November 04th 2012 11:49:59 PM
******See UPDATE at bottom******
First, thank you to the eight Serbs who have offered me moral support over the scarf kerfuffle (scarfuffle?). Other than that, it’s been conspicuously but predictably quiet around here since I posted my objection to the Czech activist wearing the kaffir-killer scarf in his confrontation with Albright.
As I wrote to Liz when I asked her to circulate the item even if it didn’t feel good:
It’s important that people understand there was a problem with the otherwise refreshing Albright video. It’s important that the point be made by me, a pro-Serb person, so that it’s not made in a critical and ignorant way by our opponents — particularly the conservatives who don’t get my Serb thing [since that’s who would object]. (They’ll easily say: “See? This is who’s in Gorin’s camp — pro-Palestinians.”)
Absolutely no one has addressed what Dvorak was wearing around his neck for the Albright confrontation.
Serbs have been so isolated, alienated, ostracized, and stigmatized by the world that, understandably, they wouldn’t nitpick when some rare sympathy comes along. That’s why I had to.
Nebojsa Malic at the Gray Falcon blog had an good blog post about the Albright confrontation and the origins of her anti-Serbism, which have nothing to do with her being Jewish. Too many Serbs point to her Jewish blood, along with that of other self-loathing “Jews” who went after the Serbs, such as Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark. (Holbrooke was some sort of Protestant even if he was born to once Jewish parents, and Clark — whose father he told us was Jewish only in time for the 2004 campaign — got into trouble for an anti-Semitic reference in 2008 or so (”the New York money people”).
As Nebojsa explained in an email:
They are Jewish as much as Alija Izetbegovic was a Serb. By genetic heritage, sure, but in every other respect a complete antithesis. Self-loathing apostates all, who became militant to compensate for their own emptiness of soul.
The scarf was inappropriate, period.
Albright’s Jewish roots have already caused a fair bit of antisemitism among the Serbs, but few bother to remember that her father became a Catholic and chose to STAY one later. That might explain her hatred of Serbs, actually - and makes the scarf doubly stupid.
I’m going to excerpt some comments under Nebojsa’s blog, and my responses to them.
During my visits in Kosovo I began to realize there is a difference in attitudes of Kosovo Serbs and Serbs abroad. Kosovo Serbs sometimes compare their own situation with that of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Of course, this does not mean that the Serbs in Kosovo are somehow pro-Islamic, antisemitic, etc. I think the same applies to Dvořák. Gorin’s reaction have severely disappointed me.
Gray Falcon said:
Visual symbols do tend to provoke visceral reactions, though. Julia asks how we’d react if Dvořák had worn a checkerboard scarf, or a double-eagle one. She’s got every right to be bothered by it.
That said, the scarf isn’t the story here, though it is a story. Personally, I think the Palestinian analogy is misplaced. I always thought life in Thacistan would be comparable to the life of a Jew living under Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah: nasty, brutish and short.
Julia Gorin said:
Friend from Prague,
Sorry to “severely disappoint” you. I knew I’d lose some friends by pointing out what was problematic about the otherwise commendable confrontation.
Thanks, Nebojsa, for backing me up. Michael Pravica and Michael Djordjevic have done the same. As I explained to a Serb reader who was mystified that I was fixating on the scarf when the big picture is Albright’s crimes against the Serbs: As it is, the world misses the big picture and it’s very hard to get people to see it. So why obscure the big picture further, and confuse people more? This is the damning, consistent pattern in our efforts: in trying to straighten people out, we confuse further. I’ve done it myself accidentally.
As for the Kosovo Serbs seeing themselves as Palestinians, I’m devastated to hear this. The fact that Friend from Prague mentions it as if pointing out a distinction between this and being pro-Arab, that fails.
Because it means the Kosovo Serbs view the Palestinians as the victims. Comparing themselves to the Arabs indirectly backs up the argument made by two ignorant Jewish writers in 2010, Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin and the female Miami Herald columnist he was quoting when he wrote how “the Kosovars”–surrounded by hostile Slav nations–are like the Israelis surrounded by hostile Arab nations.
In fact, Nebojsa has it right. The Kosovo Serbs are the Jews surrounded by the Muslims. The fact that there is a literal dimension to this comparison–the Albanians are indeed mostly Muslim–makes it even easier to see the right parallel.
