Responsibility and silence

There is no government in the world that thinks about people outside and inside the country except the Government of Pedro Sanchez. I would like it if, because of the decisions made by its Prime Minister, my Government was the same. In a time when words become weapons and silence is complicity, Montenegro is choosing again - not to speak, but to remain silent. Justice is being lied to in political games, from the fact that we are small and must follow wise policies in turbulent times, to the fact that the war crimes committed by the Israeli Government and its Prime Minister are silent and, as usual, the highest authorities in the country declare themselves incompetent to answer. The Prime Minister's office announced that the Prime Minister is not competent for this issue, while the Speaker of Parliament has cunningly entangled himself with his own politics, caught himself like a fence, that he is not an anti-Semite and does not lead an anti-Semitic policy. Only those who have learned to deceive can believe him in this. Our experience says otherwise - he usually ends up in the sediment of nationalist screams and whining that he hides behind the violation of minority rights. There are more like him. The line is long.

On the occasion of the decision of the Israeli parliament to introduce the death penalty for Palestinians, Montenegro, which refers to European values, remained - silent. In accordance with the same and against the same. We know what that means. When we need them - well, when it is important for us to stay in the fold - we are silent and wait for them not to remember us. Because if they remember - the button will turn red and an oath is required for what the Great Ones demand from our rulers. Long live lies, long live servility - down with dignity, integrity and a clear political stance.

This silence is not neutral. It is political. It speaks of the relationship to law, to life, to others. Because the death penalty is not just a legal issue. It is a civilizational issue. In Europe, it has long been rejected as inhumane and irreversible, as far as I can remember, although European politics has a hard time remembering that these were the values ​​of Europe, once. Let's see if they still are today. In a world where justice increasingly resembles revenge, every return to it, especially in the context of a deep and asymmetrical conflict, raises the question - does the law protect life or legitimize its selective value? I testify...

It is particularly worrying that critics warn that the law would be applied almost exclusively to Palestinians, with serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings. We have that Resava school of copying here at the highest levels of the state, especially in the security sector.

And here we come to the most dangerous substitution of theses of our time: any criticism of the policies of the State of Israel is declared anti-Semitism. This is not only incorrect and a good substitution of theses - it is dangerous, Speaker of the Assembly. Anti-Semitism is real and deeply traumatic. Anti-Semitism must be clearly recognized and unconditionally condemned, and not lifted from the "buffet" when it suits your personal interests. Precisely because it is so serious, it must not be instrumentalized to silence legitimate criticism of political decisions, especially those that infringe on fundamental human rights. Because if everything becomes anti-Semitism - then anti-Semitism ceases to mean anything. And if all criticism becomes forbidden and dangerous - then law ceases to be law. We are already witnessing this. In that space between the abuse of words and the abuse of power, what is most important is lost: the possibility of speaking in the name of peace.

And speaking in the name of peace today means two things at the same time:

- reject anti-Semitism without a trace and

- refuse to remain silent in the face of injustice, wherever it may be.

Without this double stance, only hypocrisy remains. Montenegro, small as it is, cannot resolve world conflicts. But it can - and must - take a stand.

Not for influence, but for dignity, because a state that does not have a voice when it is most needed risks losing meaning once it has spoken.

The author is a psychologist