the Germans illegally stole the property and money of European Jews and needed to compensate them or their heirs.

            The largest and most violent demonstration took place on January 7 and 8, 1952, when the Knesset was debating whether to empower the government to start negotiations with Germany .  First and foremost was the moral issue concerning whether or not the agreement would pardon Germany , forsaking the remembrance of the Nazi crimes and the memory of Jewish suffering.  These issues were raised in the context of Israel ’s role to protect Jewish honor, along with its responsibility to fashion the collective memory and to educate the young. [36]   The reparations debate was important not only because it mobilized large numbers of survivors, but also because it made the Holocaust an open topic of debate in Israeli society and politics.  Some Israelis in the end accused the government of pursuing a policy that was indifferent toward the fate of the Jews.

The decision to allow Germany to compensate Israel for the property loss [37] of the Holocaust victims was significant for Judaism as a whole.  All told, the German government committed itself to paying 3.4 billion marks, about $820 million.  About 70 percent of the money was earmarked for goods made in Germany , and about 30 percent for the purchase of fuel. The agreement was to be carried out over a period of twelve to fourteen years. [38] Israel ’s economic success and growth were partially due to the German reparations—an agreement that was neither a pardon of Germany nor a legitimization of a new Germany .  Nevertheless, the criticisms of the agreement were used once again against the government during the Kasztner Affair, yet another event in Israeli post-Holocaust history that brought the Nazi atrocities to a new level in Israel ’s collective memory.

The Kasztner Affair, 1953 TOP

            In his recent biography about Ben-Gurion, Shabtai Teveth writes that “among the plagues Hitler inflicted on the Jewish people should be counted the fratricidal self-hatred that eats at them like a malignancy: an ever-growing search for the guilty within their own ranks.” [39]   Rudolf (Rezso) Israel Kasztner worked with a Zionist rescue committee in Budapest beginning in 1942.  Toward the end of the War, Kasztner, along with his wife, took over negotiations with Adolf Eichmann and the Nazis to exchange Jews for goods that Germany needed for its war effort on the eastern front. [40]   He managed to rescue 1,685 Jews, who were eventually sent to Switzerland .  Kasztner also visited the concentration camps in Germany and helped to provide these camp inmates with food and clothing, thereby saving many more Jews in the winter of 1945.  Two years after the liberation of the camps, Kasztner immigrated to Israel where he became an active politician.

            In 1953, a Hungarian Jew accused Kasztner, in a widely distributed leaflet, of being a Nazi collaborator and assisting in the deportation of the Hungarian Jews.  Among other claims, this Hungarian Jew, Malkiel Gruenwald, accused Kasztner of concealing information about the true destination of the Hungarian Jews from the Jewish public in return for the rescue of the 1,685 Jews.  He also charged Kasztner with rescuing mostly friends and relatives at the expense of many more Jewish lives.

As Kasztner was a government official, he sued Gruenwald for libel.  During the trial, in which Kasztner was ostensibly the plaintiff, he in fact became the accused and had to defend himself against the allegations that the defense attorney made against him.  The judge’s verdict endorsed the defense and soon there were calls to have Kasztner tried under the Law for the Punishment of Nazis and Nazi Collaborators. [41]   The government appealed the verdict to the High Court, and in January 1958, the court reversed the original decision finding Gruenwald guilty on all charges and clearing Kasztner on all charges. [42]   The High Court’s decision came too late to benefit Kasztner, who was assassinated on March 4, 1957 , by three right-wing extremists.  The trial became an Israeli media spectacle and like the reparations agreement, once again, brought the Holocaust into Israel ’s public arena for discussion and debate.

            Kasztner’s trial, the appeal, his murder, and the debates that followed reflected Israelis’ understanding of the Holocaust and their stereotypes of survivors.  The Kasztner Affair started a process of listening that made an open dialogue about the Holocaust possible in Israel .  The trial forced the Israeli public to ponder various questions and themes surrounding the Holocaust: the response of the Jews to the Final Solution; the behavior of Jewish leadership under Nazi occupation (the Judenräte); the reaction and policies of the Yishuv leadership; and the conflicting images and perceptions of the free, proud, active Israeli and the passive, submissive, and weak Diaspora Jew. [43]   Almost a decade after the close of the war, the Kasztner Affair thrust issues of Yishuv involvement in the Holocaust into the public domain—issues that had not previously been talked about.

