SECOND GENERATION L O S  A N G E LES Sons and Daughters of Jewish Holocaust Survivors email: 2ndGen@imeg.com

         As the situation in Kosovo deteriorates daily, with errors from "our" side and atrocities exposed from the "other" side, we begin to hear complaints by the naysayers who question our role in the Balkan conflict. One of my colleagues at UCLA recently complained that the world was now witnessing an unopposed dictatorship by NATO, exerting the will of the United States-led alliance on the sovereignty of a recognized nation. And the liberal media, in particular, has had issues with militarily intervention which may yield no favorable solution.
         Certainly, there are several problematic areas regarding the involvement of the alliance in this historically volatile area, and excessive parallels to the Shoah may actually undermine a rational analysis of the campaign.
         Firstly, the conflict is European, and should be addressed by the European community forcefully. Unfortunately, the European community does not have a history of supporting the concept of multi-culturalism. When the remnants of Tito's Yugoslavia broke up at the beginning of the decade, Germany, among other nations, quickly recognized the sovereignty of Slovenia and Croatia, making the possibility of re-union impossible. As each culturally homogeneous province broke away from the former Yugoslavia, each new state fulfilled, in part, nineteenth century aspirations for nationalistic entities. But in Southeastern Europe, peoples of different cultural and religious beliefs do inhabit proximate locales, so the ethnically homogeneous state is an unachievable, and, from our perspective, an undesirable goal. When the Bosnian civil war finally came to full force, it was too late to hope to resuscitate a multicultural state, except under duress, which is the situation now in place.
         A second dilemma is the nature of the Kosovo conflict itself. Is it purely the result of an "Ethnic Cleansing" campaign by the Serbs, themselves victims of eugenic policies. If it is, we, as the Sons and Daughters of Jewish Holocaust Survivors should rightly be enraged, and engaged in actively supporting anything that would stop the process of dislocation, deprivation, and death which has been forced on the Kosovars. But if there is an element of civil war against an entity that sought to "liberate" Kosovo from the rump nation of Yugoslavia, we might be more circumspect in our approach.
         Thirdly, we do choose our battles inconsistently. The images of fleeing refugees, burnt villages, mass graves, homeless women, and orphans engenders a visceral response, a deep horror for it is so reminiscent of what our families went through. No doubt a response from the world community in support of these innocents is warranted. But witness our muted response in Cambodia, Kurdistan, or more recently in Rwanda. Second Generation invited a speaker from Rwanda to present to us the details of the crisis in Central Africa. I am sorry to say that this excellent, and emotional presentation, was attended by less than a dozen of us. And we were similar to the rest of the country which is not particularly interested in atrocities in Asia, Africa, and the Americas- either the slaughter involves people too different from us, or, it comes too close to home (consider the struggle of indigenous peoples on this continent, and their efforts at restitution).
         Finally, there is the dilemma of how to get out. How does one force tolerance? How does one safely guarantee return? These questions have not been adequately answered for any of the great civilian dislocations of the twentieth century. Is it reasonable to assume that the Kosovars could ever safely return to a restructured Yugoslavia, without a standing NATO, or international police force. Our people certainly could not return to Europe. No amount of allied troops could safely guarantee our families' return to their towns and cities. And yet, it is in the interest of all of us to end the concept of the perpetual refugee. Finally at the end of the twentieth century, we should address battles against civilians.
         The only saving grace bestowed on this somewhat clumsy, partial effort in the Balkans is that it represents a repudiation of the principle of appeasement, and does so by force of arms rather than embargoes or boycotts. A lesson learned after a century of large scale genocides, from 1915 to the present, has impressed some that the human community must examine each other's actions closely, and express revulsion at grave inequities. The mechanism as to how we express this revulsion is embryonic. The "surgical strike", the measured military response, the weight of public opinion, and our words may not be the formula for a brisk and successful response. But there is the kernel of a response, and for the survivors among us, it must be gratifying to see some measure of action. I know how my father views favorably the imprisonment of Augusto Pinochet in the UK; I personally am not sure about the legal aspects. But for one who suffered under dictatorship, payback seems to be a worthwhile punishment that may, only may, teach a lesson.
         For those who traffic in ethnic hatred, I am not sure that the NATO response will be any deterrent. For the suffering, I am not sure it will bring them back safely to their homes. But for us, the descendents of the violated, it demonstrates a brotherhood of concern for the rights of the minority, and a severe challenge to those who would believe in the "ethnically pure" state.

         -Gary Schiller, M.D.

Previous Newsletters

View our Upcoming Events

View our News Bulletins

Email Second Generation

Return to 2G Home

Click Here to visit BREMIT