 |
 |
                |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How the Holocaust Industry Stole the Swiss Monies Postscript to Foreign Translations In chapter three of this book I documented the Holocaust industry's "double shakedown" of European countries as well as Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide. Recent developments confirm this analysis. Indeed, for confirmation of my argument, one need merely place documents readily available in the public domain under critical and close scrutiny. In late August 2000 the World Jewish Congress (WJC) announced that it stood to amass fully $9 billion in Holocaust compensation monies. (1) They were extracted in the name of "needy Holocaust victims" but the WJC now maintained that the monies belonged to the "Jewish people as a whole" (WJC executive director, Elan Steinberg). Conveniently, the WJC is the self-anointed representative of the "Jewish people as a whole." Meanwhile, a black-tie Holocaust reparations banquet sponsored by WJC president Edgar Bronfman at New York's Pierre Hotel celebrated the creation of a "Foundation of the Jewish People" to subsidize Jewish organizations and "Holocaust education." (One Jewish critic of the "Holocaust-themed dinner" conjured this scenario: "Mass murder. Horrible plunder. Slave Labor. Let's eat.") The Foundation's endowment would come from "residual" Holocaust compensation monies amounting to "probably billions of dollars" (Steinberg). How the WJC already knew that "probably billions" would be left over when none of the compensation monies had yet been distributed to Holocaust victims was anyone's guess. Indeed, it was not yet even known how many would qualify. Or, did the Holocaust industry extract compensation monies in the name of "needy Holocaust victims" knowing all along that "probably billions" would be left over? The Holocaust industry bitterly complained that the German and Swiss settlements allotted only meager sums for survivors. It is unclear why the "probably billions" couldn't be used to supplement these allocations. Predictably, Holocaust survivors reacted with rage. (None was present at the Foundation's creation.) "Who authorized these organizations to decide," a survivor newsletter angrily editorialized, "that the `leftovers' (in the billions), obtained in the name of Shoah victims, should be used for their pet projects instead of helping ALL holocaust survivors with their mounting health-care expenses?" Confronted with this barrage of negative publicity, the WJC did an abrupt about-face. The $9 billion figure was "a bit misleading," Steinberg subsequently protested. He also claimed that the Foundation had "no cash and no plan for allocating funds," and the purpose of the Holocaust banquet was not to celebrate the Foundation's endowment from Holocaust compensation monies but rather to raise funds for it. Elderly Jewish survivors, not consulted in advance of, let alone invited to, the "star-studded gala" at the Pierre Hotel, picketed outside. Among those honored inside the Pierre was President Clinton, who movingly recalled that the United States stood in the forefront of "facing up to an ugly past": "I have been to Native American reservations and acknowledged that the treaties we signed were neither fair nor honorably kept in many cases. I went to Africa...and acknowledged the responsibility of the United States in buying people into slavery. This is a hard business, struggling to find our core of humanity." Notably absent in all these instances of "hard business" were reparations in hard currency. (2) On 11 September 2000 the "Special Master's Proposed Plan of Allocation and Distribution of Settlement Proceeds" from the Swiss banks litigation was finally released (hereafter: Gribetz Plan). (3) Publication of the Plan - more than two years in the making - was timed not for the "needy Holocaust victims dying everyday" but the Holocaust gala that same night. Burt Neuborne, lead counsel for the Holocaust industry in the Swiss banks affair and "the most vocal supporter of the distribution plan" (New York Times), praised the document as "meticulously researched ... painstaking and sensitive." (4) Indeed, it seemed to belie pervasive fears that the monies would be misappropriated by Jewish organizations. The Forward typically reported that "the distribution plan...proposes that more than 90% of the Swiss monies be paid directly to survivors and their heirs." Protesting that "the World Jewish Congress has never asked for a penny, will never take a penny and does not accept restitution funds," Elan