Still, I won’t hold this against the Kosovo Serbs. I know how stupid and ignorant the average American is, so I’m not going to raise my standards for average peasants. They have bigger problems than to keep historical analogies straight. Problems that make it very hard to keep historical analogies straight.
Even if they do go all-out anti-Jew or pro-Muslim, that just makes them like the rest of the ‘Citizens of the World,’ which is still not as bad as the people we backed against them.
But as for you, Friend From Prague, I reciprocate your severe disappointment. I’m a friend of Serbs, and so are you, but clearly you’re no friend of mine.
Sorry for being Jewish. Sorry for being offended at the symbol of my death. Sorry my taking offense offended you. But I can’t just give a shit about Serbs; I have to give a shit about my people too.
I don’t think the Palestinian/Israel analogy is apt.
I think the Serbs are actually more like the Tibetans.
I mean, the Palestinians actually do make life difficult for Israel, and they do try and kill as many Israeli’s as they can. They have Hamas and countless other terrorist organizations, all linked internationally, with the support of foreign governments that even give weapons (cough Iran), and not to mention they have a massive ass lobby in the western world.
Serbs are NOTHING like this.
As for the Jews, well Israel is actually a functional state, and it usually does what it needs to regardless of anyone’s opinion. It has a powerful military, and it has a very organized and wealthy lobby group in western countries, specifically the US.
Again, none of the above could be said of the Serbs.
The only parallel I see between Serbs and Jews or Serbs and Israel is that both face constant Islamic aggression, and demonization in the media.
True, we have common enemies and get common treatment, but Jews actually do something about it, while Serbs don’t, just like the Tibetans.
And just like the Tibetans, everyone ‘knows’ about it but no one actually cares.
That guy who approached that bitch war criminal should of been wearing orange robes, it would of been much more appropriate and honest.
P.S: You’d be surprised how many Serbs actually support the Palestinians. Even in Belgrade. A lot of them simply don’t like the west and see Israel is a western puppet, so they support the Palestinians (and Iran).
…As for the ‘Palestinian’ scarf, they are generally Middle Eastern in origin and its common to wear them in Europe (especially in the UK) for fashion, I even have a few; don’t think of them as having any political statement.
I hate to burst the bubble but Thaci did visit Israel and his campaign manager was an Israeli although I do know Israel worked with the Serbs during the Balkans wars probably for their own interests given Bosnia’s links to Bin Ladin and Iran not to mention Tom Lantos vocal support for Kosovo independence since 90/91.
As for Albright’s ethnicity I don’t think her Catholic or Jewish background has anything to do with her Balkans policy as she is a member of a group of lobbyists promoting Turkish interests in the US that is the 2nd most power after AIPAC who want to make Turkey the regional super power that will deliver Caspian oil and gas through the Balkans….
“The only parallel I see between Serbs and Jews or Serbs and Israel is that both face constant Islamic aggression, and demonization in the media.”
Even that statement isn’t quite accurate, in my opinion. Regarding the aggression, you will have to remind me how many civilians were killed on each side during “Operation Cast Lead”. Also, you may want to recall how many thousands of people were killed in Lebanon in 2006 in response to the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers. The Lebanese infrastructure was turned into rubble and hundreds of thousands of people were misplaced. Therefore, when you talk about aggression, you have to look at the situation from more than one angle.
As to the demonization in the media, I am really not sure which media outlets you are referring to. Even the allegedly anti-Israel BBC is closely surveilled by the Israel Lobby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfw5aLYiq5k (particularly after 27:00)
Somehow I don’t feel that a former AIPAC lobbyist Wolf Blitzer of CNN is prone to becoming too harsh a critic of Israel either and I will not even discuss Fox News.
Another thing I cannot imagine is a Serbian president with any sense of national dignity even being allowed to speak in front of US Congress, let alone receive 29 standing ovations. Was it that Cartoon-Bomb Bibi so appealed to congressmen’s natural sense of justice or was it perhaps that members of congress were under close surveillance by the AIPAC…
As much as it pains me to write this, I have to say that I’m disappointed by Julia’s comments & what IMHO is an overreaction over a scarf.
Julia asks how we’d react if Dvořák had worn a checkerboard scarf, or a double-eagle one?
Well Julia, I’m a Serb who has had family members, relatives, ancestors, etc. butchered by the usual Anti-Serb vermin.
I would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER if Dvořák wore a checkerbosrd scarf, etc., while confronting the evil halfbright.
