, 2007
| Over 2 Million Served |




Home | Notes
Archives | Search
Links | About

Julia Gorin
The America Show
Episode 4
Jesus and Mordy
Watch Video Now


Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky

America Alone
by Mark Steyn


The CRO Store


  Jews And The Serbs
by Francisco Gil-White 2/22/07

CRO thanks Rachel Neuwirth for this submission. - ed.

Introduction: How I came to doubt the official story on Yugoslavia

In World War II, when most Europeans were eager to kill Jews, or else too afraid or indifferent to do anything about it, there was one people that distinguished itself for its moral and physical courage, made up of individuals who chose to risk their lives, and give them, defending their Jewish compatriots.

Who? The Serbs.[1]

Did you gasp? If so, this is probably because you don’t know much about the history of Yugoslavia, and particularly the history of the Serbs during WWII. And likely also because you were made to swallow and digest during the 1990s a tremendous barrage of NATO and media stories about how the Serbs had become the “new Nazis,” and the Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic -- “the butcher of the Balkans” -- the “new Hitler.” The Serbs, they told you, were murdering innocent Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Albanians. Had you been familiar with the spectacular and unique bravery of the Serbs in defending the Jews during WWII, and the price they paid alongside the Jews in the death camps; and had you known that their executioners were Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Albanians, you would have been hard to convince that the Serbs were now the genocidal monsters, and these others, the victims.

I was among the easy to convince.

When the civil wars in Yugoslavia started, I was just beginning my social science studies, which took me first to the University of Chicago for a Masters in Social Sciences, and then to UCLA for a PhD in Anthropology. Because my purpose was to become a student of ethnic conflict, I felt duty-bound to follow the ongoing wars in Yugoslavia, and thus read voraciously on the progress of the wars as reported in such venues as the New York Times, Newsweek, etc., following also the daily developments, with bated breath, on CNN. In addition, I read a couple of books on the conflict by the same people who were writing for the major papers.

At this time, two things were true regarding my state of mind: First, I thought the major news media were free, independent, and competitive, and so felt reasonably assured that I was consuming the truth, or as close to it as the journalists could report. Second, I had no prior knowledge of the history of Yugoslavia. In consequence of these two factors, I quickly became righteously serbophobic, and adamantly demanded foreign intervention in Yugoslavia to stop what I thought were the genocides being committed by the Serbs.

My PhD work at UCLA, on the reasoning biases responsible for ethnic prejudice, attracted the attention of a poli-sci think tank inside the University of Pennsylvania Psychology Department: the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict. In due course I was offered a fellowship at the Asch Center and a teaching, tenure-track position in the Pyschology Department. At the Asch Center, the main foci of research were 1) the Arab-Israeli conflict, 2) the civil wars in Yugoslavia, and 3) the civil war in Sri Lanka.

I can say without exaggeration that the Asch Center scholars’ positions on these was, respectively, pro-Arab, anti-Serbian, and pro-Tamil -- and markedly so. They conveyed in their published work and speaking engagements that the ‘bad guys’ were the Israeli Jews, the Serbs, and the Sinhalese. Just as I thought the news media was free and competitive, I also believed that a university was a protected refuge were the freedom to think and investigate was zealously guarded, and that university scholars spoke truth to power. So I was in general swayed by the greater authority of these scholars who, after all, were talking about their own subjects, and represented themselves as genuinely interested in finding the roots of conflict and defending the cause of justice. Their positions agreed with what I read and heard in the news media, so I was satisfied that I understood where justice lay.

As a consequence of my own inclinations, and also the dominant themes at the Asch Center, I became more interested in the three conflicts mentioned above. Browsing the web, I chanced one day on the investigative journalism published on the website Emperor’s Clothes, edited by Jared Israel. My jaw dropped to the floor: these authors were claiming that, yes, there had been genocide, but not by the Serbs against the Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Albanians; rather, extremist elements within these latter three populations, these authors claimed, had been murdering innocent Serbs, repeating the pattern of WWII. The Yugoslav conflict had been portrayed exactly upside down.