Steinberg piously acclaimed the Gribetz Plan as an "extraordinarily intelligent and compassionate document." (5) Intelligent it surely was, but hardly compassionate. For hidden in the details of the Gribetz Plan is the devilish reality that probably but a small fraction of the Swiss monies will be paid directly to Holocaust survivors and their heirs. Before considering this, however, it bears notice that the Plan conclusively, if unwittingly, demonstrates that the Holocaust industry blackmailed Switzerland. (6) Readers will recall that in May 1996 the Swiss banks formally consented to a comprehensive, external audit - "the most extensive audit in history" (Judge Korman) - in order to settle all outstanding claims by Holocaust survivors and their heirs. (7) Before the audit committee (chaired by Paul Volcker), even had an opportunity to meet, however, the Holocaust industry pressed for a financial settlement. Two pretexts were adduced to preempt the Volcker Committee: 1. the Committee couldn't be trusted, 2. needy Holocaust victims couldn't wait for the Committee's findings. The Gribetz Plan demolishes both pretexts. In June 1997, Burt Neuborne submitted a "Memorandum of Law" justifying preemption of the Volcker Committee. Against all evidence and with remarkable effrontery, Neuborne dismissed the Committee as a Swiss initiative to deflect criticism into a "private mediation effort that is sponsored, paid for and designed by the defendants." (8) It bears notice that Neuborne even held against the Swiss bankers that they footed the $500 million bill for the unprecedented audit imposed on them. In August 1998 the Holocaust industry successfully forced a non-recoupable $1.25 billion settlement on the Swiss before the Volcker Committee completed its work. (9) Although the pretext for this settlement was that the Volcker Committee couldn't be trusted, the Gribetz Plan heaps praise on the Committee and emphasizes that the Committee's findings and mechanism for processing claims ("Claims Resolution Tribunal" - "CRT") were and continue to be of "vital significance" in distributing the Swiss monies. (10) The Holocaust industry's enthusiastic reliance on the Committee for distributing the Swiss monies confutes its main pretext for preempting the Committee with a non-recoupable settlement. In their settlement with the Holocaust industry, the Swiss were compelled not only to pay for Holocaust-era dormant Jewish accounts, but also to "disgorge the profits" they "knowingly" reaped from the Jewish assets looted, and Jewish slave labor exploited, by the Nazis. (11) The Gribetz Plan reveals the flimsiness of these charges as well. It admits that "very few if any" direct links - let alone direct profitable links or knowingly profitable links - could be established between the Swiss, on the one hand, and looted Jewish assets and Jewish slave labor, on the other. Indeed, the Plan makes clear that the entire indictment in these classes was built on what was "likely" or "presumed" or "potentially" to be the case. (12) Finally, Switzerland was compelled to provide restitution to Jews fleeing Nazism who were denied refuge. The Gribetz Plan explicitly concedes - if only in a footnote - the "questionable legal validity" of this claim. (13) Despite all these admissions, however, the Plan still approvingly quotes that "in a perfectly just world, plaintiffs should have received a far greater sum" than the $1.25 billion extracted from the Swiss. (14) Apart from the Volcker Committee's alleged partisanship, the Holocaust industry gestured to the mortality of Holocaust survivors to force a non-recoupable settlement on the Swiss. Time was supposedly of the essence because "needy Holocaust victims" had only a short time left to live. With the money in hand, however, the Holocaust industry has suddenly discovered that "needy Holocaust victims" aren't dying so rapidly. Citing a study commissioned by the Jewish Claims Conference, the Gribetz plan reports that "the population of Nazi victims is declining more slowly than previously believed." Indeed, the Plan purports that "a fairly substantial number of Jewish Nazi victims may live for at least another 20 years and that 30-35 years from now" - that is, some ninety years after the end of World War II - "tens of thousands of Jewish Nazi victims are likely to be alive." (15) Given the Holocaust industry's track record, it should surprise no one if this revelation is eventually adduced to press yet new compensation demands on Europe. In the meantime it is already being used to slow the allocation of compensation