The Restitution of Holocaust-Era Jewish Communal Property

The Restitution of Holocaust-Era
Jewish Communal Property:
An Unfinished Item on
the Jewish Diplomatic Agenda
Herbert Block
Herbert Block is an assistant executive vice president of the American Jewish Joint
Distribution Committee and a board member of the World Jewish Restitution Organization.
More than sixty years after the end of the Holocaust, and nearly two decades
after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Jewish communities in East Central Europe and
the Former Soviet Union are still struggling with the question of how to reclaim
the properties which were taken from them during the Nazi and Communist
regimes.
Before the Shoah, in nearly every city or town, large and small, in this region,
there were properties that were owned by Jewish communal or religious entities
and used by local Jews, for whom the institutions they housed were an integral
part of daily life. Virtually all of these buildings or sites were looted, confiscated
or destroyed by the Germans or their allied regimes during World War II. For
the most part, they were subsequently nationalized by Communist regimes, which
ruled for some forty years after the war.1
Since the fall of Communism, there has been an effort by the remaining local
Jewish communities in each country, together with international Jewish groups,
to obtain restitution of these assets or compensation. In the mid-1990s, the World
Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) was formed in Israel to help address
this and other related Holocaust-era assets issues.2
Why is this being done? For the once-great Jewish communities in East Central
Europe and the Soviet successor states, the confiscated Jewish communal
property symbolizes a rich heritage lost during the Holocaust and the Communist
era. There is a strong moral desire to achieve at least a small measure of justice
by having governments return this property to Jewish communal ownership, and
for those governments to renounce their claims to assets stolen from the Jewish
people. Property reclamation also represents a remarkable opportunity in the
ongoing renewal of Jewish life in the region. Either as a venue for communal
activities and institutions, or as a source of income, restituted Jewish communal
Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs III : 1 (2009)
property has the potential to put communities on the road toward fiscal autonomy
and self-sustainability.3
What kinds of properties were taken from these thousands of Jewish communities?
This rubric includes anything that was owned by a Jewish communal or religious
entity, including synagogues, batei midrash [prayer and study halls], yeshivot
[Talmudic academies], schools, mikvaot [ritual baths], old age homes, orphanages,
hospitals, rabbinical residences, community offices, cemeteries, chevra kadisha
[funeral and pre-burial] facilities, as well as apartments, houses and land that had
been donated to, or were otherwise owned by, the communities.
As there were no central prewar records of all Jewish communal property, and
many were in small towns to which no Jews returned after the war, or from
which Jews were chased away by acts of violence or threats, it is difficult to
know exactly what was looted. However, according to data from WJRO and
the existing local Jewish communities, we can estimate that approximately 21,000
confiscated properties fall under the categories mentioned above. The majority
were synagogues and prayer/study halls (around 6,000–7,000), cemeteries (about
5,000) and schools/yeshivot (nearly 3,000).
Under most property restitution laws, only buildings or lands which were
formally owned by communal or religious entities before the Shoah can be
claimed. There were numerous other Jewish sites which were privately owned
but used by the community which can not now be claimed. An example would be
the many shteibelach [small prayer halls] located in buildings owned privately by
individuals.4
Claims for property must be made individually by the officially recognized Jewish
community in each country, under the specific laws of each country. The post-
Communist governments in each country have generally granted an official status
to a “Jewish religious community” under the state laws granting recognition and
benefits to “churches.”
The Communist regimes also nationalized the property of all citizens and of all
churches and religious faiths. Therefore, if and when a restitution law is enacted,
it typically establishes a process for all churches to follow. However, the situation
for Jewish property differs in several important ways. First, most of the church
properties have generally been in continual use for the past six decades, while
Jewish property was never used again after the Shoah, due to the destruction of
the communities. In most towns there has not even been a Jewish presence, and
the Jewish building was used by the municipality (i.e., the prewar synagogue
became a town library or offices or storage). Secondly, the Jewish properties are
in worse condition than those of churches due to their neglect by local authorities.
Thirdly, the restitution law may be drafted so that it covers all property which had
been nationalized from a church, as the central church (or diocese) in the country
owned all the properties used by that faith. However, the Jewish communities
in prewar Europe owned many buildings that were “communal” but not owned
by a religious body or used for religious purposes (such as a Jewish hospital,
orphanage or old age home). Lastly, the law may cover properties which were
nationalized by the Communists under laws enacted in the late 1940s; however,
most of the Jewish communal property had essentially already been taken by
governments, local authorities or even individuals during the Holocaust when the
Jewish residents were murdered or deported.