I was naturally skeptical. How could anybody ask me to believe any such thing? But then I noticed that Emperor’s Clothes was not asking me to believe anything. It was challenging me to remain skeptical. The authors always gave a footnote for every single claim, carefully listing the source documentation, and in every way making themselves helpful so that I could myself check their claims. Often entire documents were scanned and reproduced. Moreover, the authors at Emperor’s Clothes never paraphrased the source documents they used, but quoted them, sometimes at length, so there could be no question of somehow distorting or misinterpreting them. And finally, the style of the articles was to produce logical demonstrations based on the documentary evidence. Every article was designed not merely to defend a point, but to defeat utterly the competing hypotheses and decisively win the argument, challenging the reader to find a flaw in either the logic or the documentation should he persist in resisting EC’s claims. I had never seen journalism like this: this was like science. In fact, it was science, even if the prose was journalistic rather than academic (and who will lament the shedding of academic prose?).

Any honest person, I quickly saw, could not in a vacuum prefer the contrary story purveyed by the New York Times because:

1) the NYT story was based primarily on “unnamed sources,” “sources that requested anonymity,” and so forth;

2) the NYT relied heavily on the statements of NATO officials and their interpretations;

3) the NYT lacked any presentation of source documentation; and

4) the NYT was completely bereft of any commitment to consider competing hypotheses and defeat them.

If one was honestly to prefer the version purveyed by the New York Times one would first have to show that Emperor’s Clothes was wrong. This was in principle possible because Emperor’s Clothes was transparent both in the carefully laid out logical exposition of its arguments, and in the documentation of all its sources. So I decided to make up my own mind rather than let the New York Times and CNN do it for me. And so determining, I spent several months independently obtaining the documents cited by Emperor’s Clothes, scrutinizing the logic of their arguments, and trying to show that they had made a mistake. Somewhere. Anywhere.

I couldn’t find it.

Slobodan Milosevic’s 1989 speech

My astonishment grew and my world view began to change. The more I confirmed for myself that every single claim on Emperor’s Clothes checked out, the more I began to suspect that the Western mass media was guilty of deliberate fabrication. This seemed impossible -- but then, the media’s story was turning out to be a lie. The straw that broke the camel’s back was Slobodan Milosevic’s 1989 speech in Kosovo, delivered before a crowd of perhaps 2 million Serbs at the 600th anniversary celebration of the Battle of Kosovo.

The Battle of Kosovo is the most important landmark in the national memory of the Serbs, for the medieval Serbs here fought, united, the invading Ottoman Turks to a draw. They would later be defeated and enslaved by the Turks and their Albanian allies, but the Serbs find much inspiration in the unity and heroism of this battle. Milosevic’s speech, before such a large Serbian crowd, at a time when Albanian secessionist unrest was already well developed in Kosovo, was therefore an event pregnant with political implications and possibilities.

In the years leading up to 1999 -- the year NATO would bomb Serbia to stop, NATO said, a Serbian genocide of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo -- the media represented the Kosovo conflict, and in fact the entire Yugoslav civil wars, as having stemmed from Milosevic’s 1989 speech. The Serbian president, the media said, had used the 1989 speech to incite the Serbs to hatred, and had there launched himself as a far-right demagogue who would subsequently lead the Serbs to commit one atrocity after another. I was quite familiar with this story from my voracious consumption of news on the civil wars in Yugoslavia.

Emperor’s Clothes denied that this version of events was true and provided a simple but powerful demonstration: it reproduced the text of Milosevic’s 1989 speech.

The translation Emperor’s Clothes gave was attributed, no less, to an information service of the United States government! The text of the speech was not hateful: it was the precise opposite. Milosevic had called for mutual ethnic tolerance, harmony, brotherhood, and equality. He had called for peace in Serbia and had stated that everybody was in their own country, regardless of nationality or religion.