            For all the probable good that came out of the Kasztner Affair with regard to Israel ’s dealing with the Holocaust, it is also possible that it negatively affected survivors in some respects.  The assaults on the behavior of the Jewish leadership and the Jews in general under the Nazis proved once more that it was wise for survivors to keep a low profile about the Holocaust in Israel , unless one had been a ghetto fighter or a partisan.  In addition, some Israelis believed that if Kasztner was in fact guilty, then all Jewish leaders and all the members of the rescue committee were collaborators.  The trial and the verdict forced a clear dichotomy between two Jewish responses under the Nazis: resistance and the Judenräte.  However, even with some of the poor effects to come about because of the ordeal, it was another event that helped shape Israel ’s commemorative response to Holocaust memory.  Although the Kasztner Affair debates did not extend beyond a small fraction of the Israeli public, the arguments contributed greatly to how Israelis reacted to the Holocaust and survivors.

The Eichmann Trial TOP

            During the war, Adolf Eichmann provided leadership in the deportation, expulsion, and extermination of Jews.  In January 1942, he took part in an interdepartmental meeting in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee to discuss the organization of the extermination program.  When Ben-Gurion announced that Eichmann had been captured in Argentina by Israeli agents and brought to Israel to stand trial under the 1950 Law for the Punishment of Nazis and Nazi Collaborators, there was an immediate enthusiasm in the country for the operation itself.  Many saw Eichmann’s capture as a victory for Israel ’s struggle for survival and of momentary pride.  Since memory tormented many survivors, the trial of Eichmann forced them to confront their memories and to recount them for the first time as witnesses in court.  The emotional explosion set off by the sudden announcement of Eichmann’s arrest expressed their almost unbearable anxiety over what they would discover. [44]

            For allowing force in the capture of Eichmann, Ben-Gurion must have been inspired by a very strong commitment.  The motivation behind his actions rested on his understanding of the Holocaust and its meaning to the future of the Jews and to his strong belief that, by judging Eichmann , Israel would render a major service to itself and the world. [45]

            The atmosphere in Israel following the news of Eichmann’s abduction was mass hysteria.  The nation eagerly awaited the trial that changed the scope of memory regarding the Holocaust in the Jewish State.  The trial gave the Holocaust top media attention not only in Israel , but worldwide.  Suspicion and reservations accompanied the more positive feelings the forthcoming trial raised as well.  Some Israelis feared that the trial would reveal incidents of Jews collaborating with the Nazis or their passivity.  During the trial, the major themes of Holocaust discourse in Israel in the fifties were reexamined.  The notions that the Jews went like “sheep to the slaughter” and that the only resistance is armed resistance (not spiritual) came under renewed scrutiny.  The attitudes of Israelis, even the older citizens, began to change in light of the Eichmann trial.  The murderer was personalized, which made the evil even more terrible and difficult to understand.  The negative perceptions Israelis had about Holocaust victims were severely weakened by the personal descriptions of the survivors about their circumstances.  The survivors’ answers about why they did not resist allowed the public and the press to understand their own inability to comprehend what had happened to the European Jews in the middle of the twentieth century.  The trial brought Israel ’s citizens spiritually closer to the survivors— Israel ’s attitude had undergone an important transformation.  At the time of the trial, the majority of survivors in Israel reacted intensely to this trial taking place—for them it became a reliving of many of the events of the time of Holocaust.  It was said at the time that many of those not affected by the more Holocaust, amongst them particularly Sephardic Jews, reacted more violently to the horrors told at the trial than those directly affected. [46]

Hannah Arendt, author of Eichmann in Jerusalem, spoke about the “banality of evil” and Jewish complicity; however, this was clearly not the general response in Israel during the trial.  Although there were many divisions among Israelis regarding the trial, it still brought international attention to the acts of the Nazis, as well Israelis need for recompense and justice.  Although no single event can explain the change, the Eichmann trial had great significance in changing the image of the survivor.  The survivors would no longer be an anonymous group of Jews living in Israel ; rather they became individuals with names and biographies.  Israelis felt they needed to make a stronger effort to empathize with the survivors and the memories that impinged on their daily lives.  They expressed greater appreciation for the survivors’ personal achievements. [47]   Many survivors who had never shared their experience with non-survivors came to feel, in the course of the trial and afterward, a responsibility to do so.  Although the central themes in Holocaust discourse in Israel continued even then to remain armed resistance and the passivity of Europe ’s Jews, a new sensitivity began to develop during the Eichmann trial.  Public discussion of the Holocaust was more frequent and many Israelis had learned of Yad Vashem’s activities and visited the site because of the impact of the trial.

