On this past shabbat I sat in the synagogue and listened to the Rabbi on my left, the Rabbi on my right, and the Rabbi in front of me, relate their views of the Passover coming tomorrow. They asked me to flip the pages, to ask questions, and I paused here:

סַנְהֶדְרִין הַהוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד בְּשָׁבוּעַ נִקְרֵאת חוֹבְלָנִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בְסַנְהֶדְרִין, לֹא נֶהֱרַג אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
— Mishnah Makkot (Plagues) 1:10

How can this wisdom be? On this week of all weeks, do we forget?

On March 30, 2026, the Knesset passed a law imposing the death penalty on any person who “intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voted for it in person.

The law was written to kill a specific ethnic group, Palestinians.

Its architects know this. Human Rights Watch noted that within the civil court system, the ideological intent requirement of “negating the existence of the State of Israel” was designed to structurally exclude Jewish defendants. Amichai Cohen of the Israel Democracy Institute confirmed the law…

…will apply in Israeli courts, but only to terrorist activities that are motivated by the wish to undermine the existence of Israel. That means Jews will not be indicted under this law.

But the statute’s language has fatal flaw, because the ethnic targeting was not legally restricted to its targeted ethnicity. It tries to hide its true intent by defining a crime of intent.

Intent.

By this law’s own terms, no living person has done more by intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel than Benjamin Netanyahu himself. What follows is this plain evidentiary case, which everyone already can see, beyond what is known in classified briefs.

And it’s worth noting, before we begin, exactly when and why Israel ended its death penalty after they killed an innocent man.

His name is Meir Tobianski.

Arrested, convicted, and executed by firing squad all on the same day, June 30, 1948. Posthumously exonerated of all charges a year later, because his widow Lena demanded an investigation. Ben-Gurion issued a public exoneration and had his remains reburied with full military honors. The wrongful execution served as a painful reminder of the flaws of the death penalty, and was a direct catalyst for Israel abolishing the death penalty for murder in 1954.

His gravestone famously reads “killed by mistake.”

Israel learned in its first weeks of existence that the state kills innocent people. It abolished the death penalty for murder, as a foundational tenet, because of that lesson (Mishnah Makkot 1:10). Now Netanyahu is negating the state, with a 90-day execution window and no right of appeal, so he can kill a targeted ethnic group, Palestinians.

I’ll say it again, the death penalty for murder itself is the negation of the state of Israel. The new law puts civilian defendants back under the kind of summary state-killing authority that produced the Tobianski disaster.

Netanyahu is literally corrupting intelligence apparatus to undermine Israel all the way back to pre-1948.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has already petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the law. The 1954 abolition and the Tobianski precedent are the historical foundation of that challenge.

For 72 years, the rejection of state execution was part of Israel’s legal identity, a democratic commitment arising from the state’s own founding-era failure of justice. Netanyahu has reversed it. This is not incidental to the negation argument. It is the negation argument.

A state that defined itself in part by abolishing the death penalty after killing an innocent man, and whose prime minister reinstates it under conditions designed to deny due process, has been negated in its constitutional character by that act alone.

I. Statutory Framework

The operative provision of the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law (2026) amends Israel’s Penal Law to provide:

Any person who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.

Two elements must be established:

1. Intentionally causing death
2. Doing so with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel

What “intentionally causes the death” means under Israeli law.

The statute must be read within the Israeli Penal Law (5737-1977). Section 18(b) provides that “act” includes an omission. Section 18(c) defines “omission” as refraining from doing what is a duty under any law or contract. The source of the prime minister’s duty is constitutional. Basic Law: The Government provides that “the Government is the executive authority of the State” and that “the Army is subject to the authority of the Government.” The prime minister, as head of the executive, bears a legal duty to protect the security of the state and its citizens. A deliberate failure to act on that duty, where death results, constitutes “causing death” under the statute.

Section 20(b) further provides: “foreseeing the consequences as almost certain to occur shall be deemed to be an intention to bring them about.” This is the near-certainty doctrine. It means that where a defendant foresees death as a near-certain consequence of his policy decisions, intent is established as a matter of law. He need not desire the deaths. He need only foresee them as almost certain and proceed anyway.

Section 300(a), as amended in 2019, defines murder as causing the death of a person “intentionally or indifferently.” The indifference standard is directly relevant to a leader who receives repeated warnings of catastrophic risk and dismisses them for political reasons.

What “the existence of the State of Israel” means under Israeli law.

The statute does not define “the State of Israel.” It does not limit “negation” to territorial dissolution. It does not specify that negation must be pursued through a single act of violence. It provides no limiting construction whatsoever.

But Israeli constitutional law does define what the state is. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), Section 1A provides: “The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” This is not aspirational language. It is constitutional law with super-legal status, giving the Supreme Court authority to disqualify any legislation contradicting it. The 1994 amendment to this Basic Law further directs that fundamental human rights “shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.”

The State of Israel, as constitutionally defined, is a Jewish and democratic state governed by the rule of law. We argue that “existence” must encompass this constitutional character, because Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty defines the state’s identity, and a reading limited to territorial boundaries would leave that identity unprotected by the statute’s own terms. Israeli legal discourse has historically construed “negation of the existence of the State” (שלילת קיום מדינת ישראל) as referring to physical destruction or denial of the right to exist. This brief argues that construction is incomplete: a state whose democratic institutions, independent judiciary, security architecture, and international standing have been systematically destroyed has been negated in its existence as constitutionally defined, even if its territorial boundaries remain intact.

Netanyahu easily meets both elements.

II. Element One: Intentionally Causing Death

A. The Iran War: Ongoing Casualties Under a War of Choice

This section carries particular legal weight. Because Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty §10 prohibits retroactive criminal punishment, the October 7 failures, the judicial overhaul, the hostage obstruction, and the Gaza campaign cannot independently ground a charge under a March 2026 statute. They are evidence of intent and pattern. The Iran war is the ongoing conduct that satisfies the temporal requirement: Israeli civilians are dying under this law’s operation, from a war Netanyahu initiated and continues.

The war began on February 28, 2026 with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. Haaretz characterized it as:

Donald Trump’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s war. A joint venture, [following] Netanyahu’s incessant urging of American presidents to confront Iran militarily.

The retaliatory consequences were foreseeable and foreseen. Iran responded with waves of missile and drone strikes on Israeli territory. As of late March 2026, at least 20 Israeli civilians have been killed and more than 6,000 wounded. The largest single strike killed nine civilians in a residential neighborhood of Beit Shemesh on March 1. Iranian cluster munitions have struck Tel Aviv, Beersheba, and Dimona. On March 29, an Iranian missile struck a chemical plant in the Ne’ot Hovav industrial zone, causing a hazardous materials leak and civilian evacuation. Strikes continued on and after March 30, the date of the law’s enactment.

By the tenth day of the war, Iran had fired 300 missiles at Israel, nearly half carrying cluster submunitions banned under international treaty, targeted at residential areas. ACLED recorded more than 90 attempted strikes on Israel in the first five days alone, with around 20 directly hitting civilian areas.

RAND analyst Shira Efron, based in Tel Aviv, stated:

There is a sense in Israel that the desire to keep Israelis in this perpetual state of war also serves the prime minister’s political objectives. It is very difficult to go to elections when you are in the middle of a war.