But was this the real speech?

In order to find out, I endeavored to find an independent translation of the speech. I found two: one by the BBC, and one included in an academic work that compiled a great deal of primary documents relating to the Kosovo conflict. Except for one or two words here or there that varied due to the predilections of the individual translators, the text was identical to what Emperor’s Clothes had published. The BBC document was especially useful because it translated the live relay of the speech: what Milosevic spoke out loud to the microphone, as he said it.

Why had the media misrepresented the contents of this speech? Was it an honest mistake?

In order to answer this question, I looked at news reports about the speech from 1989, immediately after it was given. What I found was that in 1989 the mainstream Western media had represented the speech accurately as a call for tolerance, unity, and brotherhood. This includes the BBC, whose translation of the speech I had obtained. And yet just a few years later, in the run-up to the NATO bombing, when NATO needed to justify its attack on the Serbs and therefore to present them as monsters, the entire mainstream mass media, including the BBC, mirepresented Milosevic's 1989 speech as hate speech, and as the trigger that set the Yugoslav conflicts in motion.

Armed with this documentation, I produced my first article on the civil wars in Yugoslavia, where I laid out the various independent translations of the speech and detailed how it had been misreported by one news service after another.

I reached three conclusions.

First, since the BBC translation can be downloaded within a minute from the online archive Lexis-Nexis (which all journalists know how to use), and since the speech had originally been reported accurately, it is simply impossible that the misreporting of the speech later on as a call to genocide can be some kind of spectacular innocent mistake.

Second, if there had been any document -- speech, article, radio address, personal letter, whatever -- that could show Milosevic to be a racist warmonger, the media would have used that instead of turning inside out a dramatic call for tolerance and brotherhood. So it follows that the media had nothing with which to make its argument. Milosevic had never made racist appeals to the Serbs.

Third, given that this could not be an innocent mistake, and therefore that the media had demonstrably lied, across the board, we should not automatically assume the truthfulness of other -- equally unanimous -- accusations against the Serbs in the same media.

Here is my article on Milosevic’s speech:

“HOW POLITICIANS, THE MEDIA, AND SCHOLARS LIED ABOUT MILOSEVIC'S 1989 KOSOVO SPEECH: A review of the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; 9 February 2002; rev. 8 Sep. 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

The Kosovo conflict

Impressed by what I had learned, I continued to study the Kosovo conflict, and found that the US military -- the same establishment that would later bomb the Serbs for supposedly oppressing and murdering the Kosovo Albanians -- had produced a country study for Yugoslavia in 1982. This US military study documents in detail that the Kosovo Albanians were easily the most carefully protected, and politically and culturally most enfranchised ethnic minority in the world -- bar none. And yet the Serbs, who were now politically dominant in Yugoslavia, had been victimized with genocide at the hands of the ethnic Albanians during WWII, when these latter allied en masse with the invading German Nazis.[2] Obviously, the Serbs were not prone to revenge.

The same US military study documented a terrorist Albanian movement against the ethnic Serbs of Kosovo already extant in the early 1980s. This was causing a trickle and then a flood of frightened peasant Serbs to leave the province. Beyond this, I documented quite a few NATO and media deceptions in addition to the mountain of such deceptions already documented in the pages of Emperor’s Clothes.

The time had come to make a presentation to the scholars of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, the same ones who had taken an interest in my work and brought me to the University of Pennsylvania (the content of my presentation to them is in the footnote).[3]

Douglas Massey, a distinguished social scientist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, was at the time Chairman of the University of Pennsylvania Sociology Department, and I had met him for the first time at one of the regular Asch Center Tuesday lectures, which he was in the habit of attending. Professor Massey was there when I tried to explain to my Asch Center colleagues why we needed to reconsider the Kosovo conflict. I requested for publication Professor Massey’s recollections of the reception I got:

[letter from Pr. Douglas Massey begins here] 