monies. Thus the Gribetz Plan recommends that the monies be allocated in small increments over time because "building expectations among needy survivors, only to remove the funding and thus the assistance, would be a great disservice." (16) During the Swiss banks affair, the Holocaust industry maintained that the average age of a survivor was 73 in Israel and 80 in the rest of the world. Life expectancy in the three countries where most Holocaust survivors currently reside ranges from 60 (former Soviet Union) to 77 (the United States and Israel). (17) One might be excused for wondering how it is possible for "tens of thousands" of Holocaust survivors to be alive 35 years from now. A partial answer is that the Holocaust industry has yet again revised the definition of a Holocaust survivor. "One of the reasons for this relatively slower decline in the size of the population," the above-mentioned Claims Conference study reports, "is the finding that, using the broad definition, there are many more relatively younger Nazi victims than previously believed." (emphasis added) (18) Indeed, in a Weimar-like inflation, the Gribetz Plan puts the number of living Holocaust survivors at nearly a million - a four-fold increase from the already extraordinary figure of 250,000 Holocaust survivors reported during the Swiss shakedown. (19) To manage this actuarial and demographic feat, the Gribetz Plan now deems every Russian Jew who survived World War II to be a Holocaust survivor. (20) Thus, Russian Jews who fled in advance of the Nazis or served in the Red Army now qualify as Holocaust survivors because they faced torture and death if captured. (21) Even accepting for argument's sake this truly novel definition of Holocaust survivor, it is unclear why Soviet functionaries who fled in advance of the Nazis or non-Jewish conscripts in the Red Army don't also qualify as Holocaust survivors. They too faced torture and death if captured. Indeed, the Plan reports that a Jewish-American serviceman captured by the Nazis was interned in a concentration camp. (22) Shouldn't every Jewish-American G.I. from World War II count as a Holocaust survivor? Possibilities abound. Defending the Gribetz Plan mortality projections for Holocaust survivors, a senior historian for the Holocaust wing of the British Imperial War Museum explained that in a "still broader sense...second and even third generation can be considered" Holocaust victims because "they may suffer from psychiatric disturbances." (23) It's only a matter of time before the Holocaust industry restores Wilkomirski to grace as a Holocaust survivor since - to quote Yad Vashem Director Israel Gutman - his "pain is authentic." For the Holocaust industry, this redefinition and upward revision of the figure for Holocaust survivors serves multiple purposes. Not only does it justify the shakedown of European countries, but it justifies the shakedown of actual Holocaust victims as well. For years these Holocaust victims have begged the Claims Conference to allocate compensation monies for a health insurance program. Noting this "thoughtful" proposal in a footnote, the Gribetz Plan laments that the Swiss settlement "would be insufficient" to provide medical insurance for "well over 800,000" Holocaust survivors. (24) Apart from a trivial sum, the Gribetz Plan earmarks the Swiss monies only for Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust. The settlement technically covered every "Victim or Target of Nazi Persecution." In fact, this seemingly inclusive, "politically correct" designation is a linguistic subterfuge to exclude most non-Jewish victims. It arbitrarily defines "Victim or Target of Nazi Persecution" to include only Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and the disabled or handicapped. For reasons never explained, other political (e.g., Communists and Socialists) and ethnic (e.g., Poles and Belorussians) persecutees are left out. These are numerically the larger victim groups; except for Jews, the groups designated "Victim or Target of Nazi Persecution" in the Gribetz Plan are numerically much less significant. The practical upshot is that almost all the compensation monies will go to Jews. Thus, the Plan covers 170,000 former Jewish slave-laborers; of fully 1,000,000 non-Jewish former slave laborers, however, only 30,000 of these are deemed to qualify as a "victim or target of Nazi persecution." Likewise, the Plan allocates $90 million for Jewish victims of Nazi plunder but only $10 million for non-Jewish victims. This division is partly justified on the ground that