As we used to say in the military, it’s all about the mission. The BIG PICTURE.
Sometimes it is necessary to put on your adversaries SCARF, uniform, kit, etc., in order to get in close to them to inflict damage. It’s one of the oldest gags in the book.
Btw, I would put on a checkerboard scarf, double eagle one, Gestapo/KGB/Stasi garb or whatever in order to get close to confront halfbright in a New York minute. As the neocons love to say “The ends justifies the means”
The other thing that I didn’t like was this sorry for being Jewish comment. Really???
If I’m against the Israeli Government use of “collective punishment” does that make me Anti-Jew?
So if I was against the vichy Tadic regime, did that make me Anti-Serb?
If I’m against the warmonger Bush/Obama regimes, does that make me Anti-American?
Julia Gorin said:
The keffiyeh is not a political symbol? The Middle Eastern solidarity scarf that was made famous by the father of modern terrorism — Arafat — isn’t a political symbol?
Just because something has become a fashion trend doesn’t mean it’s not political. The fact that this kaffir-killer scarf has become a fad in the West only underscores the sad state of the world, and our mass-suicidal tendencies.
I’m aware that a lot of people who wear the scarf — especially young people — have no clue of its origins (and believe me, that’s a win for the originators). But at least as many people who wear it know exactly what they’re wearing.
Do you think it’s just coincidence that the keffiyeh was on half the necks of the participants of this recent mock trial of Israel:
“A gaggle of approximately 800 anti-Semites rebranded as “anti-Israel” activists, international socialists, and radical feminists descended upon New York City’s historic Cooper Union on October 6-7, 2012 to attend something called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine or RToP. This RToP circus has been conducted in 4 sessions in 4 cities over the past 2 years. They will meet again to present their final “conclusions” in February 2013. If gavels, white wigs, and black robes were absent, keffiyehs and anti-Israel T-shirts took their place.”
Now, the fact that our military folks wear it has an explanation that is multi-fold, and I’ll revisit that when I finally get around to writing my conclusive article on the keffiyeh. I do wonder what the troops first thought — before desensitization set in — when they’d come back from overseas after being shot at by people wearing that scarf, to find it’s become the fashion here. Of course, “rebellious” fashion is nothing new. The fashion world pinpoints the enemy of the West and emulates it. Commie garb was once a fad here too. (And of course, a few years ago commentators were noting the terrorist-like hoodie chic that was being promoted.)
But I assure you, Asteri, there’s a reason that Jewish customers of Urban Outfitters went crazy a few years ago when they saw the scarf being sold there, and Urban Outfitters took it out of stores. But that was back in the innocent days of 2006 or so; by now we’ve all gotten desensitized and say, “What’s the big deal?” — and the thing is sold everywhere. It’s the Boiling Frog Scenario: put a frog in boiling water and it’ll jump out, but put it in warm water and turn the heat up gradually, and it’ll boil to death.
Oh, there was also that Rachael Ray ad in 2008 for Dunkin Donuts: some idiot stylist accessorized the already neckless Ray with that ugly thing. And that too was a big controversy. So its being political is not a matter of opinion, really. Some people know that it is, and others don’t.
As for JACK: What bubble is it that you think you’re bursting by counting Jews doing the wrong thing? Namely: Thaci had a Jewish campaign manager; Lantos was yet another Jewish lawmaker who was pro-independent Kosovo; Thaci visited Israel; Israel helped Serbia but only out of self-interest.
Firstly, how are the for-sale congressman, a Jewish phenomenon? Count all the pro-Albanian-terrorist lawmakers in America and you’ll end up with a lot more non-Jews than Jews, including presidential names like Bush, Clinton, and Obama. And then you can start counting the British, German and French names. As I’ve been explaining to people lately, you’re bringing up the typically corrupt/for-sale, power-focused Jews rather than the ordinary Jews, often Israeli or Serbian, who wrote letters throughout the 90s appealing to Clinton and to fellow Jews about the Serbs. Why don’t you mention Todd Emoff, who helped finance “Judgment”? Instead, you bring up the self-loathing Jews who kiss Muslim ass. Most of them (though not Lantos or Engel) have also worked against Israel.