“Dear Francisco,

I do remember the talk you gave at the Asch Center on the situation in Kosovo.  You argued that in the period before and immediately after the break-up of Yugoslavia the Albanians were not really an oppressed minority, but had been in fact subsidized and granted considerable political leeway by successive regimes in Belgrade, in order to keep the union together.  The initial impetus toward divisive ethnic politics, you argued, came from the Albanians who launched a secessionist movement long before the disintegration of the Yugoslav state.  You also pointed out that the famous "provocative" speech given by Milosevic in Kosovo, which was widely reported in the west to be full of anti-Albanian and pro-Serb ethnic appeals, was actually quite conciliatory in its content.  You provided quotes from several independent translations to back up your assertions and demonstrated the usage of incorrect translations and misleading extractions in western outlets.

These assertions were, of course, counter to the story line generally accepted by elite and public opinion in the United States, so I was not surprised that members of the audience expressed skepticism and asked questions.  But I was truly shocked at how the hostility toward you escalated as you were able to rebut counter-assertions and document your statements with concrete references to what seemed to me like credible sources.  During the last portion of the lecture period, people were shouting at you and questioning both your veracity and integrity as a scholar without presenting any evidence for their accusations.  The audience wouldn’t let you finish your presentation and lay out your argument, and in the end because of the audience’s behavior the talk disintegrated into something of a shouting match.

I personally was appalled at the way you were treated and recall that I attempted to intervene to bring some order and let you finish, but to little effect.  I was especially put off by the reception you were accorded because you had obviously done considerable work on the topic, had a clear if provocative argument, and knew your sources well.  In terms of its clarity, preparation, logic, and documentation, your presentation was among the best I had seen in a series that all too frequently offered truly dismal presentations unsullied by novel ideas, information, or analysis. I remember thinking that the comportment of the attendees was wildly at variance with the usual norms of scholarly courtesy and exchange.  I don't know if your troubles started from this day, but I was certainly witness to behavior that made me doubt the value of my continued participation and I began to scale back my attendance at the Asch Seminar accordingly.  To this day, the events of that day leave a bad taste in my mouth.”[4]

[letter from Pr. Douglas Massey ends here] 

The reaction I got from my Asch Center colleagues revealed to me that they were not scientists, and that the Asch Center was not a research institute, as it claimed to be. In a true scientific research institute, if one does not like a colleague’s theory, one tries to show that he has used bad logic, bad evidence, or both. But the behavior of my Asch Center colleagues was rather different.

Shrill reactions of the sort reported above are common when the curtain is pulled to reveal that there is, in fact, no Wizard of Oz, but instead an old man pulling levers. “Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!” Or, to use the metaphor behind the Emperor’s Clothes name, those who have invested much in the naked emperor’s supposed ‘attire’ will scream, holler, and accuse if anybody points out that he is in fact unclothed, the better to intimidate anyone who might be tempted to look for himself and conclude the obvious.

I eventually produced a demonstration that NATO’s own forensic scientists, despite complete NATO-KLA control of post-bombing Kosovo, had been unable to document even one case of an Albanian civilian killed by the Serbian government. There has been no similar difficulty documenting the Albanian KLA murders of (yes) ethnic Albanians who didn’t cooperate with the KLA’s racist program of murder against the Serbs. Nor has there been any trouble documenting NATO murders of (yes) ethnic Albanians who didn’t want to leave their homes to play the role of refugees for the cameras on the borders. I also documented that the media had bent over backwards to obfuscate, distort, and, yes, to lie about all this.[5]

By then, however, I was rapidly becoming a demonized persona non-grata at the Asch Center.

The Arab-Israeli conflict

In the Arab-Israeli conflict, as in the Yugoslav conflicts, a Muslim population led by self-avowed terrorists is represented by the media as a victim, and one deserving of Western protection from the state these terrorists say out loud they would like to destroy. The similarity in the media representations of these two cases, and my newly found skepticism for media representations of ethnic strife, eventually led me to look into the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here too there was much to astonish.

