The popular saying tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner rings true in our everyday experiences. What are we to do when the subject of our inquiry is of such moral magnitude that understanding becomes a duty we owe to ourselves, and yet any progress in understanding seems to be meaningless if it does not enhance our capacity of judgment. Luban asks for more judgment. Douglas insists on more understanding. It was a slippery slope that almost always led to destruction.
Common sense is almost incapable of drawing the line between self-sacrifice and betrayal.
It is not surprising then, that in every place that still had a Jewish community this question was raised again and again. The epistemic and moral crisis that was left in the wake of the Holocaust confronts the judge with the limits of law, literature, and historiography. As Kastner reminds us, the Jewish Councils had to make their judgments of where to draw the line without the perspective of time and under immense pressures from their Jewish communities and from the Nazis commanders. The Israeli court had to address this phenomenon when judging Kastner's efforts to save the Jews of Hungary as vice president of the Rescue Committee, especially in regard to what is known as the Kastner train. I discussed two decisions, the one by Judge Halevi of the Jerusalem District Court and the other by Justice Agranat of the Supreme Court.