The war was initiated by Netanyahu after decades of personal advocacy for a military confrontation with Iran. The retaliatory strikes killing Israeli civilians were foreseeable as near-certain. They are ongoing as of the date of the law’s enactment. Under §20(b), a leader who initiates a war knowing retaliatory strikes on his civilian population are almost certain, and who continues to prosecute that war for political reasons documented by Israeli analysts, has intentionally caused the resulting deaths as a matter of law. These are post-enactment deaths, caused by post-enactment decisions, under a law Netanyahu voted for on the same day Israelis were sheltering from incoming Iranian missiles.

B. Gaza: Over 51,200 Dead Under Direct Command Authority

The factual record for deaths in Gaza is established by multiple Israeli-admissible sources: IDF internal investigations, Shin Bet operational reports, testimony before the civilian commission of inquiry, and contemporaneous military orders issued under Netanyahu’s command authority. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in November 2024 based on the same underlying evidence, but Israeli courts do not recognize ICC jurisdiction, and this brief relies on domestic sources alone.

The death toll as of March 2026 exceeds 51,200, the majority women and children. These deaths occurred under Netanyahu’s direct command authority as head of the war cabinet. The deliberate restriction of food, water, and medical supplies to a civilian population, as documented by the IDF’s own operational records, satisfies the near-certainty standard of §20(b): death was foreseeable as almost certain, and the policy was maintained. Intent.

C. October 7, 2023: 1,200 Dead Through Deliberate Policy Failure

An independent civilian commission of inquiry (November 2024), chaired by retired judge Varda Alsheikh, found after hearing 120 witnesses that Netanyahu was “responsible for undermining all decision-making centers, including the cabinet and the National Security Council, in a way that prevented any serious discussion that includes a plurality of opinions on significant security issues.”

The commission found the October 7 massacre was enabled by “arrogant” groupthink led by Netanyahu, which stifled critical voices and entrenched a false belief that Hamas could be managed with money. Intent.

Specific findings of fact:

• Netanyahu’s government facilitated the transfer of suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash into Gaza to maintain a fragile ceasefire with Hamas. This money strengthened Hamas’s military capabilities ahead of the attack.
• The Shin Bet’s own investigation (March 2025) found the agency possessed Hamas’s actual battle plans and did not consider them a realistic threat. The Shin Bet also blamed Israeli policies of propping up Hamas rule in Gaza to buy calm on the border, a policy directed by the Prime Minister’s Office.
• An academic analysis published in the RUSI Journal found that “intelligence agencies fell in line with political priorities dictated by the Prime Minister’s Office, who believed that Hamas was contained and refused to accept any evidence to the contrary. This is because that containment strategy served a wider political purpose of freezing and prolonging the status quo.”
• The border with Gaza was manned by just 767 soldiers when an estimated 5,600 attackers stormed the fence. 1,200 people died. 251 were kidnapped.

Netanyahu has never accepted personal responsibility for his personal failures.

The causal chain satisfies Israeli domestic law, though no Israeli court has previously applied criminal omission liability to a head of state’s policy decisions. This is a novel application. The unprecedented nature of the conduct justifies it.

The prime minister has a legal duty to protect the security of the state and its citizens. His deliberate suppression of intelligence processes and security infrastructure constitutes an omission within the meaning of Penal Law §18(b) and (c). The Shin Bet possessed the battle plans. The intelligence agencies warned. Netanyahu’s political directives overrode their assessments.

Under §20(b), foreseeing the consequences of a policy as almost certain to result in death, and proceeding anyway, is deemed intention as a matter of law. Under §300(a), causing death “indifferently” constitutes murder. A prime minister who receives warnings that his containment policy is based on a false assessment of Hamas, who dismisses those warnings to serve political objectives, and who leaves the border manned at a fraction of necessary strength, has caused death through omission with at minimum indifference to the outcome.

Hamas’s independent decision to attack is an intervening cause, and this admittedly is the weakest causation link presented here. It is included because the civilian commission’s finding of directed failure, not parallel failure, establishes causal primacy at the policy level and because the pattern of deliberate indifference to Israeli lives is central to the aim element.

Intent.

D. Hostage Deaths: Evidence of Aim, Not Independent Causation

The following evidence does not establish an independent count of murder. Hamas killed the hostages, and the intervening cause problem is acknowledged. This section establishes the pattern of prioritizing political survival over Israeli lives that satisfies the “aim” element of the statute.

Of the 251 people kidnapped on October 7, hostages died in captivity while Netanyahu obstructed deals for their release. CNN reported, based on Israeli documents, that Netanyahu derailed a potential hostage deal in July 2024 by introducing last-minute demands, and that at least three of six hostages found dead in Gaza were due for release under a May 2024 draft agreement.

The former spokesman of the Hostages and Missing Families Forum stated: “There is no doubt that Netanyahu is preventing a deal. Netanyahu knows that if he goes to elections at this time he won’t be able to form a new government, and he is motivated by cold political considerations.” He identified the mechanism: “The moment the hostages are released, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir will leave the government because they’ll think the price was too high.”

The Hostage Family Forum stated: “The Israeli government made a conscious and deliberate decision to sacrifice the hostages.”

These statements constitute available witness testimony on the intent element. The hostage families are not outside observers. They are direct victims of Netanyahu’s policy who received contemporaneous information about the reasons deals were blocked.

Their testimony establishes that Netanyahu chose coalition survival over the lives of Israeli citizens. Under the “aim” analysis, this is direct evidence that the negation of the state’s duty to protect its people was not incidental but instrumental to Netanyahu’s political objectives.

Intent.

III. Element Two: With the Aim of Negating the Existence of the State of Israel

A. Destruction of Democratic Governance

Haaretz documented that former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stated Israel was “already under one-man rule and no longer a liberal democracy.” Barak was not speaking metaphorically. He was describing the structural consequence of the judicial overhaul.

In July 2023, IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi publicly warned about judicial reforms:

a national security threat that imperiled Israel’s existence.

Netanyahu dismissed the warning.

The judicial overhaul aimed to: strip the Supreme Court of the power to review legislation, let the Knesset override court rulings by simple majority, and give the governing coalition control over judicial appointments. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty defines Israel as “a Jewish and democratic state” and grants the Supreme Court super-legal authority to enforce that definition. The judicial overhaul was a direct assault on the constitutional provision that defines what the state is. If the state’s legal identity is democratic, then destroying the institution that enforces that identity is negation of the state as constitutionally defined.

B. Corruption of Security and Intelligence Institutions

Shin Bet Director Ronen Bar stated in a court filing that Netanyahu demanded “personal loyalty from the head of the Shin Bet instead of loyalty to the state,” that he sought to use the intelligence service “against political opponents, against protests, against citizens who came out to defend democracy,” and that he pressured Bar to write professional opinions formed by Netanyahu to avoid appearing in court for corruption charges.

PBS reported that Netanyahu fired his defense minister for pushing back on Gaza policy, then pressured the military chief to resign, and the new chief then sacked the military spokesman. The Shin Bet dismissal came while the agency was investigating ties between Netanyahu advisers and Qatar, and while it was probing the leak of classified documents that provided Netanyahu political cover.

Former deputy chief of staff Yair Golan described this pattern as making Netanyahu “a direct threat to Israel’s security and rule of law.”

When the leader of a state demands personal loyalty over institutional loyalty from the intelligence services, replaces security chiefs with political loyalists during wartime, and fires investigators probing his own inner circle, the state’s security architecture ceases to function as a sovereign institution and becomes a personal instrument.