prior compensation agreements used such a ratio. Yet the Plan suggests that non-Jewish victims received a disproportionately smaller share of compensation monies in the past. Shouldn't a just allocation plan redress, not perpetuate, past inequities? (25) The Gribetz Plan sets aside fully $800 million of the $1.25 billion Swiss settlement to cover valid claims on Holocaust-era dormant accounts. The Plan's text, annexes and charts run to many hundreds of pages with well over a thousand footnotes. The singular oddity of the Plan is that it makes no attempt to credibly justify this - the crucial - allocation. It merely states that, "Based upon his analysis of the Volcker Report and the Final Approval Order, and upon consultation with representatives of the Volcker Committee, the Special Master estimates that the value of all bank accounts that will be repaid is within the range of $800 million." (26) In fact, this estimate appears wildly inflated. The actual sum paid out on dormant accounts will probably not come to more than a tiny fraction of the $800 million. (27) The "residual" monies - that is, what remains of the $800 million after all legitimate claims have been processed - are supposed to be distributed either directly to Holocaust survivors or to Jewish organizations engaged in Holocaust-related activities. (28) In fact, the residual monies will almost certainly go to Jewish organizations, not only because the Holocaust industry will have the final say, but because they won't be distributed until many years from now, when few actual Holocaust survivors will be alive. (29) Besides the $800 million for Holocaust-era accounts, the Gribetz Plan allocates some $400 million mainly for the "looted assets," "slave labor," and "refugees" classes. The Plan enters the crucial caveat, however, that none of these monies will be released until "all appeals in this litigation have been exhausted." Conceding that the "proposed payments may not commence for some time," the Plan cites a crucial precedent in which the appeals process lasted three and a half years. (30) For elderly Holocaust survivors this is a no-win and for the Holocaust industry a no-lose situation. Many Holocaust survivors, appalled by the Gribetz Plan, will undoubtedly want to appeal, but doing so means that few will be around to benefit even if an appeal is sustained. The Holocaust industry, already the main beneficiary of the Gribetz Plan, can only gain from an appeals process in which more monies will by default flow into its coffers as survivors die out. Once the appeals process is completed, the Gribetz Plan provides for these allocations of the $400 million: 1. In the "looted assets" class, $90 million is earmarked not for direct payments to Holocaust survivors but for Jewish organizations servicing Holocaust communities "broadly defined." The largest allocation will go to the Claims Conference, which the Gribetz Plan repeatedly acclaims for its "unmatched expertise in serving the needs of Nazi victims. (31) The Plan sets aside $10 million for a "Victim List Foundation, the objective of which is to compile and make widely accessible, for research and remembrance, the names of all Victims or Targets of Nazi Persecution." It recommends that the Foundation start from the "irreplaceable data contained in the Initial Questionnaires" for Holocaust victims. A typical response in this "irreplaceable data" is that fully one of every six Jewish victims (71,000/430,000) claimed title to a Swiss bank account before World War II. Did one in six also own a Mercedes and Swiss chalet? (32) 2. In the "slave labor" class, each of 170,000 Jewish former slave laborers supposedly still alive will receive a token payment in two installments: $500 after the appeals process is completed, and "up to" an additional $500 after all claims on dormant accounts are processed. (33) In fact, the 170,000 figure is grossly inflated, and it is unlikely that many of the Jewish former slave laborers really still alive will yet be around to collect the first, let alone the second, token payment. Applications will be processed by the Claims Conference, which - as the main beneficiary of residual compensation monies - will profit from every rejection. 