We’ve met Seth Frantzman before. He’s the one who in 2008 had a piece in the San Francisco Sentinel titled “Fascist Muslim Group Expected to Loot Tel-Aviv in 1948,” referring of course to fascist Bosnian Muslims. He also was the first to make the connection between the current Albanian-headed organ trade and the one the KLA started in 1999.

Terra Incognita: Victims of Unoriginality (March 20)
In making Jews feel guilty for having been persecuted and punishing them for mentioning it, one is erasing the history itself.

“The perception of Israeli-Jewish victimhood, which was always present in the Jewish narrative and Jewish thought, became even stronger after the Holocaust and serves to give Israel political legitimacy.”

These were the words that Haaretz columnist Akiva Eldar used in a recent oped praising a book – The Israeli Victim-Perpetrator Dichotomy – by Emek Yezreel College’s Ruth Amir.

“Israel sees itself as a victim [which] justifies its aggression and injustice. With the help of guilt-neutralizing mechanisms, Israelis… absolve themselves of responsibility. That is why they aren’t interested in trying to correct injustices and reconcile with their neighbor,” wrote Eldar.

It is a highly appealing argument. In it, the nefarious Jews who have always constructed this fake narrative of “victimhood” exploit it in order to justify their misdeeds.

In a March 2012 blog post on the Economist website titled “Auschwitz Complex” (since changed to “Masters of their fate”), a writer argued that “Iran makes an appealing enemy for Israelis because, unlike the Palestinians, it can be fitted into a familiar ideological trope from the Jewish national playbook: the eliminationist anti-Semite.”

He went on to speak of a historical Jewish “narrative of repression” and a “delusional… paranoid outlook.”

[We briefly visited this theme before — about how to deafen the public’s ear to a victim people, precisely by preemptively characterizing their victimhood as merely a perpetually claimed victimhood.]

…If Israel is using its narrative of victimhood to justify the occupation and abuse of the Palestinians, it isn’t doing a very good job, because no one is being manipulated. When is the last time anyone wrote anywhere that because of the Holocaust, the checkpoints make sense?

Many people argue that the security barrier is acceptable to defend lives, that because of terrorism a peace agreement cannot be found or that because of history the Jews have a right to Hebron. But if you Google “occupation” and “holocaust,” you will mostly find only the argument that Israelis manipulate the Holocaust to justify their actions; you won’t find anyone actually saying the Holocaust justifies the actions. That means the “Holocaust as anesthesia” is a straw-man argument. But why build a straw man and devote whole books to it?

The idea of the “victim-aggressor” has a long history in Western polemics. In recent years, it was used to castigate the Tutsis of Rwanda and the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia. The Serbs were said to have a victim complex that they used to justify their ethnic cleansing of the Bosnians. Without exploring whether or not the Serbs were in fact guilty of ethnic-cleansing, it is worth understanding how the West belittled the Serbs’ historic misfortune in order to justify hating them.

The Serbs were in fact victims; after 500 years of brutal Ottoman-Turkish occupation more than 10 percent of them were murdered by the Croatian fascists and their Nazi collaborators in World War II (the Nazis collaborated with the Croats in this case, not the other way around). They were also victims in Kosovo, where Serbian churches were destroyed and the impoverished Serb peasants were driven from their homes after the Nato bombing campaign.

The Rwandan Tutsi were actual victims. A great portion of their community was hacked to death in the 1994 genocide by Hutu genocidaires. Yet when the Tutsis dared to drive some Hutu from their homes in the aftermath, they were accused of war crimes and said to harbor a victim complex that they used to cover their actions.

The victim complex theory unjustifiably places special burdens on those who were victims, while the continuous perpetrator is allowed to walk free. The Croats, Hutus and Germans, nations that apparently do not have a victimhood narrative, aren’t said to commit crimes and use their fake victim status to cover them; they just committed historical crimes and walked away. Why is it that the bully is just a bully, but the victim-turned-“aggressor” is specially criticized?

For instance, would the Israeli occupation be better if it weren’t Israelis doing it but, say, Turks? It seems in most cases this actually is true. When Jordan slaughtered Palestinians, other groups abused Hutus, or the Croats (rather than Serbs) committed atrocities against the Bosnians, few raised eyebrows. So is a victim worth more if he can be shown to be a victim of a victim? Are children who gun down their classmates more interesting if they were first bullied than if they were stars of the football team?