My position prior to these investigations had been pro-PLO. The reason is that I had been consuming the media representation of the PLO as having transformed itself into a political organization seeking a peaceful compromise, and consuming also the media representation of the Israelis as immoral and intransigent oppressors who, despite all the PLO’s goodwill, persisted in sabotaging the ‘peace’ process. This was soon to change.

My first major investigation in this area documented the history and origins of the PLO. Without much difficulty I was able to show that Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO, traced its roots to the German Nazi Final Solution, something that the media never even whispered. Hajj Amin al Husseini, responsible for organizing massive terrorist riots against innocent Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ before WWII, had, during the War, met up with Adolf Hitler and become, along with Adolf Eichmann, the top co-architect of the Shoah (‘Holocaust’). Husseini had escaped prosecution as a war criminal after the war and returned to the Middle East to mentor Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, helping them to create Al Fatah, which by 1969-70 had swallowed up the PLO (though keeping the name). This history easily explains why the constitutions of both Al Fatah and the PLO call for ‘liberating’ all of ‘Palestine’ (which they consider synonymous with the land that any Jews live on in the Middle East), and it explains why the same constitutions state that this land can only be ‘liberated’ through armed combat: the point is to kill Jews.[5a]

(An interesting connection here between the Yugoslav and Arab-Israeli conflicts is that Hajj Amin al Husseini was responsible during WWII for creating the SS Handzar Division, a terrorist force made up of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers that participated in the Nazi massacres of innocent Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies) in Yugoslavia. In the 1990s, Alija Izetbegovic, the leader of the Bosnian Muslim faction supported by the NATO powers and the media, recreated this SS Handzar Division, with that name, and redeployed it against innocent Serbs.[6] )

I published my documentation of PLO origins in Israel National News.[7] Immediately, I became the target of remarkable attacks from my Asch Center colleagues, receiving also much pressure to desist. Most of this pressure was directly applied by Paul Rozin, the senior psychology professor who had personally recruited me to the University of Pennsylvania, and one of the directors and founders of the Asch Center. But I suspected the ultimate source of this pressure was Ian Lustick, a professor in the Political Science Department who was another Asch Center director and its resident expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict. After all, it was Ian Lustick who had staked his entire career on a sustained attack against Israel and a defense of the PLO (it was subsequently confirmed that he was indeed the moving force, the eminence grise, behind this pressure). As time went by and my superiors realized that this pressure was not intimidating me, I was threatened with the loss of my job. Then I was fired.[8]

Mind you, all of this happened despite the fact that the people pressuring me not once took issue with my documentation and in fact pronounced it “impeccable.”

It follows that no documentation embarrassing to the enemies of the Serbs or Jews will be tolerated at the University of Pennsylvania. The same can be said for the enemies of the Sinhalese, because I also became the victim of remarkable attacks for circulating documentation of the atrocities committed by the Tamil Tiger terrorists in Sri Lanka.

What should ordinary Jews make of all this?

I was pressured and attacked for defending the traditional allies of the Jews, and then fired for publishing documentation that defends the Jewish state. Was this surprising? It was to me, at first. But in fact, silencing US academics who speak in favor of Israel is so common that an organization has been created, Campus Watch, just to monitor and combat the phenomenon. One hypothesis consistent with this is that the US Establishment is directing a widespread attack against the Jews even as US government officials and other prominent Establishment figures profess support. To investigate this hypothesis, I have studied the entire history of US foreign policy toward the Jewish people and Israel and found that it has been a series of unrelenting attacks, contrary to the popular perception of unvarying support.[9]

But there are other lessons, here, for the Jews.

One important reason that the propaganda against the Serbs was so effective is that the leaders of major Jewish organizations in the United States took a public position agreeing that the Serbs were murdering innocent Bosnian Muslims. Once ‘the Jews,’ in the public mind, had accused the Serbs of genocide, the Serbian goose was cooked in the propaganda war, because many people tend to accept the moral authority of Jews when deciding who is committing genocide (naturally because they were the victims of the Nazi-led genocide).