One issue that arose in the 1990s between WJRO and local Jewish communities
is the question of who should be the heir to all the prewar Jewish communal and
religious assets. Should it become the property of the small Jewish community
that exists in the country today, which is just a fraction of the original size of the
prewar community (and may be in a country with different borders now)? Should
the property devolve to international Jewry, or the State of Israel, on behalf of
Holocaust survivors and their heirs, as well as those who perished? Although
often difficult to achieve in practice, a balance was struck by WJRO and local
communities. Through the creation of “foundation” partnerships between local
and world Jewry, income from restituted property would first cover Jewish needs
in that country while any surplus would go toward assisting survivors from that
country now living in Israel or elsewhere.
The local communities, together with WJRO and the partnership foundations, face
a difficult and prolonged process of restitution in each country. It generally begins
with researching and creating an inventory of prewar communal and religious
assets. Then there may be lengthy negotiations to get a satisfactory restitution law
enacted. Once a law is passed, formal claims with substantial documentation must
be submitted to some type of governmental administrative body.5 Then claims
have to be argued and defended, either at a hearing before a “commission” or a
“tribunal.” Often the outcome of such a hearing will be a negotiated settlement
with the municipality or state entity which now owns the property. This might
result in the actual return “in kind” of the original property, or the transfer of a
substitute building or plot of land, or payment of compensation.6
The restitution process is generally a protracted one, fraught with complications.
The process, from research to filing and pursuing claims, is costly, especially for
Jewish communities that are in a precarious financial state (until they start to
get some restitution). Government officials are never eager to return property
to Jewish claimants, often due to concerns about negative reactions from local
Herbert Block
Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs III : 1 (2009)
residents. The restitution process can lead to manifestations of antisemitism in
the local media and the internet. Opposition to restitution is often trumpeted by
politicians seeking to use the issue to gain political capital. Those who oppose
restitution often pointedly ask, “Why is the government doing something special
for the Jews?” or “Why do the Jews need so much property?” or “How much
of these restituted assets will end up in Israel?” or “What will the Jews do to
the tenants of the property once it is returned?”—or even, as Romania’s former
president, Ion Iliescu, declared, “[Restitution of Jewish property] is liable to
generate sentiments not of a positive nature toward the Jewish population... is it
worth continuing to skin those who are living in distress today... And just in order
to compensate others? I don’t find that appropriate.”
When properties are actually restituted, they are often in a dilapidated state and
can actually be a financial burden on the Jewish community.7 For the most
part, governments are also quick to give back cemeteries and ruined synagogues
(especially in the provinces), which have little or no financial value, to communities
that do not have the capacity or financial means to maintain or repair them.8
As of the end of 2008, only about 16 percent (or roughly 3,500) of Jewish communal
and religious properties throughout the region had either been returned or covered
under a compensation agreement (out of the estimated 21,000 cited above). There
remain an additional 8,000 cases in which claims have been filed but not yet
reviewed or adjudicated. There are approximately 5,500 properties which have
not yet been claimed (mainly in countries which still have no restitution law), and
an additional 4,000 cemeteries which are still under governmental ownership.
Some countries, which had relatively small Jewish communities, and hence
few claims, have completed the restitution process for the small number of
prewar communal properties (Estonia and Macedonia). Others have returned
a significant amount of (though by no means all) communal property, but the
Jewish community is no longer actively pursuing claims (Hungary, Slovakia and
the Czech Republic). However, in many other countries significant work remains
to be done: In Poland only about 1,400 of 5,544 claims have been adjudicated
in seven years; in Romania only about 300 of 1,982 claims have been decided
in six years; and in Serbia, under a new law, the community filed 513 claims by
September 2008. In Bulgaria and Croatia some properties have been returned,
but the government has resisted restitution of the largest and most valuable urban
real estate.
There are still no laws providing for the restitution of Jewish communal property
in Lithuania, Latvia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.
The Latvian prime minister established a “working group” in September 2008 to
consider this issue. Lithuania remains the most recalcitrant country in dealing
with Jewish communal property. Despite numerous public promises by several
prime ministers since 2002, and much international pressure, no legislation has
even been sent to its parliament for consideration.