3. In the "refugee" class, legitimate claimants will receive payments ranging from $250-$2500 in the same two installments as the "slave labor" class. (34) Based on the "irreplaceable data contained in the Initial Questionnaire," some 17,000 Jews have claimed membership in this class. It is likely that only a small fraction of these 17,000 will demonstrate a valid claim (the Conference processes applications), and that even fewer will still be around to collect the payments. A close analysis of the Gribetz Plan thus confirms the main arguments in chapter 3 of this book. It demonstrates that the pretexts invoked by the Holocaust industry to force a non-recoupable settlement on the Swiss banks were false, and that few actual survivors of the Nazi holocaust will directly - or, for that matter, indirectly - benefit from the Swiss monies. A comparable analysis of other Holocaust industry settlements would presumably yield comparable results. Indeed, buried in the details of the Gribetz Plan is a nest egg for the Holocaust industry. Most of the Swiss monies probably won't be distributed until after all but a handful of survivors are dead. With the survivors gone, the monies will pour into the coffers of Jewish organizations. Small wonder that the Holocaust industry was unanimous in its praise of the Gribetz Plan. Norman G. Finkelstein June 2001 Notes 1. For this and the next paragraph, see Joan Gralla, "Holocaust Foundation Set for Restitution Funds," in Reuters (22 August 2000), Michael J. Jordan, "Spending Restitution Money Pits Survivors Against Groups," in Jewish Telegraphic Agency (29 August 2000), NAHOS (The Newsletter of the National Association of Jewish Child Holocaust Survivors) (1 September 2000, 6 October 2000, and 6 November 2000), Marilyn Henry, "Proposed `Foundation for Jewish People' Has No Cash," in Jerusalem Post (8 September 2000), Joan Gralla, "Battle Brews Over Holocaust Compensation," in Reuters (11 September 2000), Shlomo Shamir, "Government to Set Up New Fund for Holocaust Payments," in Haaretz (12 September 2000), Yair Sheleg, "Burg Honored at Controversial NY Dinner," in Haaretz (12 September 2000), E.J. Kessler, "Hillary the Holocaust Heroine?" in New York Post (12 September 2000), Melissa Radler, "Survivors Get Most of Cash in Shoah Fund," in Forward (17 September 2000), "The WJC Defends Event Panned by Commentary," in Jewish Post (20 September 2000). 2. "Remarks by The President During Bronfman Gala," Office of The Press Secretary, The White House . Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, US Department of State (http://usinfo.state.gov). 3. The plan was formulated by Judah Gribetz, past president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, and currently member of the board of New York's Museum of Jewish Heritage - A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. He was appointed "Special Master" by Judge Edward Korman of New York's Eastern District Court, who presided over the class-action litigation in the Swiss case. The full plan is posted on http://www.Swissbankclaims.com. On 22 November 2000 Judge Korman issued a "memorandum and order" that "adopt[s] the Proposed Plan in its entirety." (In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (United States District Court for Eastern District of New York: 22 November 2000), p. 7)) 4. Alan Feuer, "Bitter Fight Is Reignited On Splitting Of Reparations" (New York Times, 21 November 2000). "Statement of Burt Neuborne" appended to Gribetz Plan. Judge Korman's "memorandum and order" (see note 3 above) points up the crucial role of Neuborne in deflecting criticism of the Plan (pp. 4, 6). As lead counsel in the Swiss litigation, Neuborne was credited with contriving the "legal theories" used by the Holocaust industry. 5. Radler, "Survivors Get Most of Cash in Shoah Fund." 6. Significantly, Raul Hilberg, the world's leading authority on the Nazi holocaust, has explicitly charged that the World Jewish Congress blackmailed the Swiss: "It was the first time in history that Jews made use of a weapon that can only be described as blackmail." In a declaration supporting the motion to approve the Swiss settlement, Burt Neuborne, clearly worried by the blackmail allegation ("certain persons may be tempted to mischaracterize legitimate settlement payments as a form of blackmail"), called on Judge Korman to repudiate it, which the Judge dutifully did. ("Holocaust Expert Says Swiss Banks Are Paying Too Much," in Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 28 January 1999; Declaration of Burt Neuborne, Esq. (5 November 1999), para. 8; Edward R.Korman,In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (United States District Court for Eastern District of New York: 26 July 2000), pp. 23-4) 7. In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, p. 19 (Korman). 