Noam Chomsky, Efraim Zuroff: No genocide in Srebrenica

EPHRAIM ZUROF

One of the world's most famous Nazi hunters, Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center from Israel, says that it is absurd to compare the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda and the crimes in Srebrenica.

In a telephone statement for "Politica", he repeated several times that it is not the same and that it is terrible to make such comparisons.

"I wish the Nazis had sheltered Jewish women and children before their bloody campaign, instead of killing them, but that didn't happen, as we know. Rwanda and the Holocaust are not the same either, although the crimes that took place in Rwanda are much more similar to the Holocaust than what happened in Srebrenica. But, again, it's not the same. "First of all, neither Rwanda nor Srebrenica was an industrial mass killing like the one committed in the Holocaust," Zuroff points out.

When asked how he evaluates the part of the resolution that condemns any denial of the genocide in Srebrenica, Zurof replied that he is not sure that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide.

"As far as I know, what happened there is not a description or a definition of genocide." I think the decision to call it genocide was made for political reasons. Obviously, a tragedy happened, innocent people lost their lives and their memory should be preserved," Zuroff said.

He adds that political reasons also prevailed when it was necessary to take a position towards suffering on a huge scale in Rwanda, where around 800,000 members of the Tutsi minority were killed from April to June 1994.

"Even though it was genocide, Bill Clinton didn't want to call it genocide for political reasons because he didn't want to be forced to do something about it," Zuroff said.

THE MOST FAMOUS NAZI HUNTERS: There was no genocide in Srebrenica!

NOAM CHOMSKY

One of the greatest intellectuals in the world, philosopher, historian, writer and dissident, Noam Chomsky, spoke many times about Srebrenica. In a program broadcast on TV BH1 in January 2006, he said:

"I don't like the way the word genocide has been used in the past few years. I prefer to leave the use of the word for its original purpose, especially when it comes to the Holocaust and in other cases of true destruction on a large scale aimed at the destruction of a people. I, for example, also used the term genocide for Rwanda, but I did not use it for the crimes in East Timor at the same time where 200,000 people were killed. 1/3, 1/4 of the population was wiped out with the support of the USA, Britain and France, but for that and for some other terrible massacres that happened, I also would not use the word genocide. Srebrenica is nowhere near those proportions. In the same way, I would not say "genocide" for the crimes in El Salvador that have been going on for years and where 10 thousand people suffered... It simply cheapens the importance of that term..."

"I will repeat what I have already said. The term genocide was originally created to denote crimes, specifically the crimes of the Holocaust and the mass slaughter of Jews, i.e. Roma, Gypsies, in an effort to completely wipe them out. And I think it is appropriate to use it for other large slaughters of various kinds, for example the one that happened in Rwanda at the same time as the wars in the Balkans. I know, as I already mentioned, that in recent years the term genocide has been used in different ways. It is used for large-scale killing by the enemy. If people want to use that word like that then fine, but in that case, we need a new word to replace the old word «genocide». I personally would prefer to keep the original word in its original meaning, but that is simply a matter of terminology. I don't think "genocide" is an appropriate term for large-scale enemy killing. We don't use it for our crimes either, even if they are on a larger scale."