The State of Israel has been involved as an observer body of the WJRO and by
monitoring restitution activities, mainly through the work of Israeli embassies. It
has not, however, actively participated in restitution negotiations. Nevertheless,
Israeli government ministers often raise the subject when traveling to European
nations or when hosting foreign diplomats in Jerusalem.
Since the mid-1990s the United States government has played an integral role in
encouraging countries to enact restitution laws for both private and communal
property, and to expedite the review of claims and the actual return of property or
payment of compensation. This has been done through the Office of Holocaust
Issues in the State Department in Washington, as well as through the resources
of local American embassies. In an October 2007 State Department statement to
Congress, submitted by the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, the US position
was described as follows:
The United States has strongly supported efforts to restitute to rightful
owners property confiscated by the Nazis in 1933-45 and by the subsequent
communist governments of Central and Eastern Europe. Positive action
on property issues was one of the criteria used to judge the progress of
countries that aspired to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
membership. The European Union (EU) also recognizes the relevance of
property issues in applicant countries.
A successful property restitution program is an indicator of
the effectiveness of the rule of law in a democratic country. Nondiscriminatory
property laws are also of crucial importance to a healthy
market economy.
We recognize that in rem [in kind] property restitution may not be possible
in all cases. Payment of compensation is the obvious alternative.
Property restitution is often complicated and controversial. Changing
the ownership and use of buildings and land from one party or purpose
to another can cause disruptions that already economically challenged
countries can ill afford. There is no single system of property restitution
laws and procedures that can be universally applied to all countries. In
Herbert Block
Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs III : 1 (2009)
encouraging restitution, the US government bears in mind the following
considerations:
·Restitution laws should govern both communal property owned by
religious and community organizations and private property owned by
individuals and corporate entities.
·To document claims, access to archival records, frequently requiring
government facilitation, is necessary. Reasonable alternative evidence
must be permitted if archives have been destroyed.
·Uniform enforcement of laws is necessary throughout a country.
·The restitution process must be nondiscriminatory. There should be no
residence or citizenship requirement.
·Legal procedures should be clear and simple.
·Privatization programs should include protections for claimants.
·Governments need to make provisions for current occupants of
restituted property.
·When restitution of property is not possible, adequate compensation
should be paid.
·Restitution should result in clear title to the property, not merely the
right to use the property.
·Communal property should be eligible for restitution or compensation
without regard to whether it had a religious or secular use. Some limits on
large forest or agricultural holdings may be needed.
·Foundations managed jointly by local communities and international
groups may be appropriate to aid in the preparation of claims and to
administer restituted property.
·Cemeteries and other religious sites should be protected from desecration
or misuse before and during the restitution process.
In September 2008, the US Congress again spoke out on this issue when the
House of Representatives passed Concurrent Resolution 371, drawing attention
to the record of countries that have prevaricated. The resolution called on the
government of Poland to enact legislation to address the issue of private property
and “ensure that such restitution and compensation legislation establishes an
unbureaucratic, simple, transparent, and timely process, so that it results in a real
benefit to those many persons who suffered from the unjust such confiscation of
their property, many of whom are well into their 80s or older.”
The same resolution made note of the fact that Lithuania is “virtually alone among
post-Communist countries” in having failed to implement legislation that provides
for the restitution of, or compensation for, Jewish communal property seized and
confiscated by the Nazi and Communist regimes. It called on the government of
Lithuania to:
...immediately implement fair, comprehensive, and just legislation so communities
that had communal and religious property seized and confiscated by the Nazis
during World War II or subsequently seized by the Communist Lithuanian
government after World War II (or the relevant successors to the communal and
religious property or the relevant foundation) are able to obtain either restitution
of their property or, where restitution is not possible, fair compensation.
Efforts by local Jewish communities and WJRO to press for the enactment of
restitution laws and for the expediting of claims have often been supplemented by
international diplomatic efforts. For the most part, these have been led by the US
government and Congress. In the early part of this decade, as part of their campaign
to join NATO and/or the European Union, many countries promised to tackle the
issue of restitution. Sadly, most of these promises remain unfulfilled, and now that
the nations are firmly embedded in the EU and NATO, there are fewer avenues
for diplomatic pressure. Moreover, after most of the post-Communist nations
joined the international coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, US leverage on
these issues was perceived to have diminished. While the European Union has not
been active on restitution issues, the European Parliament and the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have adopted resolutions on the
subject. The most recent was a July 2001 OSCE resolution, which urged
OSCE participating States to ensure that they have implemented appropriate
legislation to secure the restitution and/or compensation for property loss by
victims of Nazi persecution and property loss by communal organizations and
institutions during the National Socialist era to Nazi victims or their heirs(s),
irrespective of the current citizenship or place or residence of victims or their
heir(s) or the relevant successor of communal property.
