Kolumne
Refleksija dana
SRBIJA I HRVATSKA - ZLOUPOTREBA HOLOCAUSTA
|
|
Autor: Dr. Mustafa Cerić, reisu-l-ulema (1993 - 2012)
Objavljeno: 27. January 2026. 15:01:12
U civilizacijskom pamćenju Evrope Holokaust bi trebao biti moralni temelj, univerzalna opomena o tome dokle može dovesti ideologija mržnje kada se spoji s državnom moći. Međutim, na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije, posebno u Srbiji i Hrvatskoj, sjećanje na Holokaust često nije izraz pijeteta prema jevrejskim žrtvama, nego sredstvo dnevne politike, nacionalne samoodbrane i, u krajnjoj liniji, relativizacije vlastitih zločina počinjenih krajem dvadesetog stoljeća nad Bošnjacima.
Kultura sjećanja na Holokaust u obje države oblikovana je prvenstveno nacionalnim narativima, a ne sudbinom samih jevrejskih žrtava. Različite historijske okolnosti, NDH kao formalna fašistička država i Srbija kao okupirana teritorija, nisu dovele do suštinski različitog odnosa prema odgovornosti. U oba društva dominiraju selektivno pamćenje, politička instrumentalizacija i izostanak pune, etičke odgovornosti.
Hrvatska je, suočena s nasljeđem Nezavisne Države Hrvatske, formalno prisiljena jasno se odrediti prema ustaškom režimu. Ipak, taj se raskid često zadržava na deklarativnom nivou. Revizionizam u Hrvatskoj djeluje otvoreno: kroz toleriranje ustaških simbola, relativiziranje pozdrava i umanjivanje zločina Jasenovca. Iako se NDH u udžbenicima uglavnom opisuje kao zločinački režim, javni diskurs, mediji, političke izjave i dio kulturne scene, sustavno potkopava taj konsenzus. Jasenovac je simbolički centralno mjesto sjećanja, ali istovremeno duboko politički polarizirano, pretvoreno u poprište unutarnjih ideoloških sukoba, a ne u prostor univerzalne ljudske tuge i odgovornosti.
U Srbiji revizionizam djeluje tiše, sofisticiranije i dugoročno strategijski. Pozivanje na status okupirane zemlje služi kao okvir za umanjivanje ili relativiziranje domaće odgovornosti. Prešućuje se činjenica da je Srbija već 1942. godine proglašena „Judenfrei“, te da je Holokaust proveden uz aktivnu saradnju domaćih vlasti, s izuzetnom efikasnošću. Izostaje jasna i nedvosmislena osuda Nedićeve i Aćimovićeve uprave, dok su mjesta stradanja poput Sajmišta i Banjice decenijama bila marginalizirana, bez jasnog narativa o domaćoj ulozi u zločinu. U obrazovnom sistemu Holokaust se najčešće predstavlja kroz prizmu njemačkih zločina i stradanja Srba, dok su Jevreji često svedeni na sporednu kategoriju, dodatak većem nacionalnom narativu.
U oba društva revizionizam ne služi istini, nego zaštiti nacionalnog identiteta. Jevrejske žrtve postaju simbolički kapital, sredstvo moralnog pozicioniranja u savremenim političkim sukobima. Upravo tu dolazi do najdublje zloupotrebe: približavanje Holokaustu ne radi suosjećanja, nego radi ublažavanja ili prikrivanja vlastitih zločina iz devedesetih godina.
U tom kontekstu, instrumentalizacija Holokausta u odnosu prema Bosni i Bošnjacima poprima posebno problematičnu dimenziju. Srbija i Hrvatska, iako su njihove politike prema Bosni i Hercegovini i Bošnjacima pravosnažno označene kao genocid i udruženi zločinački poduhvat pred Međunarodnim sudom pravde i Haškim tribunalom, nastoje se moralno približiti žrtvama Holokausta kako bi ublažile težinu vlastite odgovornosti. Tako se univerzalna tragedija jevrejskog naroda koristi kao štit od suočavanja s presuđenim zločinima u Srebrenici i širom Bosne i Hercegovine.