Like the debates over the reparations and Kasztner, heated debates began in Israel about what method of punishment was just, if any, for a murderer like Eichmann.  There were those, like Philosopher Martin Buber, who were staunchly against executing the Nazi killer.  Some Israelis felt that putting Eichmann to death was too lenient.  Adolf Eichmann was hanged in the Ramla prison in the evening hours of May 31, 1962 . [48]   After the trial, the Israeli press began to publish more scholarly articles on the Holocaust with survivor testimony.  The commemoration legislation, German reparations agreement, and the Kasztner affair all played crucial roles in providing an atmosphere for change in Holocaust memory leading up to the Eichmann trial.  The new reaction to the Holocaust and survivors in Israeli society, spawned by the trial, allowed for more accepted and observed forms of commemoration and education about the Holocaust.

Holocaust Remembrance Day TOP

            The process of making the Holocaust become a part of Israeli common historical identity seems to utilize the effect of “telling what happened.” [49]   Although it took many decades and a few crucial turning point events, Yom HaShoah— Israel ’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, became the one day of the year that allows for survivors to tell their stories and for the nation to commemorate the Holocaust.  Although the Holocaust Remembrance Day was initially established by a law of Knesset in 1953 as part of the mandate for a Holocaust Martyr’s and heroes’ Remembrance Authority, the day was not officially activated until 1959. [50]

Since 1959, sirens have marked Holocaust Day and on hearing the siren, people stop whatever they are doing.  The siren is broadcast on the radio as well, on all stations.  In addition to the siren, the flags at all public buildings, including hotels, are flown at half-mast.  The main ceremony is held on the eve of Holocaust Day, after dark, live, it is paramilitary in character. [51]   One week after Yom HaShoah marks the Memorial Day for soldiers who have fallen in any of Israel ’s wars.  The two memorial days are very similar and become more and more identical every year. [52]

During the early years of Israel ’s statehood, if survivors spoke about the Holocaust at all, it was during Yom HaShoah.  Yet one out of every three schools did not even hold a ceremony, and most of the ceremonies that were held were memorial rituals—assemblies with prayers, readings, candle lighting—that did not take advantage of the pedagogical opportunity. [53]   It took the Ministry of Education many years to create Holocaust curricula of any substance and it would surely have taken longer were it not for the intervention of the Eichmann trial.  In the wake of the trial, a program of instruction for the five days leading up to Yom HaShoah was introduced.  The efforts by the schools to intensify Holocaust study was made every year between the Eichmann trial and the Six-Day War.

The wider acceptance and observance of Yom HaShoah can be attributed to the change in character of the day commemorating the six million, as well as the Eichmann trial, reparations agreement, and the Kasztner Affair.  Instead of the generalization that was expressed by the phrase Holocaust and heroism, there has been an increasing tendency to identify with the victims of the Holocaust as individuals since the Eichmann trial.

During the years 1945-49, the dialogue regarding the Holocaust progressed in a minor tone.  In many respects the expression “death and rebirth” was a reflection of the genuine feelings of Israel ’s citizens and of reality.  During the 1950s and 1960s, communication about the Holocaust occurred on many levels.  The dialogue and negotiation with the memories of the Holocaust did not progress along a straight path. [54]   Survivors and those Israelis who lost loved ones in the Holocaust had to fight for the country’s collective memory with those who lost family and friends in the War of Independence.  Israelis reaction to the Holocaust and survivors was very negative—filled with indifference and disregard.  These feelings dwelled in Israel for many years without any overt confrontation.

From the end of World War II to the Six-Day War, the hidden past erupted at frequent intervals.  These eruptions included the legislation regarding commemoration (the Yad Vashem Law), the German reparations agreement, the Kasztner Affair, the eventual nation-wide acceptance of Holocaust Remembrance Day, and more than any other event—the Eichmann trial.  It gave survivors a reason to lift the veil on their silence and begin to express their experiences through testimony, writing books, and making films.  The ability to change and commemorate the Holocaust in a new way has allowed Israelis to unite and accept survivors into society.  Israelis have made a significant change in how they remember the Holocaust and react to survivors.  This change, influenced as it was by various events in Israel ’s history as a nation, proved helpful when the anxiety that preceded the Six-Day War and the great victory that followed once again pushed the Holocaust into the forefront of Israeli consciousness.

            The Six-Day War issued in a concern that another Shoah would take place—this time in the re-established State of Israel.  Arab nations sought to destroy the Jewish State and conquer its land.  This time there was collective call for vigilance and the Jewish people united to bring about a much different outcome.  After the war, the scope of Holocaust memory in Israel changed enormously.  Literature and film brought the Shoah and Six-Day War triumph together as a common theme. [55]   However, the Six-Day War did not solely modify Israeli reaction to the Holocaust.  The many turning points in Israeli history from the end of the war to 1967 also guided Israeli collective memory to this positive change—from indifference to compassion.