Now, if we’re counting Jewish professionals who take work regardless of the ethics involved — or just out of pure ignorance of any ethics involved — then I can add to your list. It was an Israeli film company that put together that “Newborn” commercial campaign promoting independent Kosovo in 2009 or so. Should we read significance into that as well? No. But I did chastise them at the time. MOST people are ignorant, and most of them are businesspeople: they do work for whoever hires them.
As for “Thaci visited Israel”: What was supposed to happen? Was he supposed to be barred at the gates? That would have created an international incident. Israel has a hard enough time walking the line between keeping its head low on Kosovo and still being America’s bitch. It certainly wasn’t going to raise the stakes and actually provoke Washington. Nasty Croat leaders have also visited Israel. That’s the dirty, twisted nature of diplomacy. What’s your point?
As for Israel taking the Serb side in the past, I’m not sure that it was 100% out of self-interest, with a zero moral component, especially if you read some troubled quotes from some Israeli officials in the 90s. Or if you bother to notice how FM Liberman is always showing solidarity and concern for Macedonia’s and Serb Republic’s issues and getting in political trouble for doing so. But why don’t you go ahead and show me a selfless state? Or is this another double standard you have for the Jewish State?
Just one of many examples that fly in the face of your dismissing Israel’s pro-Serbism as “self-interest” (to hell with names like Bodansky, Shay, and Nisan, right?), comes from yesterday’s Jerusalem Post:
“…[A] conference of Balkan and Israeli scholars was held in the ancient monastery of the Patriarchate of Pech [in mid-October], under the auspices of His Grace Jovan Culibrk….Speakers from Israel were professor Martin van Creveld, recently of the University of Tel Aviv…and Col. Shaul Shay of the Begin- Sadat Center for Strategic Studies….Prof. van Creveld reiterated his well-published opinion that the wars of the future…would be skirmishes of small, specialized units. He foresaw that the nation-state will not be the only agent of war, as more non-state actors such as Hezbollah or Hamas continue to chip away at the concept of sovereignty worldwide. In light of this, van Creveld proposed Serbia needed no new warplanes but should rather invest in highly mobile armies capable of small-scale, ground-based conflicts in the diverse terrain of the Balkans.”
Then you just couldn’t resist mentioning that “all-powerful” Jewish lobby AIPAC when bringing up the Turkish lobby which, according to you, is in second place for “powerfulness.”
I’m curious how “most powerful lobby” is measured. Perhaps you’re right, but I genuinely don’t know how people measure when they say this. Surely oil lobbies, Wall St. lobbies, nurses’ lobbies and others are just as “powerful,” no? What I do know is that AIPAC gives money to no politician, and that while the countless Muslim and Arab and oil lobbies have the ultimate goal of world domination, the Jewish lobby has the ultimate goal of survival. The survival of a single Jewish state the size of Maryland. So why all this nefariousness is popularly attributed to AIPAC in particular, and why it always has to be mentioned, is mystifying to me. And, gee, that Jewish Lobby is so “powerful” that not only is Israel less popular than ever, but it’s gotten Washington to promote Islam at home and throughout the world.
Which brings me to SUVOROV. Suvorov, you mention “the allegedly anti-Israel BBC” and try to show that it’s NOT anti-Israel by saying that the Jews keep an eye on it? How does that make any sense? Just because I keep an eye on my dog to make sure he doesn’t poop in the house doesn’t mean he doesn’t poop in the house. This is a ridiculous conversation to be having.
Usually when someone ‘doesn’t see’ the anti-Israel bias in the media, it’s because he’s anti-Israel. Your comment leaves no doubt.
SENAD, thank you for your comment. Thank you for seeing the obvious while so many others purposely confuse themselves. And thank you for seeming disturbed by your observation that more and more Serbs are pro-Palestinian. They certainly know how to make it easy for the American “intelligentsia” to target or dismiss them, don’t they?
It’s very sad, not only for the obvious historical reasons, but also because the U.S., which Serbs have reason to dislike, has been the opposite of a “friend” to Israel. It remains true only in a technical sense. Hurting Israel doesn’t hurt America. The U.S. will sell Israel down the river quicker than the U.S. sold itself down the river.
MEEZER, you don’t know WHAT’S going on at all. First, I didn’t say “how would Serbs feel if DVORAK approached ALBRIGHT in an Ustasha or Albanian flag.” Can you read? I brought up the wearing of those symbols in general and how they make their victims feel. Instead, you go on to make up a fantasy that the purpose of putting on such scarves for such a confrontation as in the bookstore is “Sometimes it is necessary to put on your adversaries SCARF, uniform, kit, etc., in order to get in close to them to inflict damage. It’s one of the oldest gags in the book…I would put on a checkerboard scarf, double eagle one, Gestapo/KGB/Stasi garb or whatever in order to get close to confront halfbright in a New York minute.”