Dokle god sjećanje služi nacionalnoj samopotvrdi, a ne moralnom preispitivanju, Holokaust u Hrvatskoj i Srbiji ostaje instrumentalizirana, a ne univerzalna historijska opomena. Bez iskrenog priznanja vlastite uloge u zlu, bez spremnosti da se jasno imenuju domaći počinioci i kolaboracionisti, kultura sjećanja ostaje nedovršena i etički prazna.
Ove činjenice bi trebale imati na umu i same žrtve Holokausta, naročito na dan sjećanja, 27. januara. Ne kako bi se njihova patnja umanjila, nego kako bi se sačuvala od zloupotrebe. Jer sjećanje na Holokaust nije važno samo za Jevreje; ono je jednako važno i za žrtve genocida u Srebrenici. Samo univerzalno, pošteno i odgovorno pamćenje može spriječiti da se zlo ponovi, bilo Jevrejima, bilo Bošnjacima, u Evropi koja se još uvijek bori sa vlastitim sjenkama.
ENGLISH:
Mufti Mustafa Ceric
A REFLECTION
SERBIA AND CROATIA - A MISUSE OF HOLOCAUST
In the civilizational memory of Europe, the Holocaust should stand as a moral foundation, a universal warning of how far an ideology of hatred can go when fused with state power. Yet in the post-Yugoslav space, particularly in Serbia and Croatia, remembrance of the Holocaust has often not been an expression of reverence for Jewish victims, but rather a tool of daily politics, national self-justification, and, ultimately, the relativization of crimes committed at the end of the twentieth century against Bosniaks.
The culture of Holocaust remembrance in both countries has been shaped primarily by national narratives rather than by the lived experience and fate of Jewish victims themselves. Different historical circumstances, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) as a formal fascist state and Serbia as an occupied territory, did not lead to fundamentally different attitudes toward responsibility. In both societies, selective memory, political instrumentalization, and the absence of full ethical accountability prevail.
Croatia, confronted with the legacy of the NDH, is formally compelled to define its position toward the Ustaša regime. Yet this rupture often remains merely declarative. Revisionism in Croatia operates openly: through the toleration of Ustaša symbols, the relativization of slogans, and the downplaying of crimes committed at Jasenovac. Although school textbooks generally describe the NDH as a criminal regime, public discourse, through media, political statements, and segments of the cultural scene, frequently undermines that consensus. Jasenovac is symbolically central, yet politically deeply polarized, transformed into a battleground of internal ideological conflict rather than a space of universal human mourning and responsibility.
In Serbia, revisionism functions more quietly, more subtly, and with long-term strategic intent. The invocation of Serbia’s status as an occupied country serves to diminish or relativize domestic responsibility. The fact that Serbia was declared “Judenfrei” as early as 1942 is largely suppressed, as is the reality that the Holocaust was carried out with active local collaboration and with extraordinary efficiency. There is a persistent absence of a clear and unequivocal condemnation of the Nedić and Aćimović administrations. Sites of suffering such as Sajmište and Banjica were for decades marginalized, lacking a clear narrative about the domestic role in the crime. In the education system, the Holocaust is most often taught primarily through the prism of German crimes and Serbian suffering, while Jews appear as a secondary category, an addition to a broader national narrative rather than the central subject of the tragedy.
In both societies, revisionism serves not truth, but the protection of national identity. Jewish victims become symbolic capital, a means of moral positioning in contemporary political conflicts. It is precisely here that the deepest abuse occurs: approaching the Holocaust not out of empathy, but in order to soften or obscure responsibility for one’s own crimes committed during the 1990s.
In this context, the instrumentalization of the Holocaust in relation to Bosnia and Bosniaks takes on a particularly troubling dimension. Serbia and Croatia, despite the fact that their policies toward Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosniaks have been legally established as genocide and joint criminal enterprise before the International Court of Justice and the Hague Tribunal, seek moral proximity to Holocaust victims in order to mitigate the weight of their own responsibility. Thus, the universal tragedy of the Jewish people is used as a shield against confronting adjudicated crimes in Srebrenica and across Bosnia and Herzegovina.
As long as remembrance serves national self-affirmation rather than moral reckoning, the Holocaust in Serbia and Croatia remains instrumentalized rather than a universal historical warning. Without sincere acknowledgment of one’s own role in evil, without readiness to clearly name domestic perpetrators and collaborators, the culture of remembrance remains incomplete and ethically hollow.