This is negation.

C. Empowerment of Actors Whose Stated Goals Negate the Democratic State

Netanyahu’s coalition partner Itamar Ben-Gvir was convicted by an Israeli court of racist incitement and supporting the Kahanist terror organization, and was exempted from military service due to extremist activities. He was famous for his threats against Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin before Rabin’s assassination. Netanyahu created an enhanced cabinet position for him overseeing all of Israel’s police.

Coalition agreements pledged immunity for settlers and security forces for anti-Palestinian violence. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich advocates annexation and ethnic transfer. The ICC prosecutor was reportedly preparing arrest warrants for both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.

Netanyahu did not merely tolerate these figures. He gave them the instruments of state power. Their program, if implemented, makes Israel ungovernable as a democracy and indefensible under international law. This is not a policy disagreement. It is the systematic installation of actors whose explicit program is to replace the democratic state with an ethno-nationalist one.

D. Destruction of International Standing and Sovereign Capacity

The ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu was the first ever issued against the leader of a Western-backed democratic country. All 125 ICC member states are legally obligated to arrest him. The sitting prime minister of Israel cannot travel to most of the democratic world.

The U.S. intelligence community assessed that Netanyahu’s “viability as a leader” was “in jeopardy”:

distrust of Netanyahu’s ability to rule has deepened and broadened across the public from its already high levels before the war.

The foreign ministers of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy jointly condemned the death penalty bill as undermining democratic principles. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe called it “a major civilizational setback.”

A state whose leader is an international fugitive, whose legislation draws condemnation from its principal allies, and whose conduct has generated genocide proceedings at the International Court of Justice has been negated in its capacity to function as a sovereign member of the international community. Netanyahu is the direct cause.

E. Obstruction of Accountability as Ongoing Negation

Netanyahu structured the October 7 inquiry so that he controls the composition of the investigating body. The opposition called it a “cover-up commission.” The Movement for Quality Government said:

This is not an investigative commission, this is a cover-up commission.

He has refused to allow a state commission of inquiry, the established Israeli legal mechanism for investigating catastrophic government failures, used after the Yom Kippur War, Sabra and Shatila, the Rabin assassination, and the Second Lebanon War.

A state that cannot investigate its own worst security failure because the responsible leader has captured the investigative process has been negated in its capacity for self-governance and institutional correction.

IV. The Intent Standard Under Israeli Law

The statute requires that the defendant act “with the aim of” negating the state’s existence. Critics will argue that Netanyahu does not subjectively intend to destroy Israel. Israeli law forecloses this defense on multiple grounds.

First, and dispositive: the law’s own application standard defeats the defense. Under Justice Aharon Barak’s purposive interpretation framework, which dominates Israeli jurisprudence, a statute is read through both its subjective purpose (legislative intent) and its objective purpose (the values it serves within the legal system). The subjective purpose of this law is discriminatory: it was designed to execute Palestinians. But the objective purpose of any criminal statute must conform to Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty §1A, which requires all laws to befit the values of Israel as “a Jewish and democratic state.”

Section 8 of the same Basic Law provides that rights may not be violated except by a law befitting those values. A criminal statute that applies by its own terms to “any person” cannot be purposively construed to exclude a class of persons without violating the equal application principle derived from §1A. The law either fails constitutional review under §8, or it applies to any person, including a prime minister. There is no construction that saves the statute and exempts Netanyahu.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel is making exactly this argument in its Supreme Court petition. If the court reads “aim” as inferable from conduct when the defendant is Palestinian, it must read “aim” as inferable from conduct when the defendant is a prime minister. The law cannot have one meaning for one class of defendant and a different meaning for another.

Second, Penal Law §20(b) provides that “foreseeing the consequences as almost certain to occur shall be deemed to be an intention to bring them about.” This is a statutory equivalence, not a discretionary inference. It must be acknowledged that §20(b) addresses כוונה (intention), not מטרה (aim), and that Israeli criminal law treats aim as a higher mens rea standard requiring subjective purpose. But the drafters of this statute collapsed that distinction by design. The law applies מטרה to Palestinian defendants through inference from conduct, not through proof of subjective purpose. No Palestinian defendant is asked to confess a philosophical commitment to Israel’s non-existence. The “aim” is read from the act of killing. Having collapsed the distinction between aim and intention in application, the drafters cannot resurrect it as a defense. Netanyahu was warned by the IDF Chief of Staff that his judicial reforms imperiled Israel’s existence. He was warned by intelligence agencies that Hamas was not contained. He was warned by allies that his military conduct would result in international isolation. He dismissed every warning and pursued the course that produced exactly the predicted results. Under §20(b), foreseeing the negation of the state as a near-certain consequence of his actions, and proceeding, is deemed to be intention to bring that negation about. And under the law’s own application standard, that intention is functionally indistinguishable from aim.

Third, the negation of the state is not a side effect of Netanyahu’s pursuit of personal power. It is the mechanism. The civilian commission of inquiry documented that Netanyahu consolidated authority by “undermining all decision-making centers.” He could not achieve personal dominance without destroying institutional independence. The destruction of democratic governance was not collateral damage. It was the method. Under the statute’s own “aim” standard, where the negation of the state is inseparable from the means by which the defendant pursued his objectives, the aim element is satisfied.

Fourth, Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial corroborates the motive structure. He is currently being prosecuted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. The corruption charges establish a documented pattern of governance oriented toward personal benefit at the expense of public duty. The systematic dismantlement of institutions documented in this brief was not ideological. It was instrumental. He attacked the judiciary because it was trying him. He fired the Shin Bet director because the agency was investigating his advisers. He obstructed the October 7 inquiry because it would assign him personal responsibility. He prolonged wars because ceasefires would trigger elections he would lose. Each act of state negation served a personal objective. The corruption trial is evidence of the pattern. The pattern is evidence of the aim.

V. Procedural Path: Immunity and Prosecution

Under Article 17 of Basic Law: The Government, the attorney general must approve the initiation of a criminal investigation against a sitting prime minister. If the investigation produces grounds for an indictment, the attorney general may indict the prime minister. This is settled law. Netanyahu is currently being prosecuted under this framework for corruption charges. The mechanism for indicting a sitting prime minister exists and is operational.

A prime minister may request the Knesset to grant immunity under Article 4 of the Immunities, Rights and Obligations of Knesset Members Law (1951). The law provides four grounds for granting immunity, none of which are automatic. No member of Knesset has been granted immunity since 2005. Netanyahu previously requested and then withdrew an immunity request in his corruption case. A request for immunity from charges of causing death with the aim of negating the state’s existence would require a Knesset majority to approve, and would be subject to review by the Supreme Court, which retains the authority to strike down immunity decisions that lack evidentiary basis.

If immunity is denied, the prime minister faces trial in the Jerusalem District Court. Under Article 18 of the Basic Law, should the prime minister be convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, the Knesset may remove him by majority vote. If the Knesset declines to remove him, the government is considered to have resigned upon a final conviction, with the prime minister continuing to serve only until all appeals are exhausted.

The procedural framework exists. There is no constitutional barrier to prosecution. The only barrier is political will.