Bibliography TOP

Michael Berenbaum, After Tragedy and Triumph: Essays in Modern Jewish Thought and the American Experience.  Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990.  Although I did not cite from this source, it was helpful because of its insight into Holocaust memory.  Berenbaum, one of the founders and directors of the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. , provides a thorough explanation of the successes and failures of Holocaust commemoration in the United States .  Much of Berenbaum’s book documents the history of Holocaust memory and is not specific to either the U.S. or Israel .

Israel W. Charny, Ed., Holding on to Humanity—The Message of Holocaust Survivors.  New York : New York University Press, 1992.  This publication is very similar to Terence DePres’ The Survivor in that it reveals how Holocaust survivors recount their difficult past.  This work helped provide me with insight into survivors’ feelings toward non-survivors who did not endure the Nazi atrocities.  This book was published at the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem and, therefore it analyzes how survivors in Israel mourn, associate with their peers, and receive counseling to deal with their experiences. 

Chaim Herzog, Living History: A Memoir.  New York : Pantheon Books, 1996.  This recent memoir provided insight into how Israel has successfully improved its national memory and commemoration efforts.  Herzog, who passed away recently, served as Israel ’s president for many years.  He witnessed improvements at Yad Vashem, in Holocaust scholarship, and in regard to Holocaust Memorial Day.  His memoir only touches briefly on the Holocaust, but includes many important reflections on memory and reaction to survivors in Israel .

Rafael Moses, M.D., Ed., Persistent Shadows of the Holocaust: The Meaning to Those Not Directly Affected.  Madison : International Universities Press, Inc., 1993.  This book contains psychological research on Holocaust survivors in Israel .  Moses and other doctors analyzed many groups of Israeli survivors through interviews and then report on how they feel Israel has been conducive to their experiences in recent years.  While the book is new, the research began in the early 1970s and therefore documents the changes in survivor behavior in Israel as certain events affected how Israelis react to the Holocaust.

Dalia Ofer, “ Israel ” in The World Reacts to the Holocaust (David S. Wyman, Ed.).  Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.  This collection provided me with the most information on this subject.  Ofer has been researching this very theme for decades now and documents how Israel , as a nation, has reacted to the Holocaust.  She reports, in a chronological fashion, how Israelis have changed their perception of survivors and what allowed for these revisions to occur. 

Dina Porat, The Blue and Yellow Stars of David: The Zionist Leadership in Palestine and the Holocaust 1939-1945.  Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1990.  At first, I planned on referring to this work more often than I did in the end.  I was able to use it more for an historical analysis of how the Yishuv acted during the Holocaust.  I then inferred why Israelis reacted as they did to the Holocaust and survivors.  Porat is a brilliant academician whose field of expertise is the Yishuv involvement in the Holocaust and this is the definitive work on that subject.

Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust.  New York : Hill and Wang, 1991.  Israelis reacted very critically to Segev’s controversial book when it first appeared in Israel in the late 1980s.  I was able to use this mostly for information on the Eichmann trial and Yad Vashem (the law, the committee, and the museum).  Segev briefly discusses the Kasztner Affair, but writes at great length about Eichmann and how Israelis reacted to the Holocaust.  The best contribution to my paper, provided by the Segev book, was his description of how Israel ’s commemoration has vastly improved since Eichmann’s trial and subsequent hanging.

Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust.  New York : Harcourt Brace and Company, 1996.  This recent book describes Ben-Gurion’s activity from before the Holocaust through his death.  Teveth, the official biographer of Ben-Gurion, attempts to deny the criticism that Segev places on the first Prime Minister.  Teveth places himself on the side of Porat, in denouncing Segev’s accusations that Ben-Gurion could have done a great deal more to save Europe ’s Jews, but was overly concerned with forming Israel .  This source was helpful in explaining Ben-Gurion’s role in the Holocaust and the animosity toward the government that survivors felt after the end of the war.

Elie Wiesel, Memoirs: All Rivers Run to the Sea. New York : Schocken, 1995.  Wiesel’s memoirs contain two or three pages on his experiences in Israel after the war.  He describes his dismay at how survivors were not accepted by Israelis.  The other part of the book that was helpful was Wiesel’s account of his participation in the commission on the German Reparations Agreement.  Overall, while he does not deal with Israel ’s reaction to the Holocaust in much detail, his few pages were beneficial to my argument.

James E. Young, Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust: Narrative and the Consequences of Interpretation.  Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1988.  This book deals mostly with Holocaust literature and scholarship in Israel .  The most meaningful aspect to my paper was about the interpretation of the Holocaust in writing during the Six-Day War.  This shows how Israelis changed their reaction to survivors and also, how the Holocaust has been used, both politically and academically, in Israel ’s society.