Alan L. Berger wrote an essay for the Sunflower Symposium. (118). Berger claims that he would not have forgiven the SS soldier, Karl, on behalf of those murdered. He states, “My own thoughts are firm. Simon should, and could, not forgive on behalf of those so cruelly murdered.” (118). In other words, he had no right to forgive Karl considering he committed no personal sin against Simon. The author develops and supports his thesis by providing definitions and examples throughout his essay in order to share his thoughts and feelings about the situation precisely with the audience. The essay was directed toward the Jewish or Catholic audience who are also questioning their choices. Correspondingly, I agree with Berger that Wiesenthal should not have forgiven the soldier for the atrocities he committed. I believe Simon did not have the right to forgive Karl because it was not his place to be able to forgive him. Karl did horrible things to other Jews and races, not Simon, he should have been asking the families of those he hurt, not a random Jew who had no relation to the situation whatsoever. Berger claims in his essay Karl stereotyped Simon as a part of Jews who were “not individuals with souls, feelings, aspirations, and emotions” (119), but rather …show more content…
I realize forgiveness is different for everyone and I am typically a forgiving person depending on the situation at hand, but in Simon’s position I would not have felt comfortable forgiving this man for his sins that were committed against entirely different people. I also am in no position to be forgiving him when I have the ability to be just as wicked as him. The only one who could have forgave him would’ve been God and the families who suffered at his hand. Personally, I imagine I would have kept my silence as Simon did or would have told the man it is not my place to forgive him and give him that comfort he