The Mothers of Srebrenica undoubtedly need a new public relations advisor. On Wednesday, March 4, 2009, in Srebrenica, before an audience of local people, victims and representatives of the media, the Dutch NGO Srebrenica Historical Project announced its suit against the UN and Holland for failing to protect Serbian and non-Muslim civilians in the region of Srebrenica during the 1992—1995 conflict. Shortly thereafter, the Tuzla organization called Mothers of Srebrenica and Zepa distributed a public statement according to which its members were “bitter.” The following reason is given for their bitterness:
         “This is the way Serbs are trying to minimize the genocide that had been committed over the Bosniaks in Srebrenica, while turning criminals into victims. The name of the organization which prepared that nebulous lawsuit [Srebrenica Historical Project] speaks for itself,” as reported by Fena and BH Telekom news agencies on 6 March 2009. [PDF - 208 KB]

         According to the agencies, the Mothers added that the Serbs are using the lawsuit as a device  to misrepresent themselves as a nation under threat, “while also wishing to disguise the murder of 8000 of our barehanded sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers.”
         From the standpoint of common sense and normal psychology, the bitterness of the Mothers of Srebrenica is incomprehensible. At the Srebrenica Historical Project press conference, they were not even mentioned, the loss of their sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers was not disputed, and the massacre of their relatives was not even a subject of discussion.  
         The sole theme of the meeting were Serbian and non-Moslem victims in the region of Srebrenica during the 1992—1995 conflict, which also happens to be subject of the lawsuit that was discussed. Needless to say, that lawsuit was not filed against the Mothers of Srebrenica, but against completely different defendants, which makes the “bitter” and defensive reaction of the Mothers all the more amazing.
         To be precise, the subject of the lawsuit were the losses of “sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers” that were suffered by mothers, children, wives, and sisters of other ethnic groups from the Srebrenica area. Is it possible that the Mothers of Srebrenica are incapable of empathizing with the pain and suffering of other mothers? Is it possible that one mother would be unable to understand another and that she would disregard another mother’s pain and loss only because they are separated by an ethnic or religious barrier?
         Based on the factual material which supports the lawsuit of Srebrenica Historical Project, it is clear that the issue is not an “attempt” but an incontrovertibly demonstrated fact that non-Moslems—which for practical demographic reasons means mostly Serbs, although there were also Croats and Macedonians—were indeed an ethnicity under threat in and around Srebrenica through most of the conflict in that region. By the way, it may be assumed that the Mothers of Srebrenica were in the area at the time and were therefore in a position to observe, or at least to learn from their menfolk, about the destructive attacks and torching of nearby villages inhabited by their Serbian neighbors, as well as about the mass killings and atrocities committed against them. They might therefore be asked to answer the following questions: did they ever react to that information at the time they received it, and how? Did they use that opportunity to warn their sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers, that their treatment of non-Muslim fellow citizens was a violation  of the criminal code of Bosnia and Hercegovina, that it was a mockery of the values and precepts of the Islamic faith, and that it was, finally, also a serious crime under the internationally accepted rules and customs of war? If before the Tribunal at the Hague the surviving culprits have enjoyed impunity for their acts that was not because there was insufficient evidence to convict them, but for purely political reasons.
         It appears that the Mothers of Srebrenica are afflicted with the same sort of moral selectivity syndrome as their probable mentor, Haris Silajdzic. We recall Silajdzic’s coldhearted response to BBC’s Hard Talk host Stephen Sackur’s insistent questions during the program on July 28 of last year: “Would you acknowledge and would you say that perhaps it is time for Muslims also to account for crimes…” To which, without blinking an eye, Silajdzic responded: “Oh, this would be equalization, which would be wrong…”
         Really? We were actually under the impression that in death all people were equal. Perhaps we are mistaken. According to the new moral doctrine of Haris Silajdzic and the Mothers of Srebrenica, which evidently draws its inspiration from Orwell rather than from the Holy K’uran, some victims are more equal than others.
        The hasty and miscalculated reaction of the Mothers of Srebrenica to a lawsuit that has nothing to do with them, and has no conceivable relation to their raison d’etre, shows none of the nuanced propaganda subtlety which has characterized their conduct in the past. They have shot themselves in the foot. There will now be many the world over who will, with good reason perhaps, ask themselves: why are the Mothers of Srebrenica so keen that an essential aspect of the Srebrenica story continues to be kept under wraps? Why do they see the affirmation of Serbian victims, and the effort to make their suffering the subject of an official finding by a foreign court, as equal to the negation of their own? Why do the Mothers of Srebrenica find it so arduously difficult to act properly as who they are supposed to be—simply mothers, and to acknowledge with empathy the suffering of other mothers who have had to go through the same hell as they?
         All significant players from the local Moslem community were heartily invited to attend the Srebrenica press conference. Sad to say, not a single one of them actually showed up. When the conference organizers noticed that, in order to make sure that the proceedings would not be one-sided and monoethnic, they invited law school students from Sarajevo who attend classes in Srebrenica to join. Fortunately, those young people did have the courage to come. Because there is virtually no communication or information flow between the ethnic communities, they were initially skeptical at the thought that any innocent Serb might have suffered. In the beginning, the expression on their faces was noticeably derisive and reflected disbelief in what they were hearing. But as things progressed, and when Serbian victims got up to share their stories, the expression on the faces of those young Moslems became clearly more intense and serious.
          It is difficult to say what they took with them and what impression listening to the other side might have made on them, although as future lawyers for them it could only have been a useful and educational experience. It is a pity that their elders had refused to follow their childrens’ example.  They made a huge mistake by staying away, and all for not having the vision and the courage to hear an alternative interpretation of a very important event just because it did not fit in with their preconceived notions.