8. Burt Neuborne, "Memorandum of Law Submitted by Plaintiffs in Response to Expert Submissions Filed By Legal Academics Retained by Defendants" (United States District Court for Eastern District of New York: 16 June 1997), p. 68 (cf. pp. 62-4). Hereafter: Neuborne Memorandum. 9. For non-recoverability of the final settlement, see Gribetz Plan, p. 12n18: "It should be noted that no part of the $1.25 billion settlement amount will revert to the defendant banks or to any other Swiss entities." 10. Gribetz Plan, pp. 11 ("vital significance"), 13-14, 93, 101-4. 11. Neuborne Memorandum, pp. 3, 6,-7, 11-12, 28-31, 34-5, 43, 47-8. The memorandum concedes that the Swiss banks would be legally liable only if they "knowingly" profited from the ill-gotten gains of the Nazis: "If one assumes lack of notice on the part of defendant banks, defendants' actions would not give rise to a claim for equitable disgorgement of unjust profits" (p. 34). 12. Gribetz Plan, pp. 23, 29, 113-14, 118n345, 128-9n371, 145-8, Annex G ("The Looted Assets Class"), pp. G-3, G-43, G-57, Annex H ("Slave Labor Class I"), pp. H-52, H-57-8. 13. Gribetz Plan, Annex J ("The Refugee Class"), p. J-26n85. Buried in a footnote we also learn that, according to a leading authority, Seymour J. Rubin, "Switzerland did admit many more refugees, in proportion to its population than any other nation. This is in contrast to a United States that not only denied entry to the desperate St. Louis refugees, but systematically failed to fill even the limited immigration quota that was available" (p. J-5). Noting that refugees barred from entering Switzerland during World War II would now receive compensation, Burt Neuborne, in a letter to the Nation magazine, regretted : "I only wish that a similar sanction could be imposed on the United States for its identical refusal to accept desperate refugees from Nazi persecution" (5 October 2000). Apart from hypocrisy and cowardice, what prevented the Holocaust industry's lead counsel from pressing this claim? 14. Gribetz Plan, p. 89. The quote is cited from Judge Korman's Court order granting final approval to the Settlement Agreement. 15. Gribetz Plan, Annex C ("Demographics of `Victim or Target' Groups"), p. C-13. 16. Gribetz Plan, pp. 135-6. 17. Gribetz Plan, Annex C , p. C-12, Annex F ("Social Safety Nets"), p. F-15. 18. Ukeles Associates Inc., Paper #3 (revised), Projection of the Population of Victims of Nazi Persecution, 2000-2040 (31 May 2000). 19. Gribetz Plan, p, 9, Annex C, p. C-8, Annex E ("Holocaust Compensation"), pp. E-89 and E-90n282. The 250,000 figure was used to distribute the monies from the "Special Fund for Needy Victims of the Holocaust" established by the Swiss in February 1997. 20. Gribetz Plan, Annex C, p. C-7, Table 3. The Plan concedes in a footnote that "in the former Soviet Union, there are relatively few survivors of the concentration camps, ghettos, or work camps" (Annex E, p. E-56n150). 21. Gribetz Plan, pp. 122-3, 125, Annex E, p. E-138, Annex F, p. F-4n13 22. Gribetz Plan, Annex E, p. E-56. 23. Steve Paulsson, "Re: Survivor Article," posted on http://H-Holocaust@N-Net.MSU.EDU (28 September 2000). 24. Gribetz Plan, p. 135. It bears notice that the figure for Holocaust survivors in the original sense also undergoes a radical revision upward in the Gribetz Plan. The plan states that in the neighborhood of 170,000 former Jewish slave-laborers currently receive pensions from Germany. (Gribetz Plan, Annex H ("Slave Labor Class I"), pp. H-5-6) It is estimated that only one in four former Jewish slave-laborers received a German pension. This would put the total figure for former Jewish slave-laborers still alive today at nearly 700,000, and the total for Jewish slave laborers alive at war's end at 2,800,000. The standard scholarly figure for Jewish slave-laborers alive at war's end is about 100,000, with perhaps several tens of thousands still alive. 25. Gribetz Plan, pp. 7, 25-7, 83-4, 118-19, 138-9, 149, 154, and "Summary of Major Holocaust Compensation Programs." Apart from precedent, the Plan tautologically justifies this distribution "by current demographics, as Jewish victims now constitute the overwhelming proportion of surviving `Victims or Targets of Nazi Persecution' as defined under the Settlement Agreement" (p. 119). Jews only constitute the "overwhelming proportion" because of how the category "Victims or Targets..." was defined. For Gypsy reservations to the Plan, see Romani Comments and Objections to the Special Master's Proposed Plan of Allocation and Distribution. (Ramsey Clark et al., In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (United States District Court for Eastern District of New York: November 2000)) 26. Gribetz Plan, p. 15. The same statement is repeated verbatim on pp. 98-9. 