The last issue is that creating a “victim-perpetrator” theory about Israel allows one to negate actual victimhood and castigate Israelis particularly. They want to make it acceptable to hate Jews and encourage the mass murder of Israelis because the very fact of any Jew saying he is a victim makes him part of the paradigm of a “victim narrative” fulfilling the prophecy. Anything he does to defend himself becomes part of the “victim-aggressor” model.

When the Holocaust is a “narrative,” it means it is part myth, so that one cannot even bemoan the death of the six million without be[ing] accused of manipulating others. In making Jews feel guilty for having been persecuted and punishing them for mentioning it, one is erasing the history itself. As an example of how dangerous it is, one might consider the three murdered Jewish children in Toulouse and that in this “victimhood” model, they are not even given the dignity of victims, because by being outraged about anti-Semitism, they become simply part of the “victim complex.”

It’s relevant to mention the reaction to the Toulouse murders of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, who will have overseen the extinction of the Serbs from Kosovo. As the socialist website 4international aptly put it:

Posted on March 20, 2012



(Paris, France — March 19, 2012) — StandWithUs France condemns High Representative of the European Union, Catherine Ashton for her statement regarding the brutal, anti-Semitic murders of four people at a Jewish school in Toulouse today.

As France reels in horror at this attack, together with the global Jewish community and all people of conscience, High Representative Ashton, the EU’s top diplomat, chose to compare the situation of those murdered today to Palestinians in Hamas-run Gaza, from a meeting with Palestinian youth she attended in Brussels.

“This was an insensitive comment which was pandering to the Palestinian group Ashton was with, and it is incredibly hurtful to the victims and to the French Jewish community”, said Laurent Preece, Director of StandWithUs France, who heard her comments while participating at a 50,000 strong silent rally in Paris in memory of the victims. “Her record regarding diplomacy and the Israeli-Arab conflict has been checkered at best, but these comments are beyond the pale. She should apologize immediately or resign her position.”

StandWithUs CEO, Roz Rothstein commented: “The attack that took place in Toulouse is in no way similar to the situation in Gaza. Since Israel pulled out of Gaza, Palestinian terror groups have fired tens of thousands of rockets on Israeli cities indiscriminately killing and maiming children and adults.”

Adds Preece, “In recent weeks, Israeli schoolchildren have been cowering from attacks by Palestinian missiles fired deliberately at them from Gaza, so it is incredible that Catherine Ashton chose to compare the anti-Semitic murder of a Rabbi, his two young children and another child to children in Gaza. In Gaza, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups use Palestinian children as human shields while firing with impunity at Israeli children.”

StandWithUs France will be taking part in a memorial rally in Paris, led by the CRIF on Sunday.

Website: www.standwithus.fr
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/swufrance
www.standwithus.com and www.standwithus.co.il.
http://www.twitter.com/StandWithUs and http://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs

Learn more about what happened:


In Brussels, top European Union diplomat condemns Monday’s shooting attack on French Jewish school, but also mentions killings in Syria, Gaza and Norway

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton compared the children who were murdered in Monday’s shooting attack on a Jewish school in Toulouse, France with children who are killed in Gaza.

“When we think about what happened today in Toulouse, we remember what happened in Norway last year, we know what is happening in Syria, and we see what is happening in Gaza and other places,” Ashton said on the sidelines of a meeting of Palestinian youths in Brussels.

Ashton hailed the young Palestinians, who “against all odds, continue to learn, work, dream and aspire to a better future.”

When speaking of Norway, Ashton was referring to Anders Behring Breivik’s shooting spree last year, which left 77 people dead.

Monday’s shooting attack on the Ozar Hatorah School in Toulouse claimed the lives of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, 29, his 3-year-old and 6-year-old sons Gabriel and Arieh and 8-year-old Miriam Monsonego, daughter of school headmaster Rabbi Yaacov Monsonego. A 17-year-old has been seriously injured.

According to police, a man riding on a scooter opened fire on the school at around 8:10 am, as the students were arriving for the school day, and then fled the scene. A local police official said the shooter fired 15 shots at the school and its students.


It goes without saying that Ashton’s choice of what to compare the massacre to — something supposedly being done to Palestinian children and supposedly by Jews — is her way of not only diminishing the Toulouse crime and blaming the victim, but it’s also an underhanded way of justifying violence against Jews, as if to say it’s deserved.