source: en.wikipedia.org |
It would not be the
first time a newspaper with agenda puts words in people’s mouth to “set the
mood” for furthering that agenda. However, Stuart Eizenstat is not just anybody. Before he was a lobbyist for Covington and Burling and a senior
strategist for APCO Worldwide communications consultancy firm, Eizenstat was,
among other things, the U.S. Ambassador to the EU (1993-1996). In this
capacity, he served as a kind of a Holocaust compensation czar, i.e. he was one of the
foremost agents of what Norman Finkelstein famously branded “the Holocaust industry.’’ Namely, Eizenstat went after selected European countries,
beginning with Switzerland, who ostensibly profited from the persecution of
Jews. With Switzerland in particular, Eizenstat negotiated a $1.5 billion payout
to Jewish organizations that represented victims. Similar efforts against countries
like Poland and Belarus appear to be ongoing.
I will not get into
Finkelstein’s criticism; you can check The Holocaust Industry online. I can’t even say that I am against the shakedown
where it is proven to be warranted, although there is a question of reverse injustice. This mini highlight reel of Eizenstat’s
career should just serve as the backdrop for his motivation for the Haaretz
statement. It is neither unexpected nor unusual for Eizenstat to engage in such
rhetoric and it is almost certain that Eizenstat did point the finger at
Croatia and Serbia as potential targets for a restitution shakedown and that
Haaretz dutifully relayed it. Even outside the official capacity, Eizenstat is
continuing his mission; if there are more countries to shake down, the agenda
is set and he is on top of it. Eizenstat is lining up targets, that’s all. But
to line Serbia up next to Croatia is not only outrageous, but very devious on
his part.
Forget about the fact
that Serbia - the political entity - did not exist during the Holocaust even as
a German puppet, but as a divided, occupied and ever-restless region whose
guerrilla brigades tied up in fighting a disproportionate number of Nazi troops
that would otherwise be adding to the German power at Stalingrad. Forget about
the fact that the largest part of what is Serbia today was under direct
occupation of Wehrmacht. Forget about the fact that Srem was annexed to the
Independent State of Croatia; that Bačka was annexed to Nazi ally Hungary; that
Banat was under a direct control of the Volksdeutsche,
its German minority; that Kosovo and Metohia were under the fascist Albania and
that southern parts, today’s Macedonia, were annexed to Nazi ally Bulgaria. Forget
about the facts that Serbia accepted Jewish refugees prior to the Nazi occupation,
at the time when FDR was turning away from the U.S. coast the ships with
fleeing Jews and when American companies were enjoying great business
relationships with Adolf Hitler’s government. Historical findings and analyses cemented
the notion that Serbs were the primary victims of genocide on the territory of
Kingdom of Yugoslavia and that Serbia, which did not exist as a separate
political entity since 1918, could not be held responsible for crimes against
Jews committed by German, Croat, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Albanian fascists on
its territory at the time these same occupiers committed the same horrible
crimes against the Serbs. How could the occupied Serbia be responsible for
crimes against Jews when it didn’t even possess so much power to prevent the
German policy of executing 100 Serbian civilians for every German soldier
killed by the Serbian anti-fascist guerrilla on its territory? Germany had
allies and puppets; Serbia was neither. Serbia was a German, Croat, Hungarian,
Bulgarian and Albanian-occupied, torn up land with citizens bleeding and dying without
discrimination. The Semlin death camp, the largest death camp in the territory that is Serbia today was a Croat-run camp, in the Croat-occupied Srem, to which Serbs, Jews and Roma alike were brought to die.
source: rts.rs |
Eizenstat’s “advice” to
the European Union is a matter of policy that he and his cause can utilize, it
is not about history. However, without revising history, the policy he proposed
can neither be implemented nor can the Jewish organizations utilize it for
their ends. Unfortunately, policymakers that ostensibly aim to rectify past
injustices rarely consult historians in good faith, other than those who are
willing to manufacture “findings” in service of the set agenda. To hold Serbia
responsible for Holocaust, the policymakers Eizenstat tries to influence have
to undertake a serious revision of history of the World War II. Revising
history in any way that paves the road for holding Serbia responsible for
Holocaust would mean equating victims and the perpetrators. Such a revision would
not only leave Serbia open for a shakedown; it would unjustly
negate the historical role Serbia and the Serbs played in the anti-fascist
struggle, including the salvation of fleeing Jews at the time it was still
possible to do. It would negate the fact that the first uprising against Hitler's rule in the occupied Europe was started in Serbia and by the Serbian Royalists of general Draža Mihailović. It would open a Pandora’s box of radical misinterpretations
that would further strain Serbian wits and deeper distort the consciousness about
the just struggle Serbs embarked on in service of anti-fascism and freedom.
George
Orwell famously wrote in 1984: “Who
controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the
past.” A conscious and forward-looking Serb cannot afford any further revision
of the Serbian history by self-serving agents of foreign interests consistently
seeking leverage to undermine Serbian defenses or simply to increase their own
gains, even if those gains are tied to a righteous cause on some level, as is
Eizenstat’s motivation. Eizenstat is justified to seek revenge against
the injustice committed against his Jewish brethren and he has no obligation to
feel sympathy towards the Swiss or the Croats, if he feels their governments
had a hand in it. But by going after the nations that suffered under the same fate
as his Jews, Eizenstat’s cause loses the high moral
ground it operates on. Finkelstein would negate the existence of the high moral
ground in the first place, but I will not. To each his own.
Holding
Serbs responsible for Holocaust opens a door into future in which anyone,
without exceptions, can be held responsible for the World War II genocides
committed against Jews, Serbs, Russians, Poles, Roma and every other European
and non-European people. Once you equate victims and perpetrators, anyone can
fall into either group and no one can monopolize either group.