Halevi criticizes those who judge Simon explicitly for his decision, saying that it risks repeating the mistake of those who condemn the survivors of the Holocaust for not violently resisting or other criticisms. He points to the immense humanity Simon and his fellow prisoners showed in debating forgiving Karl.
Again, in the midst of completely dehumanizing conditions, Simon and the others found it within themselves to have a rational debate about Karl’s guilt, which in and of itself is an act of compassion.
Halevi’s essay thus begins not with Simon and Karl’s visit, but Simon’s visit with Karl’s mother. He sees that Simon rejects an opportunity for “vicarious vengeance” in allowing Karl’s mother to retain her pride in her son.
Halevi notes Simon’s compassion in how he treats Karl’s mother. Halevi’s statement implies that while he might consider some to be complicit as bystanders, he does not think that Karl’s mother should suffer for Karl’s crimes.
Halevi speaks about his own experience in addressing the sins of Germany. He was born after the war, but refused to visit Germany, buy German products, or become friends with Germans his age. However, in 1989 he traveled to Germany just after the Berlin Wall had fallen. He visited a Protestant youth club named for a German Jew killed in the Holocaust, and was struck by how innocent the young people were.
When considering the issue of complicity, Halevi’s evolution regarding the Germans demonstrates his belief that future generations should not suffer for the crimes of their ancestors, particularly in this case when they demonstrate an attempt at honoring those whom their forbearers have hurt.
Halevi knows that the memory of the past should not be obscured, but that treating a new generation with decency is morally necessary for reconciliation.
Halevi adds to the long list of those who believe it crucial to remember the crimes, but he also allows for a reconciliation with the German people as a whole, if not with individuals who themselves perpetrated the crimes.