Herbert Block
However, in June 2009, during its term in the rotating presidency of the European
Union, the government of the Czech Republic will host an intergovernmental
conference on “Holocaust-Era Asssets” in Prague, to which forty-seven nations
have been invited. The conference will review progress in the decade since the
1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets and will address a number
of open issues related to the recovery of assets of victims of the Holocaust. The
subjects to be covered include the restitution of Jewish communal, religious and
private property; looted art; and the recovery of Judaica and cultural property.
The conference also will review progress in Holocaust education, remembrance
and research. This will be an important venue for encouraging further action by
governments on all restitution issues.
Despite all the difficulties and complexities involved, the reclamation of Jewish
communal and religious property remains an important piece of unfinished work
in the quest for restitution of looted Holocaust-era assets. This needs to remain
a priority for both world Jewry and for European Jewish communities. By
continuing to pursue this goal, we can at least achieve some “rough justice” as well
as facilitate the rehabilitation of Jewish life in countries ravaged by the Shoah
and years of Communist totalitarianism. As Shoah survivors age and pass away,
and as we move further away from the fall of Communism, there is only a small
window of opportunity in which to really address this issue. However, with the
combined and reinvigorated efforts of world and local Jewry, together with the
new administration in Washington, and with a supportive stance on the part of the
EU, significant results are within reach.
Notes
While Jewish communal assets were also confiscated by the Germans and local
collaborators in Western Europe, much of that property was returned during the
post-war period, first by the Allies under various occupation laws and then under the
laws of individual countries.
The member organizations of WJRO are: Agudath Israel World Organization; the
American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors; the American Jewish Joint
Distribution Committee; B’nai B’rith International; the Centre of Organizations of
Holocaust Survivors in Israel; the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against
Germany; the European Jewish Congress/European Council of Jewish Communities–
Joint Delegation; the Jewish Agency for Israel; the World Jewish Congress; and the
World Zionist Organization.
Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs III : 1 (2009)
1
2
In East Central European countries, restituted property may be sold by the community
or leased in order to generate commercial income. As discussed below, as the small
communities today do not need to utilize all the reclaimed properties for Jewish
activities, they can become an important financial asset, together with any compensation
which may also have been paid.
The work to get restitution of, or compensation for, religious and communal property
is part of the larger related effort, led by WJRO and others, covering all similarly
looted “Holocaust-era assets,” including the private property of individuals and art.
Jewish communities and organizations in East Central Europe before the war also
owned library collections, Torah scrolls, as well as Judaica and cultural objects, whose
restitution are also being sought. The restitution of such objects is beyond the scope
of this article.
In some cases, there have been “lump sum” settlements covering multiple claims. In
certain countries, properties have been returned by a decree or Executive Order of the
prime minister or other officials. In other cases, when the restitution commission and
the Jewish communal claimant cannot agree, or if a claim is rejected, the issue ends up
in a local court.
In the Soviet Union (except for the three Baltic states which were only annexed in 1940)
Jewish assets were confiscated in the 1920s and 1930s by the Communist regimes.
The local laws or policies currently limit restitution to usually only one building in each
city, often a former synagogue, which must be used for religious activity and cannot be
leased or sold in order to yield income.
Properties, especially former synagogues, may have been designated as historical
“landmarks” or “monuments,” thereby restricting how the building may now be used.
In many cases, shortly after a property is restituted, the Jewish community is told by
local authorities that the site (which the same authorities had neglected for decades!)
must be repaired or they face fines and penalties.
The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), which works closely
with Jewish communities in East Central Europe and the Soviet successor states,
has established a “property management program” to assist communities with the
handling of their real estate portfolio, in order to achieve the “highest and best use” in
a professional and transparent way. The JDC also created a Strategic European Loan
Fund (SELF) to provide interest-free loans to Jewish communities in order to enable
them to develop, renovate, or improve the condition of properties which can then yield
additional income to the local Jewish community.
Herbert Block
4
5
6
7
8