You’re projecting these motives onto Dvorak? Let me remind you that I’M the one who reminded everyone that Albright was pro-Palestinian/pro-Muslim and therefore the scarf made no sense coming from a pro-Serb, given that Serbs were victims of Albright’s Muslim-love too. I can promise you that Dvorak doesn’t associate that symbol with her and wasn’t being all sneaky to ‘get close’ to Albright. Though I do buy the military rationale for wearing it, which you put forth, and that’s an aspect of my future keffiyeh blog, but even the military wearing it is a multi-fold explanation. (Sometimes our troops take it off the neck of a ‘kill’ and wear it as a trophy, and other times the reasons get even more complex.)
As for your bringing up the seemingly legitimate analogies to being against this government or that government (anti-Tadic, anti-Obama), to explain being critical of Israel without being anti-Jew, this would be true except for one nagging aspect. You say you’re against “collective punishment,” which is how you describe the consequences of pervasive, prevalent Palestinian murderousness. But so far, no one has come up with solutions for how Israel can more surgically prevent what Palestinians like to do to Jews. Do you have some ideas you’d like to put forward? Maybe you’re an expert and have some innovations for us? Israel does hire consultants to deal with this problem, so it’s not like you’re morally ahead of them. Or maybe you’re just another in the chorus of “Israel critics” when it has a reaction to violent action — when it employs the imperfect, sometimes ham-fisted, means it’s come up with so far to limit Jewish deaths. If Arabs didn’t spend their lives innovating on Jew-killing, Israel wouldn’t give you a reason to “criticize” it. But it seems like the big picture, and big humanitarian issue, for you here is not loss of Jewish life, but inconvenience of Arab life. Twisted. And thanks a lot. Never mind the young Israelis who risk their lives — and lose them — trying to do things the most humane way they can manage: going door-to-door looking for terrorists rather than leveling the villages harboring them (sometimes wittingly, sometimes not). Also recall the incident where they let a retarded boy get very close to them, wearing an explosive outfit, because they wanted to save his life while keeping theirs, and they were able to disarm the uniform. And of course there was the strangely-behaving Arab teen that the Israelis didn’t want to shoot, and let him get very close before they saw he was just trying to reach out to them with candy.
The world accuses Serbs of “collective punishment” of Bosniaks and Albanians and they’re painted as aggressors in their defensive wars. I instantly recognized the unfairness and distortion, because of the experience of Israel.
Anyway, now that we know that you too are against preventing dismembered Jewish infants (where was your outrage over that, by the way?), I don’t think I have to tell you what you can do with your “disappointment” in me. I prefer the Serbs whose views on Israel have softened thanks to this Jew’s non-hypocrisy on the Serbs’ behalf.
Closing with two emails I got from Serbs, to whom I elaborated on my scarphobia:
Look, Julia, it could be a bad coincidence that Dvorak was wearing that scarf. Or it could be he was trying to provoke Albright. Either way Albright is one if the worst war criminals in history. The people who are pro Serbian surely are pro Israel too, since we have a shared history of persecution. I would certainly ask Dvorak about the scarf if you can get in touch with him. The big picture is that Serbia is the BIG victim here, you shouldn’t let the scarf get in the way of that.
Love and Peace,
I wrote back:
Dude, exactly: “The big picture is that Serbia is the big victim here.”
It’s a big picture that most people don’t see. So why obscure it further, and at such a great opportunity as this?
Another lost/screwed-up opportunity for Serbs.
When an older gentleman wears that scarf, it’s not incidental or coincidental. It’s done with intent. And if it was to “provoke” Albright, that’s just stupid, since she’s always been on board with what that scarf symbolizes, and has advanced the cause in her time.
And no, unfortunately, pro-Serb people are NOT also pro-Israel. It’s a very mixed bag. Some are and some aren’t. It makes sense for them to be, of course, because of the shared persecution you mention, but most people are too ignorant. Add to this the unyielding and successful attempts to drive a wedge between Serbs and Jews, and the “how it should be” camp doesn’t stand a chance.
