Robert Cole
Never Forgive What You Can’t Forget
While I agree completely with Robert Coles, “Only the sufferer is qualified to make the decision”, I’ve been asked to state my opinion and while I am unqualified to do so, it would be disrespectful to Simon Wiesenthal if I declined the opportunity. As Alan L. Berger stated in his excerpt, Judaism has two types of sins: Beyen Adam Le-Makom (human v God) and Beyen Adam Le-Adam (human v human). The Judaism religion believes that Beyen Adam Le-Mankon is an unforgiveable sin and many believers live by the motto, “I may not forgive one who has taken the life of another” as Berger explains on page 119. It is shocking that Simon, a follower of Judaism, did not initially walk away once he determined Karl’s intentions. …show more content…
. . you are a Jew.” His words proved he feels a Jew is an undifferentiated mass rather than individuals with souls, feelings, aspirations, and emotions. (Berger, page 119). Robert Cole also points out another insincerity. Karl feels repenting to Simon is repenting to the entire Jewish race: an impossible task. Rebecca Goldstein and Rodger Kamenetz also agree that Karl does not give the individualism that Simon deserves. Kamenetz believes that Karl has “not moved past the deeper sickness of his soul.” (page 181). He continues saying. . . .
“You were not addressed as a person. You were addressed, from his perspective, as Jew. Not as a Jew, a Jewish person, as an individual with a life, a history, a heartbreak of your own, but merely as Jew. For his purpose, any Jew would …show more content…
Berger, Rebecca Goldstein, Rodger Kamenetz, and Arthur Hertzberg are all against forgiving Karl, their reasoning’s behind non-forgiveness vary. Alan Berger provides various reasons. First, he questions the repentance of Karl and ponders on if it’s genuine or not. He provides a valid reason to not forgive: the beliefs of Judaism followers. Additionally, he also feels Karl perpetuated the Nazi stereotype and expected to cleanse his own soul at the expense of a Jew. Robert Coles, however, believes that Simon does not have to forgive, but he must be prayed for. He agrees with Berger’s idea that Karl spoke in the name of all Jews, not just Simon (page 137). Rodger Kamenetz is on the same page in that he believes Karl did not address Simon as a person, rather a Jew thus removing any individualism left in Simon. Rebecca Goldstein also feels that Karl does not have the right to die in peace because he does not provide each Jew with the individualism deserved. She provides a valid comparison of the Nazi’s thinking Jews are like water. She states,
“You are summoned for no reason other than that you are a Jew, as if “Jew” were a mass term comparable, say, to “water” or “salt”. Here is a bit of water, we say, and any sample of it will do. All water manifests the same interchangeable water properties. That a Nazi should think this way about Jews is not in the least surprising. Mass terms, mass murders, mass graves: they are all of a piece.” (page
While I agree completely with Robert Coles, “Only the sufferer is qualified to make the decision”, I’ve been asked to state my opinion and while I am unqualified to do so, it would be disrespectful to Simon Wiesenthal if I declined the opportunity. As Alan L. Berger stated in his excerpt, Judaism has two types of sins: Beyen Adam Le-Makom (human v God) and Beyen Adam Le-Adam (human v human). The Judaism religion believes that Beyen Adam Le-Mankon is an unforgiveable sin and many believers live by the motto, “I may not forgive one who has taken the life of another” as Berger explains on page 119. It is shocking that Simon, a follower of Judaism, did not initially walk away once he determined Karl’s intentions. …show more content…
. . you are a Jew.” His words proved he feels a Jew is an undifferentiated mass rather than individuals with souls, feelings, aspirations, and emotions. (Berger, page 119). Robert Cole also points out another insincerity. Karl feels repenting to Simon is repenting to the entire Jewish race: an impossible task. Rebecca Goldstein and Rodger Kamenetz also agree that Karl does not give the individualism that Simon deserves. Kamenetz believes that Karl has “not moved past the deeper sickness of his soul.” (page 181). He continues saying. . . .
“You were not addressed as a person. You were addressed, from his perspective, as Jew. Not as a Jew, a Jewish person, as an individual with a life, a history, a heartbreak of your own, but merely as Jew. For his purpose, any Jew would …show more content…
Berger, Rebecca Goldstein, Rodger Kamenetz, and Arthur Hertzberg are all against forgiving Karl, their reasoning’s behind non-forgiveness vary. Alan Berger provides various reasons. First, he questions the repentance of Karl and ponders on if it’s genuine or not. He provides a valid reason to not forgive: the beliefs of Judaism followers. Additionally, he also feels Karl perpetuated the Nazi stereotype and expected to cleanse his own soul at the expense of a Jew. Robert Coles, however, believes that Simon does not have to forgive, but he must be prayed for. He agrees with Berger’s idea that Karl spoke in the name of all Jews, not just Simon (page 137). Rodger Kamenetz is on the same page in that he believes Karl did not address Simon as a person, rather a Jew thus removing any individualism left in Simon. Rebecca Goldstein also feels that Karl does not have the right to die in peace because he does not provide each Jew with the individualism deserved. She provides a valid comparison of the Nazi’s thinking Jews are like water. She states,
“You are summoned for no reason other than that you are a Jew, as if “Jew” were a mass term comparable, say, to “water” or “salt”. Here is a bit of water, we say, and any sample of it will do. All water manifests the same interchangeable water properties. That a Nazi should think this way about Jews is not in the least surprising. Mass terms, mass murders, mass graves: they are all of a piece.” (page