It should be noted that Netanyahu has systematically attacked the very office that would need to authorize his prosecution under Article 17. He has sought to strip the attorney general of independence, fired the Shin Bet director during active investigations of his advisers, and attempted to replace oversight officials with loyalists. The obstruction of the prosecutorial mechanism is not merely a procedural obstacle. It is itself evidence of the crime charged: an act of state negation that doubles as consciousness of guilt. A defendant who dismantles the institution responsible for holding him accountable has demonstrated, through conduct, the “aim” the statute requires.

VI. Conclusion

The Death Penalty for Terrorists Law (2026) defines a crime: intentionally causing death with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel.

The charged conduct is Netanyahu’s ongoing prosecution of the Iran war, in which Israeli civilians continue to die from retaliatory strikes that were foreseeable as near-certain, initiated and sustained for documented political reasons. On March 30, 2026, Netanyahu voted for this law while Israelis sheltered from incoming Iranian missiles. That is the post-enactment act that satisfies the temporal requirement.

The pattern of prior conduct establishes the aim. The evidence shows that Benjamin Netanyahu:

• Caused the deaths of 1,200 Israelis on October 7 through deliberate suppression of intelligence and security infrastructure, satisfying the omission and near-certainty standards of Penal Law §§18 and 20(b), establishing a pattern of causing death through policy failure motivated by political self-interest.
• Caused the deaths of more than 51,200 Palestinians in Gaza through policies documented by Israeli military and intelligence investigations, establishing a pattern of indifference to foreseeable mass civilian death under his command authority.
• Obstructed hostage release deals to preserve his coalition, directly contributing to hostage deaths in captivity and establishing, through the testimony of the hostage families themselves, that he prioritized political survival over the lives of Israeli citizens.
• Systematically dismantled the democratic institutions, independent judiciary, and security architecture that constitute the State of Israel as defined by Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, establishing the aim of negating the state as constitutionally defined.
• Continues to prosecute a war with Iran that is killing Israeli civilians, under foreseeable retaliatory conditions, driven substantially by personal political calculation, constituting the ongoing post-enactment conduct that satisfies both elements of the statute.

Each of these acts, individually, degrades the existence of the State of Israel.

Together, they constitute the most comprehensive program of state negation in Israel’s history, executed not by an external enemy but by the head of government, using the instruments of sovereign power.

This brief is not, ultimately, a call for prosecution. It is a demonstration that the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law destroys itself on contact with its own terms. A law whose most obvious defendant is the prime minister who voted for it is not a law that can stand. A statute that defines state negation as a capital crime, authored by a government whose conduct meets that definition, is an act of self-indictment by the state itself.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has petitioned the Supreme Court to strike this law down. This brief provides the evidentiary record for that petition. The law was designed to kill Palestinians under conditions that deny due process, enacted by a government that has systematically negated every democratic principle Israel has defined itself by since Meir Tobianski’s gravestone was inscribed “killed by mistake.”

The law should be struck down before it kills anyone else by design.

Sources

Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Discriminatory Death Penalty Bill Passes” (March 31, 2026)

International Criminal Court, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Arrest Warrants (November 21, 2024)

Times of Israel, Civilian Commission of Inquiry Findings (November 26, 2024)

NPR, Shin Bet Investigation Findings (March 5, 2025)

RUSI Journal, “Israel and the Politics of Intelligence Failure on 7 October”

Foreign Policy, “Israel’s Netanyahu Fears Probe” (March 12, 2025)

Anadolu Agency, Shin Bet Chief’s Court Filing (April 22, 2025)

PBS NewsHour, “Netanyahu sparks uproar in push to fire Israel’s domestic security chief” (March 17, 2025)

J Street, “Netanyahu’s Ultra Right-Wing Coalition Government: A Dossier”

CNN, U.S. Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment (March 2024)

PBS NewsHour, October 7 Government Inquiry (November 17, 2025)

Christian Science Monitor, “Netanyahu tries rewriting Israel’s Oct. 7 narrative” (February 20, 2026)

Haaretz, “Netanyahu’s 11 Moves Taking Israel From Democracy Toward Authoritarian Rule” (January 24, 2026)

Bloomberg, Interview with Shira Efron, RAND (March 27, 2026)

Haaretz, “The Netanyahu Doctrine Is Now Facing Its Ultimate Test” (March 25, 2026)

Amnesty International, “Newly adopted death penalty law must be repealed” (March 31, 2026)

Israeli Penal Law 5737-1977, §§18, 19, 20, 300 (Refworld unofficial English translation)

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 5752-1992 (Refworld)

Lawfare, “Indicting a Sitting Prime Minister: The Israeli Constitutional Framework”

Israel Democracy Institute, “Immunity for the Prime Minister: Explainer”

Basic Law: The Government (Constitute Project)

CNN, “Netanyahu derailed a potential Gaza hostage deal in July” (September 4, 2024)

Times of Israel, Hostages Forum ex-spokesman: “No doubt Netanyahu preventing deal” (April 26, 2024)

NBC News, “Netanyahu won’t agree to hostage deal unless it polls well” (May 31, 2024)

University of Washington Stroum Center, “The shadow of the death penalty in Israel” (March 31, 2022)

CNN, “Day 28 of Middle East conflict” (March 28, 2026)

Times of Israel, Liveblog March 29, 2026

ACLED, “Middle East Special Issue: March 2026”

CNN, “Israel’s parliament votes to expand death penalty for Palestinians” (March 30, 2026)

Israel.

The state whose founding narrative is the exodus from slavery remembered and taught as avadim hayinu has voted against a resolution that says slavery was a crime against humanity.

They voted during the season when every Jewish family is commanded to remember:

1. You were slaves.
2. You must never forget slaves.
3. You must never allow slavery again.

The Haggadah says: in every generation, a person is obligated to see themselves as if they personally went out of Egypt.

Then the UN asked 193 countries to do something much smaller, just acknowledge slavery happened and it was wrong.

123 remembered, they voted yes.

Israel said no.

Israel voted to cancel avadim hayinu.

וַיּוֹצִיאֵנוּ ה’ אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ מִשָּׁם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה
וְאִלּוּ לֹא הוֹצִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם
הֲרֵי [עֲדַיִין] אָנוּ וּבָנֵינוּ וּבְנֵי בָנֵינוּ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם

Dear God, if your divine wisdom did not see slavery as a crime, we and our children and our children’s children would still be enslaved. But are you even real? The F-35 is real.

Die New York Times möchte uns glauben machen, dass Berliner in Kriegszeiten „einfach weitergemacht” hätten, statt die Stadt zu verlassen. Ian Buruma hat etwas geschrieben, das er einen „Liebesbrief” an die Stadt nennt – für all jene, die am Völkermord mitschuldig waren. Das Buch heißt zynischerweise Stay Alive. Der Untertitel lautet „Berlin, 1939–1945″, obwohl er wohl eher hätte heißen sollen: „Von Juden ist hier offensichtlich nicht die Rede”.

Stay… und alive. Nicht für die Zwangsdeportierten. Nicht für die, denen man in den Kopf schoss und die man in Massengräbern verscharrte.

Stay alive, liebe Berliner.