Why did the leaders of prominent US Jewish organizations do this?

In the early 1990s, Jacques Merlino, at the time Associate Director of French TV 2, interviewed James Harff, the director of the public relations firm Ruder Finn. This PR firm had been hired by the enemies of the Serbs to demonize them. Harff explained the political difficulties of pulling off his stunt:

“the Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel anti-Semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews [and hundreds of thousands of Serbs] perished in Croatian [WWII death] camps, so there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile toward the Croats and the Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse this attitude and we succeeded masterfully.”[10]

In fact the WWII brutality of the Croats and Bosnian Muslims against Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies) was such that the afore-mentioned US military study on Yugoslavia claims that they “appalled even the [German] Nazis.”[11] You are entitled to skepticism that anything can appall a German Nazi, but the comment reveals that the Croat and Bosnian Muslim allies of the Nazis were at least as bad as the Germans, if not worse.

Another reason Harff’s political coup presented difficulties is that the Serbs had been the most gallant and courageous defenders of the Jews.[12]

But fortunately for Harff certain factors worked decisively to his advantage:

1) No Western PR firms took the Serbian forces as clients, so Ruder Finn had no competition.

2) The leaders of the major Jewish organizations have been denouncing the Israeli Jews -- and especially the religious Israeli Jews -- for years. The ‘settlers,’ more than anybody, come in for special condemnation. The same Jewish leaders give much support to the PLO terrorists (I have documented this in rather excruciating detail[13]). So it was not a big step for these Jewish leaders to take a position against the traditional allies of the Jews. Harff explains who the main culprits were: “the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress.”

3) The great majority of ordinary Jews in fact know little about the history of the Holocaust, as I have been finding out, and certainly nothing at all about the Yugoslav chapter of this horrific crime and the debts incurred with the Serbian people. Thus, many ordinary Jews, acting in good faith, followed their leaders in denouncing the Serbs (I did the same, for the same reasons).

4) Finally, the entire mainstream mass media, which was lying about the Serbs in other ways, and which specializes in attacking the Jewish people, eagerly cooperated.

Harff’s job was rendered so easy by the above factors that he is surely too generous in describing himself as “masterful.”

Practically speaking, Harff got the leaders of the above Jewish organizations to support the idea that this photograph, below, depicted a supposed Serbian-run death camp where Bosnian Muslim prisoners were being murdered:


Click on the photograph to see Harff's
campaign around it in its full context.[15]

But the photograph, if anybody gives it more than a second’s attention, does not show a death camp (as argued here), and in any case there is film footage -- which you can get and examine for yourself -- showing how this photograph was obtained, revealing that the whole thing was a hoax.[14] Not that the media will tell you this. (I should point out that similar photographic hoaxes were used against Israel during its war against Hezbollah in 2006.)

Is Harff a total cynic? Decide for yourself. This is Harff explaining the consequence of bringing these big Jewish organizations on the side of the Bosnian Muslims:

“When the Jewish organizations entered the game on the side of the [Muslim] Bosnians we could promptly equate the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind. Nobody understood what was happening in Yugoslavia. The great majority of Americans were probably asking themselves in which African country Bosnia was situated.”

But one consequence that Harff does not mention is that when the leaders of the major Jewish organizations allied with the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, and got many ordinary Jews to follow them, they led these ordinary Jews off a cliff. Why? Because Jewish support for the enemies of the Serbs has caused bitterness among these traditional allies of the Jews (though it has failed to turn a majority of Serbs into antisemites), and it has raised the prestige of Muslim terrorist movements that are also attacking the Jews in Israel.

Should the Jews support an independent Kosovo?

Now Jewish support is being sought again for the enemies of the Serbs -- in Kosovo.