Steve, understand that, thanks to my blog on this, if the Albright incident gets wider circulation — which it seems to be doing — the glaring flaw in it has been accounted for. By a pro-Serb. I’ve PREEMPTED critics of the pro-Serb group [over the scarf]…
…I agree with your points and am certainly looking forward to reading more of your research on this subject. If our military men wearing the scarf is indeed a case of Stockholm Syndrome then we are in some serious trouble!
I…focus[ed] on what the scarf represents. By wearing it, I said, he condones violence against Jews. So does every idiot who wears it but doesn’t know what it means. But this is a not a man who wears something out of trendiness. A man of that age, and who is opinionated, would be wearing it with intent.
The fact that this is a fashion trend speaks volumes about society. The fact that the symbol of the enemies of the West is the latest fashion is a sadder commentary. But this is typical for every generation: when Communism was the enemy, the fashion trend was Soviet military style; it’s that asinine “rebelliousness” that the young people and fashion world like to throw in society’s face. Even as a trend, it’s not harmless…
Anyway, I’ve been studying the significance of the keffiyeh since 2008 and hope to get to an article about it before the middle of next year. I’ve even got theories (based on some informal interviews) as to why our military men wear it, when this is what the enemy wears while killing American troops. There are at least three answers. But none of them justify this alien garb becoming the Western fashion trend. The ultimate explanation is Stockholm Syndrome.
Actually, when it comes to the military the reasons are varied. One message that they’re sending by wearing it is: “Hey, we’re here but we’re not against you; we want to help you. You’re not ‘the other.’ See? I’m wearing your symbol.” It’s sort of like an amulet, a protection, and I sometimes see movie directors wearing it when shooting in the Middle East, as they hope it will reduce the chances of their film crews getting kidnapped.
I asked my ex-military friend Lou about it. He said his interpretation of military people wearing it was their way of saying to the enemy coming at them in the scarf and an AK-47: “Oh yeah? You think you’re a badass? Well, I’m just as much a badass.”
My Stockholm Syndrome analysis is more about everyone else wearing it than about our military people wearing it. Still, it’s an element of the latter too, as they’ve been castrated and indoctrinated by the Command that our future lies with the Muslim world, where we are heavily engaged, and so military attitudes and sympathies have indeed been changing. The indoctrination campaign has been hugely successful, as I blogged a couple months ago concerning West Point Academy. Things have gotten so farcical that in Afghanistan, when we need something from a certain chieftain, we will secure ‘boys’ for him to have sex with. And so this is what “engaging with the Muslim world” brings us to: we move closer and closer to their barbaric, ancient ways. And they move not at all toward civilization. Why should they, when we’re coming to them?
Finally, of course you’ll notice on that TV show which Wesley Clark was tapped for — some ridiculous thing about celebrities doing military missions — all those celebrity contestants have that thing around their necks. And when I was watching some show about U.S. Federal agents hunting down Mexican cartel activity in the forests, they had the thing on. So that would probably be a case of “I’m a badass too” intention.
Bottom line: I will not be desensitized from the meaning and modern origins of that symbol the way the rest of the world has been. Even if I’m the last person who remembers.
Reinforcing the distraction aspect of the filmmaker’s scarf were two emails, the first from Vera and the second from Ruby — plus a comment by “Blackbird” under the same Gray Falcon blog post:
Hello Julia -
I haven’t visited your site in a while, but after I saw Albright’s rant in Prague - I had to take a look. While watching the drama, I noticed
the director wearing that scarf, and thought, “WTF? Is he REALLY wearing what I think he’s wearing?” Apparently he was. I’m with you; I’d be pissed myself - especially since I don’t see the Serb-Palestinian connection AT ALL.
I totally agree with you about gentleman wearing Palestinian scarf while confronting the Albrihgt. What in the world was he trying to prove or was he even thinking. Fate of Jews and Serbs are very similar, as far as I am concerned. At one time or another in history, they were subjected to terrible fate. Jews live now in fear from enemies from all side, but West made sure that Serbs are in the same position. You are so right to be angry, so am I, and other should be too.
I understand Julia’s offense at the Palestinian scarf. I found it confusing when I saw Dvorak walking around wearing it - all my attention was on that scarf at first with questions going off in my head. Sadly, even when we get support, Serbs never seem to be in anything but murky waters. It would have been nice to have this record as a clean and clear statement about Albright but, instead, it’s somewhat muddied…