Als ob die Berliner, die die Juden hinausdrängten, in die Züge nach Auschwitz, diejenigen gewesen wären, die überleben mussten. Die Menschen, die tatsächlich am Leben bleiben mussten, waren in all den Lagern – dorthin geschickt aus Berlin, von Gleis 17 am Bahnhof Grunewald –, während die Nachbarn bereits planten, sich ihre Wohnungen anzueignen. Die Bedrohung für Berlins Juden war die Vernichtung durch ihre Nachbarn. Die letztlich von außen erzwungene Bedrohung für diese Nachbarn waren Konsequenzen: alliierte Bomben als Antwort auf die vielen Kriege, die ihre Regierung angezettelt hatte, sowjetische Truppen als Antwort auf 27 Millionen eigene Tote.

Buruma kann mit diesem Titel der Nazi-fördernden Auslöschung davonkommen, weil Berlin die Struktur dafür bereits geschaffen hat. Es ist die Stadt, die dafür bekannt ist, jede Spur der Menschen zu tilgen, die nicht am Leben geblieben sind.

Es gibt dort keine Fotografien der Deportationen, und das ist einfach nur seltsam.

Nicht ein einziges Foto.

Das #LastSeen-Projekt hat Deportationsbilder aus 60 deutschen Städten und Gemeinden gefunden. Wir sehen über 420 Fotografien aus Orten wie Fulda, Breslau, München.

Nicht aus Berlin.

Keine Fotos der Deportation haben überlebt. Verstanden? Mehr als 50.000 Juden wurden in Synagogen zusammengetrieben und zu Güterbahnhöfen marschiert, zwischen 1941 und 1943, und dennoch hat nicht ein einziges Bild überlebt.

Keine Fotos der Verbrechen, damit die Täter überleben konnten. Das ist es, was es Buruma ermöglicht, ein Foto von Tätern auf das Cover seines Buches zu setzen und grausam „stay alive” darauf zu schreiben.

Die überlebenden Bilder zeigen Menschen, die ihre Habseligkeiten durch Berliner Straßen tragen – als Täterbevölkerung. Die Opfer wurden so gründlich ausgelöscht, dass selbst die visuelle Sprache der Vertreibung von den Menschen vereinnahmt wurde, die sie verursacht haben.

Sechzig Städte dokumentierten, was sie taten. Berlin vernichtete die Beweise, nahm die Wohnungen, sammelte das gestohlene Eigentum ein und wurde wütend auf jeden, der versuchte, Beweise zu sichern. Nach vorne schauen! Die Vergangenheit vergessen! Wir dürfen nur über die Zukunft sprechen! Wenn es keine Gesichter für die Toten gibt, kann man die Lebenden aufs Cover setzen und es als Feier allein ihres Überlebens bezeichnen.

Ein Liebesbrief. An die Stadt, in der das Reichssicherheitshauptamt, die Wannsee-Villa, die T4-Euthanasienzentrale und die Gestapo in der Prinz-Albrecht-Straße untergebracht waren. Während der Jahre, in denen der Holocaust aus ihren Konferenzräumen heraus verwaltet wurde. Das sollen wir jetzt lieben.

Bedenken Sie, dass Burumas Vater Leo den Krieg in Berlin verbrachte und dort leichte Maschinengewehre für die Wehrmacht herstellte. Das Buch des Sohnes verwandelt diese Tatsache in eine Geschichte über den „Versuch, sein eigenes Gleichgewicht zwischen Widerstand und Überleben zu finden”. Die Rezension strukturiert den Satz sogar so, dass es verschleiert wird: Leo arbeitete in „einer Fabrik, die Bremsen für Lokomotiven, aber auch leichte Maschinengewehre herstellte.”

Erst die Bremsen. Maschinengewehre… ach ja, das auch noch.

Als ob Züge in Todeslager, geschweige denn die Bewaffnung eines Völkermords, eine Fußnote zum Geschäft gewesen wären. Das ist ein Familienprojekt, ihre Investitionen für eine Rendite. Der Vater stellte Waffen für Nazis her. Der Sohn schrieb den Liebesbrief zu Ehren der Kunden – derjenigen, die hinter den Gewehren standen und sie kauften.

Die Besetzung

Jede Person in diesem Buch wird auf bizarre Weise entweder als Opfer oder als Zuschauer inszeniert. Das ist der einzig erlaubte Rahmen. Ein Dirigent, der sich einredete, er sei unpolitisch. Literaten, die debattierten, ob sie ins Exil gehen sollten. Familien, die sich in Bordellen versteckten. Und der Vater des Autors wird als Mann beschrieben, der „den alliierten Luftangriffen auswich” – nicht als Mann, der die Waffen baute, die diese Luftangriffe notwendig machten.

Das ist unter Nazis üblich: sich selbst zum wahren Opfer zu erklären und Unterstützung zu suchen, um der Verantwortung zu entgehen.

Niemand in diesem Buch organisiert die Deportationslogistik in Berlin. Niemand arbeitet in den Lagern. Niemand kassiert die arisierten Besitztümer und fälscht die Stadtakten. Niemand bearbeitet den Papierkram, der 50.000 Juden von Gleis 17 in Grunewald – vor aller Augen der Nachbarschaft – in den Tod schickte. Die Täter sind keine Figuren. Sie sind bloß das Wetter, von dem die Berliner profitieren.

Die Zauberworte

Burumas These, zitiert in der Times-Rezension: Die meisten Berliner waren „weder Zyniker, noch Schläger, noch ideologische Fanatiker; sie haben sich einfach angepasst.” Schwachsinn. „Einfach angepasst” ist die Formulierung, die eine ganze Stadt von der Verantwortung befreit. Anpassung ist passiv.

Was die Berliner taten, war aktive Teilnahme.

Sie besetzten die Stellen, die durch deportierte Juden frei geworden waren. Sie nahmen die Wohnungen und dekorierten mit gestohlener Kunst und gestohlenen Möbeln. Sie besuchten die Konzerte, die mit gestohlenem Reichtum finanziert wurden. Sie übernahmen alle Kunden, alle Märkte und tranken den aus Frankreich geraubten Wein. Das ist keine Anpassung. Das ist die beabsichtigte Dividende des Völkermords, und Berlin war ein Epizentrum des Dividendensammelns.

Die Entlastungsmaschine

Das gesamte Projekt scheint sich um einen Mann namens Erich Alenfeld zu drehen. Ein Jude, der zum Christentum „konvertierte” – Alenfeld schrieb 1939 einen Liebesbrief an Hermann Göring, in dem er sein Erbe verleugnet und sich freiwillig zur deutschen Armee meldete. Sein Sohn trat mit zehn Jahren der Hitlerjugend bei. Jahrzehnte später schrieb seine Tochter ein Buch mit dem Titel Why Didn’t You Leave?

Die Familie selbst konnte klar sehen, was es war.

Burumas Erklärung richtet sich gegen sie und will uns glauben machen, dass dies „nicht immer zynische Zugeständnisse” gewesen seien. Die Verbrechen sollen mit dem „nationalistischen Geist der Zeit” entschuldigt werden. Die Alenfelds, schreibt er, „waren ebenso von der deutschen Romantik beeinflusst wie jeder andere ihrer Generation.”

Romantik. Ein jüdischer Mann schreibt an den Architekten der Arisierung, meldet sich freiwillig zum Dienst in der Armee, die sein Volk vernichten wird, und dieser Mann nennt es Romantik.

Es ist widerlich.