A few days ago (2 February 2007) an article was published in the Forward (‘The Jewish Daily’) with the following headline: “Kosovo Seeks Jewish Backing for Independence.”[16]  If such appeals succeed, what will the Jews be supporting? I think the Jews should have an idea. That is, they should take a look at Kosovo today and see what it has become under NATO protection: a KLA gangster state, where everybody -- including ordinary Albanians -- is oppressed in the most nightmarish way. Not insignificantly, Kosovo today is completely judenrein, as the Nazis would say, because the KLA has killed or chased out all the Jews who lived there.

The KLA has done to Kosovo what the PLO/Hamas has done to Gaza, and what it will do to Judea and Samaria (the ‘West Bank’). If the Jews support that an antisemitic Muslim terrorist organization in Yugoslavia be rewarded for murder with an independent state, this will make it ever more difficult to defend Israel from similar forces in the Middle East. They will have shot themselves in the foot. Jews, therefore, should get the facts about Yugoslavia, and then they should voice their opposition to an independent Kosovo. I encourage them to read the following piece, which is a short guide to much relevant information:

“SHOULD JEWS SUPPORT AN INDEPENDENT KOSOVO? A short guide to what they should know”; Historical and Investigative Research; 16 February 2007; by Francisco Gil-White

Let’s not make the same mistake twice. Let’s defend the Serbs. CRO

Francisco Gil-White is editor of Historical and Investigative Research


[1] “The Serbs are the last population in the world that should have been suspected of genocidal behavior”; in WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA? Historical and Investigative Research; 19 Aug 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

[2] To read about this, consult:

“What Lenard Cohen left out: The WWII alliance of the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo with the German Nazis against the Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies) of Kosovo”; in THE SERBS WERE NOT OPPRESSING THE KOSOVO ALBANIANS... QUITE THE OPPOSITE; Historical and Investigative Research - rev. 14 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[3] THE SERBS WERE NOT OPPRESSING THE KOSOVO ALBANIANS... QUITE THE OPPOSITE; Historical and Investigative Research; rev. 14 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.


[5] “THE FREEZER TRUCK HOAX: How NATO framed the Serbs”; Historical and Investigative Research; 2 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

[5a]   The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.” Doesn’t this agree perfectly with how the PLO, behaviorally, chooses to define ‘Palestine’ as ‘the territory that Jews live on’?

SOURCE: The PLO Charter articles were translated by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.

[6] “Painting fascists as victims, and their victims as fascists: The mainstream media turned Bosnia upside down”; from WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?; Historical and Investigative Research; 19 Aug 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

[7] I have recently expanded and refined my documentation of the PLO’s Nazi history here:
 “HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

This is the original article published in Israel National News:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White

[8] For a detailed account of all this, with documentation, visit:


[9] “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[10] Merlino, Jacques (1984). “Les Verites Yougoslaves Ne Sont Pas Toutes Bonnes En Dire” (Albin Michel, Paris)

[11] Nyrop, Richard F. 1982. Yugoslavia: A country study. Headquarters, Department of the Army, DA Pam 550-99: American University. (p.68)

[12] “The Serbs are the last population in the world that should have been suspected of genocidal behavior”; in WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA? Historical and Investigative Research; 19 Aug 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

[13] “How mainstream Diaspora Jewish leaders are failing the Jewish people today”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH

SELF-DEFENSE; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

[14] http://www.emperors-clothes.com/film/judgment.htm

[15] “Who started the war in Bosnia? And who committed genocide? Was it the Bosnian Serbs, as NATO and the mass media alleged, or the Bosnian Muslim followers of Alija Izetbegovic?”; from WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?; Historical and Investigative Research; 19 Aug 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

[16] "Kosovo Seeks Jewish Backing for Independence"; The Forward; Fri. Feb 02, 2007; by Marc Perelman.



copyright 2007 Accuracy in Media www.aim.org




Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Applicable copyrights indicated. All other material copyright 2002-2007 CaliforniaRepublic.org