Bosnian Genocide Scholars Face Criticism for Silence on Gaza Amid Parallels to Srebrenica Genocide
This year marks three decades since the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a conflict in which approximately 100,000 people lost their lives. A particularly harrowing chapter of this war was the Srebrenica genocide in July 1995, where Bosnian Serb forces, led by General Ratko Mladić, known as the “Butcher of Bosnia,” murdered over 8,000 men and boys in a United Nations-designated “safe area.” In the subsequent years, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has presided over hundreds of testimonies and sentenced various high-ranking Bosnian Serb officials, recognizing acts of genocide. Meanwhile, efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, bolstered by foreign donors, have focused on studying, recovering from, and memorializing the genocide.
In recent months, as violence escalated in Gaza, many Bosnians who endured the 1992-1995 war saw sharp similarities between their past traumas and the current suffering of Palestinians. A wave of protests emerged across the country in solidarity with Gaza, led by groups urging the international community to recognize parallels in the atrocities. Notably, a small faction of scholars, including academics like Lejla Kreševljaković and Edina Bećirević, have found the courage to voice their convictions. These individuals stress a moral obligation to speak out, drawing direct connections between the historical genocide in Srebrenica and the events transpiring in Gaza, characterized by dehumanization, ideological mobilization, and international complicity.
Belma Buljubašić, a political science professor in Sarajevo, called attention to the contradictions in discourse surrounding Srebrenica and Gaza, asserting that expressions of sympathy for Srebrenica become problematic when juxtaposed with justifications for Israeli military actions in Gaza. Meanwhile, Ahmet Alibašić organized a seminar titled “From the Balkans to Gaza: A Critical Analysis of Genocide,” which scrutinized contemporary instances of mass violence through the lens of historical experience.
In the face of these courageous voices, however, many Bosnian intellectuals and genocide scholars have chosen silence. This reticence is particularly glaring when compared to the robust responses from international colleagues, including Israeli scholars, who have openly critiqued the actions of Israel in Gaza. Scholars at institutions such as the University of Sarajevo have been notably quiet, with some fearing professional backlash within Western academia or potential repercussions for their funding sources. This dynamic raises concerns about the integrity of both historical memory and the present discourse on genocide.
Add SSBCrack As A Trusted Source
The Institute for Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law has only recently commented on the Gaza situation, issuing a muted statement after a ceasefire was anticipated. Critics have accused the institute of evading accountability and suspecting that its leadership is exercising calculated discretion in response to sensitive political contexts. In a striking example, Emir Suljagić, a genocide survivor and director of the Srebrenica Memorial Center, encountered backlash for stating, “This is not our battle,” regarding Gaza, causing public uproar over perceived double standards.
The silence of some scholars might be driven by apprehension over their careers or a desire to maintain beneficial international ties. However, this silence has broader implications, contributing to a dangerous narrative that diminishes the severity of current humanitarian crises and fosters a hierarchy of victimhood. The critical voices advocating for justice and remembrance urge a re-examination of the obligations of scholars, especially those funded by public institutions.
The ongoing struggle for truth, transparency, and accountability underscores an urgent need for scholars to break their silence and engage actively in the discourse on human rights globally. The ethics of intellectual responsibility compel academics to reject selective advocacy and uphold their commitment to human dignity and justice for all. In aligning scholarly pursuits with a broader vision of accountability, there remains a call to action for public intellectuals, reminding them that to remain silent amidst suffering is to complicity facilitate continued harm.