Diese Geschichte leistet konkrete Arbeit. Wenn sogar ein Jude aufrichtig daran glauben konnte, anstatt eine Kugel in den Kopf zu bekommen – nicht aus Verzweiflung, nicht als Überlebungstarnung, sondern aus echtem Nationalgefühl –, dann kann niemand anderem die Schuld gegeben werden. Die Ideologie war normal, verführerisch. Sie riss alle in die Verbrechen hinein, sogar ihre Opfer. Und wenn die Opfergruppe die Lügen glaubte, welche Ausrede braucht dann die Profiteursgruppe noch?

Deshalb braucht Buruma „Romantik” statt Verblendung oder „Verzweiflung”. Tausende Juden und Mischlinge dienten in der Wehrmacht. Bryan Mark Rigg hat sie dokumentiert. Sie hofften zu überleben. Sie taten es, weil die Alternative der Tod war. Sie taten es, weil eine Uniform Tarnung in einem Kugelhagel war. Buruma streicht all diesen tatsächlichen Überlebenskontext und ersetzt ihn durch sein persönliches Empfinden. Romantik macht die Kollaboration des Opfers an seinem eigenen Tod universell und schön. Verzweiflung würde zugeben, dass es Menschen unter tatsächlicher existenzieller Bedrohung gab, und würde die offensichtliche Frage aufwerfen, welche Ausrede die acht Millionen mitschuldigen Berliner hatten.

Der Titel der Tochter ist die Frage, die dieses neue Buch auslöschen will. Why didn’t you leave. Warum habt ihr euch nicht geweigert. Warum habt ihr mitgemacht. Buruma will nicht, dass die Frage gestellt wird. Er will nicht, dass die Antwort durchsickert. Also löst er das Thema in Stimmung auf. Er nennt Völkermord buchstäblich romantisch. Er nennt Nazi-Komplizenschaft eine Liebesgeschichte. Er nennt das Ganze einen Liebesbrief.

Und die Times druckt und bewirbt es dummerweise, weil dort offenbar niemand mehr Geschichte studiert.

Wer bekommt ein Gesicht

Das Buch endet mit der üblichen Horrorgeschichte, die Nazis anführen. Sowjetische Truppen kamen an, und mehr als 100.000 Berliner Frauen und Mädchen wurden vergewaltigt. Buruma interviewt eine Überlebende, die 14 war. Das ist reale Geschichte, und sie ist wichtig.

Sie ist wichtig, weil er die mehr als 50.000 aus Berlin deportierten Juden auslöscht. Sie erhalten keine gleichwertige Behandlung. Das können sie nicht. Berlin hat dafür gesorgt. Keine Fotografien, keine Gesichter, keine Namen auf dem Denkmal. Keine Überlebenden zum Interviewen. Vergewaltigt und ermordet.

Die Struktur des Buches beginnt mit Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber der Tragödie und endet mit einem Appell um Mitgefühl für sowjetische Gewalt, damit die Berliner die Geschichte als Opfer beenden statt als Beteiligte. Alle jüdischen Frauen und Mädchen werden vergessen, damit die Vergewaltigungen Jahre später die ganze Aufmerksamkeit bekommen. Die Toten bleiben gesichtslos. Die Lebenden werden zur Anerkennung präsentiert.

Thomas Mann hat es gesehen

Die Rezension zitiert Thomas Mann: Alles, was in Deutschland zwischen 1933 und 1945 veröffentlicht wurde, trage den Geruch „von Blut und Schande”. Die Rezension behandelt dies als zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext, aber es ist so viel mehr. Das ist eine direkte Anklage des Projekts.

Manns Maßstab besagt, dass die Stimmen, die Buruma so unbedingt bewahren will – jene, die blieben, um zu profitieren, die sich anpassten, um Gewinn zu machen, die weitermachten, wie Hitler es befahl – keine neutralen Zeugen sind. Sie sind kompromittierte Quellen. Nicht weil sie logen, sondern weil das Überleben im nationalsozialistischen Berlin die Teilnahme an dem System erforderte, das ihr „Überleben” erst notwendig machte.

Mann ging. Brecht ging. Die Menschen, die blieben, trafen eine Entscheidung zur Teilnahme, und diese Entscheidung hatte einen Preis, den jemand anderes zahlte. Diejenigen, die Widerstand leisteten, waren die, die getötet, deren Leben zerstört wurden. Buruma kennt diese eigentliche Geschichte, denn die Waffenfabrik seines Vaters kommt im Buch vor. Aber die Rahmung verwandelt Komplizenschaft in Tragödie, Produktion in Überleben und Verzweiflung in Romantik. Diese unmoralische Desinformationskonversion scheint der Zweck zu sein.

Nicht sein erstes Mal

2018 wurde Buruma als Chefredakteur der New York Review of Books zum Rücktritt gezwungen. Erinnern Sie sich an seine Bitte, an die Nazis zu denken, die unter der sowjetischen Befreiung Berlins litten? Buruma veröffentlichte einen Essay von Jian Ghomeshi, der von über 20 Frauen der sexuellen Nötigung beschuldigt wurde, in dem Ghomeshi seine Geschichte als Opfer öffentlicher Beschämung umdeuten durfte. Burumas Verteidigung ist sehr relevant für die von sowjetischen Soldaten vergewaltigten Frauen:

Die genaue Art seines Verhaltens – wie viel Einvernehmen dabei im Spiel war – davon habe ich keine Ahnung, und es ist auch nicht wirklich mein Anliegen.

Und warum kümmert es ihn nicht? 2018 gab er einem der sexuellen Nötigung beschuldigten Täter eine Plattform, um sein eigenes Leiden zu erzählen. Jetzt, 2026, will er einer ganzen Stadt von Beteiligten endlich die Plattform geben, um ihr Leiden zu erzählen. Sollte er nicht die sowjetischen Soldaten verteidigen, so wie er Ghomeshi verteidigt? Die Heuchelei sei angemerkt.

Beide Projekte stellen die Erfahrung der Konsequenzen durch den Täter ins Zentrum, nicht die Erfahrung des Schadens durch das Opfer. Beide behandeln Rechenschaftspflicht als die eigentliche Gewalt. 2018 wurde er dafür gefeuert. 2026 druckt die Times Nazi-Liebesbriefe.

Der Rezensent sieht es und geht weiter

Kevin Peraino, der für die Times rezensiert, schreibt, das Buch sei „reich an Anekdoten und Primärquellen, aber etwas arm an großen Ideen.” Er wünschte, Buruma würde „tiefer eintauchen.” Er sagt damit, das Buch habe keinen analytischen Rahmen. Kein Argument. Keine Struktur, um zu verstehen, warum all das geschah oder was es bedeutet.

Wie könnte es das auch, angesichts dessen, was es bezwecken soll?

Und doch befürwortet er die „Liebesbrief”-Rahmung trotzdem. Er nennt das Buch eine „leidenschaftliche Herausforderung an die zersetzende Kraft der Gleichgültigkeit.”

Gleichgültigkeit war für Berlin nicht zersetzend.

Gleichgültigkeit funktionierte für Berlin.

Sie ist genau das, was die Konzerte am Laufen hielt, die Fußballspiele füllte, den Kaffee während des Völkermords fließen ließ. Die Maschine brauchte keine Begeisterung. Bis heute missbilligt Berlin Emotionen und warnt vor Beweisen. Sie brauchte keine Spuren, nur Menschen, die weiterhin auftauchten, damit die Verbrechen weitergehen konnten. Das taten sie. Ein „Urlaubszug” nach Auschwitz ermöglichte es Berlinern, die Gaskammern des Massentodes in Aktion zu beobachten. Die Nazis bauten spezielle gläserne Beobachtungsluken zur Inspektion. Dann kehrten die Berliner revitalisiert in ihre Stadt zurück, um sich über ihr eigenes „Überleben” auszulassen, das von der effizienten systematischen Auslöschung der Juden abhing.