27. The Volcker Committee recommended publication of the names of some 25,000 accounts having the highest probability of a relationship to victims of Nazi persecution. The total "fair current value" of 10,000 of these accounts for which some information is available runs to $150-$230 million. Projecting these estimates on the 25,000 accounts yields $375-$575 million. To judge by the Claims Resolution Tribunal's prior processing experience, valid claims will be filed against only one-half the 25,000 accounts and one-half the monies in these accounts for a total value of $188-$288 million. In addition, however, the 25,000 list overwhelmingly comprises not dormant but closed accounts bearing names that match a Holocaust victim. The Volcker Committee concluded that there is "no evidence of...concerted efforts to divert the funds of victims of Nazi persecution to improper purposes." Accordingly, the safe assumption is that almost all the closed accounts on the 25,000 list were properly closed by the actual account-holders, rightful heirs, or those with a legitimate and credible power of attorney, and that the CRT will validate only a few claims against these closed accounts. The total value of validated claims against the 25,000 accounts will thus likely fall well below even the $188-$288 million estimate that assumed all the accounts were dormant and the claims on half legitimate. (Gribetz Plan, pp. 94n298, 96-7, 105-6n326; Independent Committee of Eminent Persons, Report on Dormant Accounts of Victims of Nazi Persecution in Swiss Banks [Bern: 1999]), p. 13, para. 41(a)) 28. Gribetz Plan, 12, 19-20. The Plan states on p. 12 that the "remainder of the Settlement Fund is to be distributed among the other...settlement classes"- i.e., "looted assets," "refugees," and "slave laborers." As shown below, the monies allocated for the "looted assets" class will be paid not to Holocaust survivors directly but rather to Jewish organizations involved in Holocaust work The Plan further states on pp.19-20 that "it also may be possible to allocate a portion of the remaining Settlement Fund to some of the proposed cultural, memorial or educational projects that have been submitted to the Special Master." 29. The Plan specifies that distribution of residuals from the $800 million cannot begin until all claims on the 25,000 accounts have been processed. It took the CRT fully three years to process 10,000 claims on a prior, separate list of 5,600 Swiss accounts. The Plan reports that many more than 80,000 claims will likely be filed against the list of 25,000. In addition, the Plan provides that all claims must be checked not only against the published list of 25,000 accounts but against millions of other Swiss accounts bearing no apparent relationship to Holocaust victims. Thus even if the CRT process is streamlined, it will surely take many years to complete. (Gribetz Plan, pp. 91, 94n299, 105-6n126) Apart from Holocaust victims holding dormant accounts, the Plan makes only vague and narrow provision for heirs. (pp. 18-19, and Annex D ("Heirs")) 30. Gribetz Plan, pp. 16-17. 31. Gribetz Plan, pp. 25-6, 120-1, 119-38. 32. Gribetz Plan, pp. 18, 27, 116, Annex C, p. C-10, Exhibit 3 to Annex C, p. 1. (The "Initial Questionnaires" were distributed to "Victims and Targets of Nazi Persecution" after Judge Korman approved the Swiss settlement.) Dismissing the extravagant claims of the Holocaust industry against the Swiss banks, Raul Hilberg, who fled Austria as a child with his parents, recalled in a recent interview: "In the 1930s, Jews were poor. My family belonged to the middle class, but we did not have a bank account in Austria, let alone in Switzerland." (Berliner Zeitung, 4 September 2000) 33. Gribetz Plan, pp. 29-31, 154-6. 34. Gribetz Plan, pp. 35-9, 172-5. SHARE THIS POST:     |
|
|
|
  What we can do:
Video: On the place of civility in academic life (10.18.2007) Finkelstein's talk at the academic freedom conference Tenure Denial Letters (June - November, 2007) On How Actual Survivors Were Cheated by Jewish Organizations:
Communication for Middle East Journal. (02.19.2006) Alleged Errors in Beyond Chutzpah. (2005) MEMRI NAZIS (again) (10.23.2006)  New evidence of old lies (2005) Under the heading DIABOLICAL PLOTS, I stated in Beyond Chutzpah...    Articles and Reviews Related to The Holocaust Industry  Preface to German edition of The Rise and Fall of Palestine Postscript to German edition of The Rise and Fall of Palestine The Dershowitz File:
|
|