These facts should be borne in mind also by the victims of the Holocaust themselves, especially on the Day of Remembrance, January 27, not in order to diminish their suffering, but to protect it from misuse. For remembrance of the Holocaust is not important only for Jews; it is equally vital for the victims of the genocide in Srebrenica. Only universal, honest, and responsible memory can prevent evil from being repeated, whether against Jews or against Bosniaks, in a Europe still struggling with its own shadows.
Kultura sjećanja na Holokaust u obje države oblikovana je prvenstveno nacionalnim narativima, a ne sudbinom samih jevrejskih žrtava. Različite historijske okolnosti, NDH kao formalna fašistička država i Srbija kao okupirana teritorija, nisu dovele do suštinski različitog odnosa prema odgovornosti. U oba društva dominiraju selektivno pamćenje, politička instrumentalizacija i izostanak pune, etičke odgovornosti.
Hrvatska je, suočena s nasljeđem Nezavisne Države Hrvatske, formalno prisiljena jasno se odrediti prema ustaškom režimu. Ipak, taj se raskid često zadržava na deklarativnom nivou. Revizionizam u Hrvatskoj djeluje otvoreno: kroz toleriranje ustaških simbola, relativiziranje pozdrava i umanjivanje zločina Jasenovca. Iako se NDH u udžbenicima uglavnom opisuje kao zločinački režim, javni diskurs, mediji, političke izjave i dio kulturne scene, sustavno potkopava taj konsenzus. Jasenovac je simbolički centralno mjesto sjećanja, ali istovremeno duboko politički polarizirano, pretvoreno u poprište unutarnjih ideoloških sukoba, a ne u prostor univerzalne ljudske tuge i odgovornosti.
U Srbiji revizionizam djeluje tiše, sofisticiranije i dugoročno strategijski. Pozivanje na status okupirane zemlje služi kao okvir za umanjivanje ili relativiziranje domaće odgovornosti. Prešućuje se činjenica da je Srbija već 1942. godine proglašena „Judenfrei“, te da je Holokaust proveden uz aktivnu saradnju domaćih vlasti, s izuzetnom efikasnošću. Izostaje jasna i nedvosmislena osuda Nedićeve i Aćimovićeve uprave, dok su mjesta stradanja poput Sajmišta i Banjice decenijama bila marginalizirana, bez jasnog narativa o domaćoj ulozi u zločinu. U obrazovnom sistemu Holokaust se najčešće predstavlja kroz prizmu njemačkih zločina i stradanja Srba, dok su Jevreji često svedeni na sporednu kategoriju, dodatak većem nacionalnom narativu.
U oba društva revizionizam ne služi istini, nego zaštiti nacionalnog identiteta. Jevrejske žrtve postaju simbolički kapital, sredstvo moralnog pozicioniranja u savremenim političkim sukobima. Upravo tu dolazi do najdublje zloupotrebe: približavanje Holokaustu ne radi suosjećanja, nego radi ublažavanja ili prikrivanja vlastitih zločina iz devedesetih godina.
 Uz Međunarodni dan sješanja na holokaust.Dodik: Ista meta – isto odstojanje. (Ilustracija: Šukrija Meholjić) |
U tom kontekstu, instrumentalizacija Holokausta u odnosu prema Bosni i Bošnjacima poprima posebno problematičnu dimenziju. Srbija i Hrvatska, iako su njihove politike prema Bosni i Hercegovini i Bošnjacima pravosnažno označene kao genocid i udruženi zločinački poduhvat pred Međunarodnim sudom pravde i Haškim tribunalom, nastoje se moralno približiti žrtvama Holokausta kako bi ublažile težinu vlastite odgovornosti. Tako se univerzalna tragedija jevrejskog naroda koristi kao štit od suočavanja s presuđenim zločinima u Srebrenici i širom Bosne i Hercegovine.
Dokle god sjećanje služi nacionalnoj samopotvrdi, a ne moralnom preispitivanju, Holokaust u Hrvatskoj i Srbiji ostaje instrumentalizirana, a ne univerzalna historijska opomena. Bez iskrenog priznanja vlastite uloge u zlu, bez spremnosti da se jasno imenuju domaći počinioci i kolaboracionisti, kultura sjećanja ostaje nedovršena i etički prazna.