Liebesbriefe an die Stadt der Toten

Die Berliner haben bis heute eine Tradition: Sie legen Blumen und Kerzen auf Nazi-Gräber in der ganzen Stadt. Diese Nazis werden offen betrauert, ohne Entschuldigung, in der Stadt, die emotionale Zurschaustellungen nicht mag. Wenn sie doch nur noch einen Tag gelebt hätten, um noch mehr Nachbarn mit Maschinengewehren niederzumähen, noch mehr Reichtum gewaltsam umzuverteilen. Sie werden auf eine sehr eigentümliche Weise in Ehren gehalten.

Auf dem Militärfriedhof am Columbiadamm erscheinen jeden November Kränze von Gruppen, die Wehrmachtstote ehren. Ein „Traditionsverband der Freunde des ehemaligen Schutzgebietes Deutsch-Südwestafrika” hinterlässt Schleifen mit „patriotischen Grüßen” an einem Denkmal für die Soldaten, die den Völkermord an den Herero verübten. Als Neuköllns Bezirksregierung aufgefordert wurde, das Denkmal zu entfernen, fügte sie eine Tafel hinzu, die das Wort „Völkermord” ganz gezielt ausließ.

Reinhard Heydrich, der Architekt der Endlösung, liegt noch immer auf dem Invalidenfriedhof im Zentrum Berlins begraben. Es ist eine Touristenattraktion für diejenigen, die dem Nationalsozialismus etwas Liebe zeigen wollen. Der Grabstein wurde entfernt, aber der Leichnam nicht. Der Friedhof ist heute ein geschütztes Denkmal, vom Staat gepflegt, als Attraktion beworben. 2019 öffnete jemand mit Insiderwissen über die Lage das Grab – um zu betonen, dass Heydrich nie wirklich weg war.

Das Sinti-und-Roma-Denkmal – ein symbolisches Grab für 500.000 ermordete Menschen – wird durch ein Tunnelprojekt der Deutschen Bahn bedroht. Das Holocaust-Mahnmal selbst enthält keine Namen, keine Inschriften, keine jüdischen Symbole. Seine Anti-Graffiti-Beschichtung wurde von einer Degussa-Tochtergesellschaft hergestellt – derselben Unternehmensfamilie, die Zyklon B produzierte.

So sieht also ein Liebesbrief an Berlin aus, wird uns gesagt. Die Täter erheben sich wieder. Die historischen Bodenmarkierungen werden entfernt. Die Opfer bekommen ein abstraktes Mahnmal ohne Namen. Und alle paar Jahre schreibt jemand mit familiärer Verbindung zur Kriegsmaschinerie ein Buch, das sagt, die meisten Menschen hätten sich einfach angepasst, also wer könnte ihnen vorwerfen, nicht gegangen zu sein.

Das ist keine Geschichtsschreibung. Das ist „wie der Vater, so der Sohn” – die Auslöschung von Völkermordopfern des Familienunternehmens, um die Dividenden weiterfließen zu lassen. Liebe als Hass.

The New York Times wants you to believe that wartime Berliners “just carried on” instead of leaving. Ian Buruma has written what he calls a “love letter” to the city for all those complicit in genocide. The book is cynically called Stay Alive. The subtitle is “Berlin, 1939-1945”, although it probably should have been “I’m obviously not talking about the Jews”.

Stay… and alive. Not for those forcibly deported. Not for those shot in the head and dumped in mass graves.

Stay alive, dear Berliners.

As if the Berliners who pushed the Jews out, onto trains to Auschwitz, were the ones who needed to survive. The people who actually needed to stay alive were in all the camps, sent there from Berlin, from Platform 17 at Grunewald, while the neighbors planned to take all their homes. The threat to Berlin’s Jews was extermination by their neighbors. The eventual externally forced threat to those neighbors was consequences: Allied bombs responding to the many wars that their government started, Soviet troops responding to 27 million of their own dead.

Buruma can get away with this title of Nazi promoting erasure because Berlin already laid the structure for it. It’s the city known for erasing every trace of the people who didn’t stay alive.

There are no photographs of the deportations there, and that’s just weird.

Not one photo.

The #LastSeen project has found deportation images from 60 German cities and towns. We see over 420 photographs from places like Fulda, Breslau, Munich.

Not Berlin.

No photos of the deportation survived. Get it? More than 50,000 Jews were assembled at synagogues and marched to freight yards between 1941 and 1943, and yet not a single image survives.

No photos of the crimes, so that the perpetrators could survive. That’s what enables Buruma to put a photo of perpetrators on the cover of his book and cruelly write “stay alive”.

The surviving images are of people carrying belongings through Berlin streets as the perpetrator population. The victims were erased so thoroughly that even the visual language of displacement has been appropriated by the people who caused it.

Sixty towns documented what they did. Berlin destroyed the evidence, took the apartments, collected the stolen property, and got angry at anyone who tried to produce evidence. Look forward! Forget that past! We must talk only of the future! When there are no faces for the dead, you can put the living on the cover and call it the celebration of only their survival.

A love letter. To the city that housed the Reich Security Main Office, the Wannsee villa, the T4 euthanasia headquarters, and the Gestapo on Prinz-Albrecht-Straße. During the years the Holocaust was administered from its conference rooms. That’s what we are being told to love now.

Consider that Buruma’s father, Leo, spent the war in Berlin manufacturing light machine guns for the Wehrmacht. The son’s book turns that fact into a story about “attempting to find his own balance between resistance and survival.” The review even structures the sentence to bury it: Leo worked in “a factory that made brakes for locomotives but also light machine guns.”

Brakes first. Machine guns… oh yeah, that too.

As if trains to death camps let alone arming a genocide was a footnote to the business. This is a family project, their investments for a return. The father made weapons for Nazis. The son wrote the love letter to honor the customers, those buying and standing behind the guns.

The Cast

Every person in this book is bizarrely setup as either a victim or a bystander. That’s the only allowed frame. A conductor who told himself he was unpolitisch. Literati debating whether to go into exile. Families hiding in brothels. And the author’s own father is described as a man “dodging Allied air raids,” not as a man building the weapons that made those air raids necessary.

That’s common among Nazis, declaring themselves the true victim and seeking support to avoid the accountability.

Nobody in this book is running Berlin deportation logistics. Nobody is staffing the camps. Nobody is collecting the Aryanized property and laundering the city’s records. Nobody is processing the paperwork that sent 50,000 Jews from Platform 17 at Grunewald — in full view of the neighborhood — to their deaths. The perpetrators aren’t characters. They’re just the weather the Berliners benefit from.

The Magic Words

Buruma’s thesis, as quoted in the Times review: most Berliners were “neither cynics, nor bullies, nor ideological fanatics; they simply conformed.” Horseshit. “Simply conformed” is the phrase that lets an entire city off the hook. Conformity is passive.

What Berliners did was participatory.

They filled the jobs vacated by deported Jews. They took the apartments and decorated with stolen art and furniture. They attended the concerts funded by stolen wealth. They took all the customers, all the markets and drank the wine looted from France. That’s not conformity. That’s the intended dividend of genocide, and Berlin was an epicenter of grabbing dividends.

