Does Past Victimhood Become a “Blank Check”?—The Logic of Victimhood Surrounding Israel and Japan

As I watch the continuing news of conflicts around the world, there is a question I have had for some time.

Are people or nations that suffered terrible harm in the past allowed to do anything they want afterward?

The conflict between Israel and Palestine makes this question feel particularly urgent.

Is the Tragedy of the Holocaust a Blank Check in the Present?

It is an undeniable fact that Jewish people have suffered horrific persecution throughout history. The Holocaust committed by the Nazis was one of the gravest crimes in human history.

This history also explains why Western countries, Germany in particular, have felt a special responsibility toward Israel.

But that does not justify every military action taken by Israel.

In Gaza, many civilians have been killed, homes and the foundations of daily life have been destroyed, and people have been left with nowhere even to flee.

Watching this, I cannot help but feel a profound sense of irony.

Without the gas chambers, is the essence of what is being done really so different?

A people were once persecuted because of their ethnicity and became the victims of mass murder. Now, a state that carries that history is driving another people into a corner.

The Holocaust and what is happening in Gaza differ in both their methods and historical backgrounds. Yet I see the same structure in the way the overwhelming power of a state tramples on the lives and dignity of a particular group.

While vowing never to repeat the tragedies of the past, they now take their turn as the perpetrators. Could there be a more ironic repetition of history?

Does Victimhood Last Forever?

Looking at the Israeli–Palestinian conflict from Japan, I sense a strange asymmetry.

The suffering of Jewish people persecuted in the past is recounted again and again. Meanwhile, the lives and suffering of Palestinians in the present are sometimes hidden behind the language of national security.

Israel has the right to protect its own citizens. But that is not a reason to treat Palestinian lives as less valuable.

To begin with, the victims of the past and the perpetrators of the present are not even the same individuals. It is inherently unreasonable to connect harm suffered generations ago to the legitimacy of a state’s actions today.

If present actions can be justified by past suffering, victimhood will be inherited across generations and never expire.

And today’s harmful actions will create new victims.

Will those new victims, in the future, also make demands on the basis of what they suffered in the past?

There is no end to this.

This Is Not Someone Else’s Problem for Japan

The same structure can be seen in Japan’s diplomatic relationships.

Japan naturally bears historical responsibility for what it did in China and on the Korean Peninsula in the past.

But acknowledging that responsibility and accepting every demand made by China or South Korea today are two different things.

The fact that a country suffered in the past does not unconditionally justify diplomatic pressure or unreasonable demands in the present.

The logic that Japan alone must make concessions whenever historical issues are raised is also flawed.

Past acts of aggression should be judged as past acts of aggression, while present actions should be judged according to today’s international law and ethical standards.

That is all there is to it.

In real-world international politics, however, victimhood becomes a powerful diplomatic card. The greater the past tragedy, the more powerful that card becomes.

Even criticizing the use of that card is then condemned as an attempt to minimize the suffering of the past.

At that point, even a reasonable discussion becomes difficult.

Is History a Source of Reflection or a Basis for Privilege?

What troubles me most is the way past suffering can quietly turn into the basis for present-day privilege.

Having been persecuted in the past is not a reason to be permitted to persecute others today.

Having been invaded in the past is not a reason to be permitted to conduct intimidating diplomacy today.

Having been discriminated against in the past is not a reason to be permitted to make unjust demands today.

The standard can be simple.

Judge not who did it, but what they did.

Whether it is Israel, China, or Japan, we should judge them all by the same standard.

Yet in international politics, past suffering can generate immense moral authority, and that authority is sometimes used to silence criticism of present actions.

Learning from history does not mean granting permanent privileges to those who were once victims. It means not repeating the same mistakes.

Having been a victim is no guarantee that one will not become a perpetrator. Still less is it a license to become one.

But if past tragedy continues to be used indefinitely as a blank check, history will cease to be a lesson for humanity and become nothing more than an inherited form of privilege.