We keep hearing from government officials including those of the criminal enterprise known as the State Department that Kosovo is a “unique” case, because of the “special circumstances” surrounding the dissolution of Yugoslavia and so on. For anyone requiring a de-coder of our government’s language concerning anything Serb-related, those “special circumstnaces” are: Since in every chapter of the break-up of Yugoslavia, the Serbs got screwed, it’s important to stay consistent. The ’special circumstances’ of Yugoslavia’s breakup have to do with the golden rule governing Western machinations in the Balkans that I’ve frequently mentioned: The Serbs Lose. That’s the “special circumstances”. So because of these special circumstances, when it comes to Kosovo the Serbs likewise must lose — including the majority-Serb Northern Mitrovica which isn’t being “allowed” by the U.S. to stay with Serbia. Here is an apt illustration, via a June 1993 letter-to-the-editor in the Jerusalem Post by a Samuel Hassid of Haifa, of the fact that what applies to all of humanity does not apply to Serbs. Note how little has changed:

…A) Is there any argument that can justify the right of Bosnia to secede from Yugoslavia, but deny the same right to the Bosnian Serbs — one third of Bosnia’s population? Why is the Serb Bosnian parliament “self-styled,” “self-proclaimed”, “tribal” or “so-called,” yet these terms are not applied to the parliaments of the seceding republics?

Let Mr. Vance [of the Vance-Owen precursor to the Dayton accords] be reminded that, when Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, West Virginia was allowed to secede from Virginia. Let Lord Owen be reminded that when Ireland seceded from the UK in the early Twenties, Northern Ireland’s six provinces decided to remain in the UK, and that, in 1948, Lord Mountbatten divided the State of Bengal between India and Pakistan, against the objections of the Moslem leadership.

B) What makes the leaders of Serbia “ex-communists,” whereas the same attribute is not applied to leaders of other ex-Yugoslav republics, even though they belonged to the Communist Party of ex-Yugoslavia?

C) What Serb atrocities cannot be measured against those committed by the Croat and Moslem “allies” against each other, not to speak of the Bosnian Serb enemy? How can one condemn the Serbs for civilian casualties caused by artillery fire against enemy positions, yet support air attacks by the allies, though these are likely to cause much more of what they call “collateral damage,” i.e. civilian casualties?

D) Ethnic cleansing is barbaric and criminal, but what is the reason that one million Serbs have left their homes in Croatia and Bosnia? Why do some Western media talk of Bosnian refugees, but Serb “evacuees” — obviously implying that some have a lesser claim to humanity than others?

E) You claim that the Bosnian Serbs are encouraged by world inaction. The truth is that nowhere in the world — except for Kuwait…are the great powers so massively involved as in Bosnia….The ex-UN commander in Bosnia, General MacKenzie, blames the great powers for raising expectations of intervention, encouraging the Moslems to refuse even to talk with their Serb fellow citizens.

– Samuel Hassid, Haifa

On a related note, and this may ring familiar to anyone following Palestinian-Israeli news, the language that is used in reporting on Serbs as opposed to their Bosnian, Croatian, Albanian and other haters is very specific. While what the latter say is reported credulously as fact, anything coming from the Serbian side comes out as “The Serbs claim…”, “The Serbs believe…”; “The Serbs have accused…”

Note the language of this sentence in a Reuters article that appeared two months after 9/11: “Some Serb politicians have accused Muslim former president Alija Izetbegovic of wartime contacts with bin Laden associates.”

In fact, British journalist Eve-Ann Prentice, who died a few months ago from cancer, testified at the Milosevic trial in February 2006 that while waiting for an interview with President Izetbegovic at his offices in November 1994, she had observed Osama bin Laden passing through for a meeting with the president. Hague judge Patrick Robinson quickly switched off her microphone before she could finish her testimony.

Interestingly, the dateline of the Reuters article is from a Bosnian town by the name of Gornja Maoca, which I mentioned just this week as having been the locus of the 2005 bomb plot against world leaders attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Again, that plot was disrupted thanks to Bosnian-Serb intelligence, no doubt following up on some wild Serbian “claims.”

In another example, as a Serbian terror expert, Darko Trifunovic and his findings can only be considered “Serbian claims”, though this AKI article cites “a report in the Italian Corriere della Sera daily [that] seems to lend support to Trifunovic’s claim that Islamic extremists are operating in the Balkans.” The piece also confirms the al Qaeda-Bosnia connections that are otherwise only ever attributed to “Serbian claims”, much like the now apparent realities of the Green Corridor and Greater Albania, heretofore labeled “Serbian myths” and “Serbian propaganda”.

As always, the West prefers Islamic propaganda to Serbian “propaganda”, and this is what drives our Kosovo policy, which swallows and propagates the Muslim-spun notion of that province’s “special circumstances.” And here we arrive at the true meaning of Islamophobia. For that is what dictates Western policy.

As I’ve written before, “phobia” implies an irrational fear, but there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. It is the most rational fear since the dawn of man. But this fear becomes pathological when our leaders prematurely hand over our society before the Muslims have even taken over, accelerating the pace of that takeover. It’s interesting that Muslim leaders, spokesmen and defenders don’t publicly recognize such maneuvers for the Islamophobic cowering that they are. And of course that’s because it’s the ‘correct’ kind of Islamophobia for their Western yes men to display; it is the Islamophobia of dhimmis. Ironically, it’s those who dare to stand up to Islam’s incursions who are labeled Islamophobes.

Our pro-Muslim Islamophobia has led us to something truly irrational — Serbophobia. Serbophobia is our bizarre hatred and demonization of Serbs, at whose expense we manifest our fear of Muslims. But the term is actually a misnomer, since no fear is involved. It’s precisely a lack of fear of Serbs, who have only ever been the opposite of a threat to Americans, that allows us to project our fears of Muslims onto them. No one and nothing that is truly evil and worth fearing is treated as dismissively as we treat the Serbs.

Let that be the guide by which to discern whom our leaders fear, and whom they do not. It will help determine who is evil and should be considered the enemy.

To close, here is an example of the knee-slapping Serbophobia promised in the title of the post, from a Nov. 1998 London Times article by former U.N. military commander in Bosnia Sir Michael Rose, in which he writes about a visit by Clinton-appointed former Supreme Allied commander for Europe, Gen. John Galvin:

We were escorted by a woman from the US Embassy as we flew towards Tusla. She pointed at all the destroyed villages and exclaimed excitedly ‘Look at what the criminal Serbs have done’. In fact they were Bosnian Croat villages ethnically cleansed by the Muslims…Later (we) visited Mostar where the Croats had virtually destroyed the Muslim sector. The US official cried: ‘Well at least this was done by the criminal Serbs.’ The woman burst into tears when it was pointed out that the Croats had been to blame.

Note: The fact that Croatian shelling ultimately destroyed the Mostar Bridge didn’t prevent the Christian Science Monitor from reporting that it was the Serbs, as a contact at the Serbian embassy in Tel-Aviv recalled:

When I was in Washington D.C., the breakup of Yugoslavia started, and from the very first moments, the media in general was biased. I mentioned Christian Science Monitor, when the bridge on Neretva, in Mostar BiH [Bosnia-Hercegovina], the very old bridge, centuries and centuries old was torn down by Croatian forces and it was well known that they have done it. But at the time, CSM [The Monitor] shows the picture of the torn bridge with big letters ‘Serbian forces bombed the bridge.’ The correction was made, few days later, somewhere in the corner of the paper on the last pages, stating the mistake, that it wasn’t Serbs but Croats. Nevertheless, as we all know, the first information is always remembered and stays in the memory.