The Exculpation Engine

The whole project seems to circle around a man named Erich Alenfeld. A Jew who “converted” to Christianity, Alenfeld wrote a love letter to Hermann Göring in 1939 renouncing his heritage and volunteering for the German Army. His son joined the Hitler Youth at age ten. Decades later, his daughter wrote a book called Why Didn’t You Leave?

The family itself could see clearly what it was.

Buruma’s explanation runs against them and wants us to believe these were “not always cynical accommodations.” The crimes are supposed to be excused by “the nationalistic spirit of the day.” The Alenfelds, he writes, “were as much influenced by German romanticism as anyone of their generation.”

Romanticism. A Jewish man writing to the architect of Aryanization, volunteering to serve the army that would exterminate his people, and this guy calls it romanticism.

It’s disgusting.

This story does specific work. If even a Jew could sincerely buy in rather than be shot in the head, not out of desperation, not as survival camouflage, but out of genuine national feeling, then nobody else can be blamed. The ideology was normal, seductive. It swept up everyone in the crimes, even its victims. And if the victim class believed the lies, what excuse does the beneficiary class need?

That’s why Buruma needs “romanticism” instead of derangement or “desperation.” Thousands of Jews and Mischlinge served in the Wehrmacht. Bryan Mark Rigg documented them. They expected to survive. They did it because the other option was death. They did it because a uniform was camouflage in a hail of bullets. Buruma strips all that actual survival context and replaces it with his personal feeling. Romanticism makes the collaboration of the victim in their own death as universal and beautiful. Desperation would admit there were people under actual existential threat, and would raise the obvious question of what excuse the eight million complicit Berliners had.

The daughter’s title is the question that this new book tries to erase. Why didn’t you leave. Why didn’t you refuse. Why did you participate. Buruma doesn’t want it asked. He doesn’t want the answer leaking. So he dissolves the topic into mood. He literally calls genocide romantic. He calls Nazi complicity a love story. He calls the whole thing a love letter.

And the Times stupidly prints and promotes it because apparently nobody there studies history anymore.

Who Gets a Face

The book ends with the usual horror story that Nazis invoke. Soviet troops arrived and more than 100,000 Berlin women and girls were raped. Buruma interviews a survivor who was 14. This is real history and it matters.

It matters because he erases the more than 50,000 Jews deported from Berlin. They don’t get equivalent treatment. They can’t. Berlin made sure of that. No photographs, no faces, no names on the memorial. No survivors to interview. Raped and murdered.

The structure of the book opens with indifference to tragedy and closes with a call for sympathy about Soviet violence, so that Berliners end the story as victims rather than the participants. All the Jewish women and girls are forgotten so the rapes years later can get all the ink. The dead stay faceless. The living are presented for recognition.

Thomas Mann Saw It

The review quotes Thomas Mann: anything published in Germany between 1933 and 1945 bore the scent “of blood and shame.” The review treats this as period context but it’s so much more. That’s a direct indictment of the project.

Mann’s standard says the voices that Buruma is so intent on preserving, those who stayed to benefit, who conformed to profit, who carried on as Hitler ordered, are not neutral witnesses. They are compromised sources. Not because they lied, but because survival in Nazi Berlin required participation in the system that made their “survival” necessary.

Mann left. Brecht left. The people who stayed made a participation choice, and that choice came with a price that someone else paid. Those who resisted were the ones killed, lives destroyed. Buruma knows this actual story, as his father’s Nazi gun factory is in the book. But the framing converts complicity into tragedy, production into survival, and desperation into romance. That immoral disinformation conversion is the point, it would seem.

Not His First Time

In 2018, Buruma was forced out as editor of the New York Review of Books. Remember his request to think of the Nazis who suffered from Soviet liberation of Berlin? Buruma published an essay by Jian Ghomeshi, accused of sexual assault by over 20 women, that let Ghomeshi reframe his story as a victim of public shaming. Buruma’s defense is very relevant to the women raped by Soviet soldiers:

The exact nature of his behavior — how much consent was involved — I have no idea, nor is it really my concern.

And why isn’t he concerned? In 2018 he gave an accused abuser of women a platform to narrate his own suffering. Now in 2026 he wants an entire city of participants to finally get the platform to narrate theirs. Shouldn’t he defend the Soviet soldiers as he defends Ghomeshi? The hypocrisy is noted.

Both projects center the perpetrator’s experience of consequences rather than the victim’s experience of harm. Both treat accountability as the real violence. He got fired for it in 2018. In 2026 the Times prints Nazi love letters.

The Reviewer Sees It and Walks Away

Kevin Peraino, reviewing for the Times, writes that the book is “long on anecdote and primary sources but somewhat short on big ideas.” He wishes Buruma would “delve deeper.” He’s saying the book has no analytical framework. No argument. No structure for understanding why any of this happened or what it means.

How could it, given what it’s trying to accomplish?

And yet he endorses the “love letter” framing anyway. He calls the book a “passionate challenge to the corrosive power of indifference.”

Indifference wasn’t corrosive to Berlin.

Indifference worked for Berlin.

It is the very thing that kept the concerts running, the soccer matches filling, the coffee flowing during genocide. The machine didn’t need any enthusiasm. To this day Berlin frowns on emotion and warns against evidence. It needed no traces, people to keep showing up so the crimes could continue. They did. A “vacation” train to Auschwitz allowed Berliners to watch the gas chambers of mass death in action. The Nazis made special glass observation ports for inspection. Then the Berliners would return revitalized to their city to wax about their own “survival” that depended on efficient systemic erasure of Jews.

Love Letters to the City of the Dead

Berliners to this day have a tradition, they put flowers and candles on Nazi graves around the city. These Nazis are mourned openly without apology, in the city that dislikes emotional displays. If only they had lived another day to machine gun more neighbors, to violently redistribute more wealth. They are memorialized in a very peculiar way.

At the military cemetery on Columbiadamm, wreaths appear every November from groups honoring Wehrmacht dead. A “Tradition Association of Friends of the Former Protected Area German Southwest Africa” leaves ribbons with “patriotic greetings” at a memorial to the soldiers who carried out the Herero genocide. When Neukölln’s government was asked to remove the memorial, they added a plaque that very precisely omitted the word “genocide.”

Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the Final Solution, is still in the ground at the Invalidenfriedhof in central Berlin. It’s a tourist attraction for those who want to show Nazism some love. The grave marker was removed but the body was not. The cemetery is now a protected monument, maintained by the state, promoted as an attraction. In 2019 someone with inside knowledge of the location opened the grave, to emphasize Heydrich was never really gone.

The Sinti and Roma memorial — a symbolic grave for 500,000 murdered people — is being threatened by a Deutsche Bahn tunnel project. The Holocaust memorial itself contains no names, no inscriptions, no Jewish symbols. Its anti-graffiti coating was manufactured by a Degussa subsidiary — the same corporate family that produced Zyklon B.

This is what we are told a love letter to Berlin looks like. The perpetrators rise again. The historical ground markers come off. The victims get an abstract memorial with no names. And every few years someone with a family connection to the war machine writes a book saying that most people simply conformed so who could blame them for not leaving.

That’s not history. That’s “like father, like son”, erasing genocide victims of the family business to continue dividends. Love as hate.