Ove činjenice bi trebale imati na umu i same žrtve Holokausta, naročito na dan sjećanja, 27. januara. Ne kako bi se njihova patnja umanjila, nego kako bi se sačuvala od zloupotrebe. Jer sjećanje na Holokaust nije važno samo za Jevreje; ono je jednako važno i za žrtve genocida u Srebrenici. Samo univerzalno, pošteno i odgovorno pamćenje može spriječiti da se zlo ponovi, bilo Jevrejima, bilo Bošnjacima, u Evropi koja se još uvijek bori sa vlastitim sjenkama.
ENGLISH:
Mufti Mustafa Ceric
A REFLECTION
In the civilizational memory of Europe, the Holocaust should stand as a moral foundation, a universal warning of how far an ideology of hatred can go when fused with state power. Yet in the post-Yugoslav space, particularly in Serbia and Croatia, remembrance of the Holocaust has often not been an expression of reverence for Jewish victims, but rather a tool of daily politics, national self-justification, and, ultimately, the relativization of crimes committed at the end of the twentieth century against Bosniaks.
The culture of Holocaust remembrance in both countries has been shaped primarily by national narratives rather than by the lived experience and fate of Jewish victims themselves. Different historical circumstances, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) as a formal fascist state and Serbia as an occupied territory, did not lead to fundamentally different attitudes toward responsibility. In both societies, selective memory, political instrumentalization, and the absence of full ethical accountability prevail.
Croatia, confronted with the legacy of the NDH, is formally compelled to define its position toward the Ustaša regime. Yet this rupture often remains merely declarative. Revisionism in Croatia operates openly: through the toleration of Ustaša symbols, the relativization of slogans, and the downplaying of crimes committed at Jasenovac. Although school textbooks generally describe the NDH as a criminal regime, public discourse, through media, political statements, and segments of the cultural scene, frequently undermines that consensus. Jasenovac is symbolically central, yet politically deeply polarized, transformed into a battleground of internal ideological conflict rather than a space of universal human mourning and responsibility.
In Serbia, revisionism functions more quietly, more subtly, and with long-term strategic intent. The invocation of Serbia’s status as an occupied country serves to diminish or relativize domestic responsibility. The fact that Serbia was declared “Judenfrei” as early as 1942 is largely suppressed, as is the reality that the Holocaust was carried out with active local collaboration and with extraordinary efficiency. There is a persistent absence of a clear and unequivocal condemnation of the Nedić and Aćimović administrations. Sites of suffering such as Sajmište and Banjica were for decades marginalized, lacking a clear narrative about the domestic role in the crime. In the education system, the Holocaust is most often taught primarily through the prism of German crimes and Serbian suffering, while Jews appear as a secondary category, an addition to a broader national narrative rather than the central subject of the tragedy.
In both societies, revisionism serves not truth, but the protection of national identity. Jewish victims become symbolic capital, a means of moral positioning in contemporary political conflicts. It is precisely here that the deepest abuse occurs: approaching the Holocaust not out of empathy, but in order to soften or obscure responsibility for one’s own crimes committed during the 1990s.
In this context, the instrumentalization of the Holocaust in relation to Bosnia and Bosniaks takes on a particularly troubling dimension. Serbia and Croatia, despite the fact that their policies toward Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosniaks have been legally established as genocide and joint criminal enterprise before the International Court of Justice and the Hague Tribunal, seek moral proximity to Holocaust victims in order to mitigate the weight of their own responsibility. Thus, the universal tragedy of the Jewish people is used as a shield against confronting adjudicated crimes in Srebrenica and across Bosnia and Herzegovina.
As long as remembrance serves national self-affirmation rather than moral reckoning, the Holocaust in Serbia and Croatia remains instrumentalized rather than a universal historical warning. Without sincere acknowledgment of one’s own role in evil, without readiness to clearly name domestic perpetrators and collaborators, the culture of remembrance remains incomplete and ethically hollow.
These facts should be borne in mind also by the victims of the Holocaust themselves, especially on the Day of Remembrance, January 27, not in order to diminish their suffering, but to protect it from misuse. For remembrance of the Holocaust is not important only for Jews; it is equally vital for the victims of the genocide in Srebrenica. Only universal, honest, and responsible memory can prevent evil from being repeated, whether against Jews or against Bosniaks, in a Europe still struggling with its own shadows.
