We can clearly identify who were the victims and who the perpetrators. And  if  we decide to examine the historical development of the Jewish community during the post war, specifically from the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and up to present times,  in the Diaspora as well as in Israel, we will be able to see how the victim (the European Jewish community) transformed and overcame its condition of victim. German anti-Semitism condemned millions of persons making them responsible of an “undesired” historic evolution and it instrumented collective murder backed by a pseudo-science that offered effective solutions for a long  standing social problem. As the great Hungarian writer Imre Kertesz [2] (Literature Nobel Prize Winner, 2002) points out, authoritarianism or totalitarian pretenses cannot exist by any political party or movement without discrimination. And the totalitarian form of discrimination is  jail and in last instance murder. Auschwitz, therefore, was no accident, but the essence and basis of  Nazi culture, maybe even the more genuine expression of the way in which German anti-Semitism appropriated the role of perpetrator, in accordance with the outline of the Venezuelan psychiatrist Roberto de Vries, researcher of the psychosocial dynamics  that establishes conscientiously propitiated violence by an individual or group.

Jumping to the condition of survivor implied understanding what was utterly incomprehensible: the institutionalization of murder. The Nazi “process” required the absolute  renounce of German and Polish citizens in favor of an unquestionable  political identity. One palpable reality: the lack of relevance of ideologies. The only certainty was the insecurity of human beings, the  remoteness of power, the way in which they were dragged, humiliated, coerced. The meaning of democracy degenerated into a totally negative energy. Who assumed all power through the polls (Hitler) managed to eradicate from politics all democratic mechanisms that made impossible a confusion of the terms totalitarianism/democracy, good/evil, politically correct/politically incorrect.  The survivor-the Jew- found himself compelled to work with two sole options: to live or to die. The mission of the perpetrator consists in destroying  life and known social and institutional forms and supplant them  with an authoritarian exercise of power based on the extermination of the Other. How could a survivor  transfer to a position of independence and interdependence (complete respect for the Other) without giving in to the temptation of becoming in turn a perpetrator? Luis Vicente Leon [3], Venezuelan journalist wrote that the challenge of the fight for democracy does not consist only in the strengthening of institutional mechanisms associated with the concept of governability but in the eradication of the feelings of anguish, frustration, fright and lack of confidence that are installed in the collective psyche when the checks and balances of a  Constitutional  State fail.
 
The challenge of those Jews and Arabs that traveled to Auschwitz was not to overcome discrimination or deepen into the governability in Israel, but to make possible the access to the circle of well being and inter-dependence studied by de Vries. 

The only important revolution is an internal revolution, the road back to oneself, the road that leads to exploring less known zones of our conscience: the radical vulnerability of our existence and our independent nature. The acceptance of the Other