Reviewed by:

• Bitter Reckoning: Israel Tries Holocaust Survivors as Nazi Collaborators by Dan Porat
• John Hickman (bio)

Whether and how to bring to justice accused perpetrators who claim to be victims of the same crimes is a vexing dilemma in international humanitarian law. Dan Porat's account of prosecutions in Israeli courts of collaborators for their roles in the Holocaust lays bare the moral [End Page 421] impulse and the political obstacles of prosecuting such individuals. Most of the readers who pick up this well written text will likely surmise that determining the precise degree of complicity of those prosecuted was made difficult by the extraordinary brutality, scale, and complexity of the Holocaust, the violent chaos of postwar Central and Eastern Europe, the underdevelopment of a criminal justice system in a country that had just won its independence, and the novelty of the legal issues with which it was presented. Porat builds on that by carefully examining the struggles of Israeli prosecutors, judges, and legislators to comprehend and reach conclusions about the responsibility of individuals whose agency was limited by their circumstances yet still real. The account begins with the efforts of concentration camp survivors to decide the fates of kapos in popular tribunals conducted in displaced persons camps in Germany and Poland based not on a particular legal code but the general standard of loyalty or disloyalty to the Jewish nation. From there the action moves to Mandate Palestine, where outraged survivors mobilize to demand the punishment of collaborators but are blocked by authorities because they anticipate it might serve as damaging material for hostile propaganda as independence approaches. Porat also notes the suspicion of the established Jewish community in Mandate Palestine about the untrustworthy character of Holocaust survivors. Many were believed to have survived by collaboration.

Immigration surged immediately after independence and with it rumors and accusations of collaboration. Here the author introduces the case of Andrej Banik, denounced as a leader of the fascist militia Hlinka Guard responsible for child murder and the deportation of Slovakian Jews. Interesting as the case of the only non-Jew among the defendants whose prosecutions are explored in detail in the book, Banik's arrest in December 1949 helped precipitate passage of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Punishment Law passed by the Knesset in March 1950. That legislation authorized Israeli courts to exercise retroactive and extraterritorial jurisdiction over persons accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against Jews, language that permitted the prosecution of Jews who had served on the infamous Jewish Councils, Jewish police, or concentration camp kapos. The law admitted as a defense only acting in response to immediate threat of death. Banik was acquitted because the court found insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence, a testament to the independence of the courts and their commitment to due process.

Until the prosecution of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 redirects Israeli public attention away from the complicity of Jewish collaborators, the most politically important trial in the period began as a criminal libel prosecution brought against Malkiel Gruenwald for his denunciation of Rudolf Kastner, one of the former leaders of the Budapest Rescue Committee and Knesset Member. Gruenwald accused Kastner of keeping Hungarian Jews in ignorance about their peril as part of an agreement with Adolf Eichmann to allow the release of 1,685 prisoners from Bergin Belsen concentration camp to Switzerland. Kastner was also accused of profiting from the agreement by sharing wealth looted from murdered Hungarian Jews. Gruenwald's defense counsel Shmuel Tamir successfully politicized the trial, transforming it into an embarrassing indictment of the wartime passivity of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's Zionist establishment. The trial court acquitted Gruenwald while also morally [End Page 422] * John Hickman is Professor of Political Science at Berry College, where he teaches courses on Comparative Politics and International Politics. He is the author of the 2013 University Press of Florida book, Selling Guantánamo: Exploding the Propaganda Surrounding America's Most Notorious Military Prison. Prior to his current position, Hickman served as a Woodrow...

审核人：

• 苦涩的推论：以色列将大屠杀幸存者当作纳粹合作者，丹·波拉特（Dan Porat）
• 约翰·希克曼（生物）

在国际人道主义法中，是否以及如何将声称是同一罪行的受害者的被告肇事者绳之以法。丹·波拉特（Dan Porat）对以色列合作者在大屠杀中的作用提起公诉的道义不言而喻[End Page 421]冲动和起诉这类个人的政治障碍。大部分收录这份精心撰写的文字的读者都可能会猜测，由于大屠杀的残酷，规模和复杂性，战后中欧和东欧的暴力混乱，难以确定被起诉者的同谋程度，一个刚刚获得独立的国家的刑事司法系统的欠发达，以及与之相关的法律问题的新颖性。在此基础上，波拉特通过仔细研究以色列检察官，法官和立法者为理解受其处境限制但仍然真实的代理人的责任而作出的斗争并得出结论，以此为基础。在德国和波兰的流离失所者营地举行的大众法庭中，kapos并非基于特定的法律法规，而是基于对犹太民族忠诚或不忠诚的一般标准。行动从那里移至巴勒斯坦授权组织，在那里激怒的幸存者动员起来要求对合作者进行惩罚，但由于当局预计这可能会随着独立的临近而成为敌对宣传的破坏性材料，因此遭到当局的阻挠。Porat还注意到在Mandate巴勒斯坦建立的犹太人社区对大屠杀幸存者的不信任性表示怀疑。据信许多人通过合作幸存下来。

独立后，移民立即激增，有谣言和合作指控。在这里，作者介绍了安德烈·巴尼克（Andrej Banik）的案子，他被谴责为法西斯民兵Hlinka Guard的负责人，负责儿童谋杀和斯洛伐克犹太人的驱逐。有趣的是，在书中详细探讨了起诉的被告中唯一的非犹太人案件，1949年12月对巴尼克的逮捕，促使以色列议会于1950年3月通过了《纳粹和纳粹合作者惩罚法》。该法律授权以色列法院对被控犯有战争罪，危害人类罪和危害犹太人罪的人行使追溯和域外管辖权，这种语言允许起诉曾在臭名昭著的犹太人议会，犹太警察，kapos。该法律仅作为对立即死亡威胁的回应而作为辩护。Banik被判无罪，因为法院没有足够的证据克服无罪推定，法院独立性及其对正当程序的承诺。

直到1961年对阿道夫·艾希曼（Adolf Eichmann）的起诉使以色列公众的注意力从犹太合作者的同谋转移开来之前，这一期间最具有政治意义的审判始于对马尔基尔·格鲁瓦尔德（Malkiel Gruenwald）的刑事诽谤起诉，理由是他谴责前领导人之一鲁道夫·卡斯特纳（Rudolf Kastner）布达佩斯救援委员会主席和以色列议会议员。格伦瓦尔德（Gruenwald）指控卡斯特纳（Kastner）保持匈牙利犹太人对其危险的无知，这是与阿道夫·艾希曼（Adolf Eichmann）达成的协议的一部分，该协议允许将1685名囚犯从卑尔根贝尔森集中营释放到瑞士。卡斯特纳还被指控通过分享从被谋杀的匈牙利犹太人掠夺的财富中获利。格伦瓦尔德（Gruenwald）的辩护律师Shmuel Tamir成功地将审判政治化，将其转化为对戴维·本·古里安总理的犹太复国主义组织战时被动性的尴尬起诉。初审法院判处格林瓦尔德无罪，同时在道义上[完第422页] *约翰·希克曼（John Hickman）是贝里学院（Berry College）政治学教授，他在该校教授比较政治学和国际政治学课程。他是2013年佛罗里达大学出版社出版的《出售关塔那摩：在美国最臭名昭著的军事监狱周围发动宣传》一书的作者。在担任现职之前，希克曼曾担任伍德罗...