This is the war crimes witness we need to know

We seem to be too close to war, just as we are too close to it - peace. From this powerful naive bond to these opposing situations, a seemingly untreated collective bipolarity has been shaped that can explain the daily poison in the public realm but also a series of controversial political characters. On the one hand, we agree and submit to another to self - destruction, and we disagree deeply with another that we tend to humiliate and destroy.

Several days ago, Prime Minister Kurti's political adviser denounced senior KLA members for war crimes against innocent civilians of all ethnicities in Kosovo.

I think that in order to understand this counselor's word, we need to become more familiar with the context in which this word was extended and the author himself. What does this context tell us?

Kurt's adviser was not only Kurt's adviser but unfortunately his partisan. In recent months, Vetevendosje's interest - party interest - suddenly even the state's interest in it. There was nothing between him and nothing beyond that interest. Kosovo's political confession was reduced to the narrow narrative: “they stole for 20 years, whoever's not with us is hain”. The adviser in question was not an expert in any particular field, but a subtle user of the hate party language and failure that back there were “the people <x2x3> (VV fantomist who was maintained by well-paid activists, similar to the fake, also paid veterans, who created parties for electoral purposes) who was willing to humiliate anyone who would attack. Kurt's adviser was a political fighter, not unlike the post-war Adem Demaci who alone, mocked and humiliated, opposed to Albanian hatred and attacks on Serbs.

Although it can be said that the councillor's word was right, his purpose, driven by this political position, was completely unjust. This adviser has accused Rugova of failing to start the war in front of these war commanders, who named them “banita” of the unknown “”. Some of these commanders, however, also fired political opponents. The noble purpose of protecting innocent civilians of all ethnicities is compromised by daily policy purposes and class and provincial hatred. However, his political attack was not isolated only to the commanders who were political opponents of Vetevendosje, and thus was largely tarnished by the liberation war and the KLA, while the adviser himself lost the support of the VV people. Then the people became nonpartisan and began to lynch him and offend him in an unacceptable way. And, just when he had to be protected by Kurt and re-registered his word protecting innocent victims of war, he was dismissed.

Kurt could simply say that “yes, we are for condemning all war criminals, indiscriminately ethnicity” but did not say afraid of losing any vote.

I've been constantly critical of the way the war urativa was being cultivated. It was clear that there were party electoral goals behind it. In 2017, Ramush Haradinaj had been detained in France after Serbia had offered new evidence of war crimes, and in Kosovo had launched a terrifying campaign that said “Ramush Haradinaj is Kosova”, which had not even opposed Vetevendosje. The individual, potentially criminal acts of these individuals were widely viewed as the exploits of the entire KLA. They suddenly became “U n CK” and “Kosovo”. Their nickname signified the KLA's stain, freedom and independence of the country. But when dozens of KLA warriors committed suicide after the war, no one said “committed suicide KLA”. So the KLA was privatised for electoral use.

Kurti's word is right if we remove his political and social/classical position from the equation. Civilians of various ethnicities have been killed during the war, although his number is unknown. On the other hand, even the treatment of prisoners of war has not been consistent with the rules of war. Because, it's not like the warrior is suddenly losing all civil and human rights. Yet, it seems that we still do not understand that.

We've heard of the Nobel Peace Prize. Martti Ahtisaari has won it, the Finnish whom we consider to be the <x0). The European Union has won it. Mother Teresa won it. But also the Russian dissident to the hydrogen bomb Andrei Sakharov (the name holding the award Ibrahim Rugova and Adem Demaci won. Anyway, I doubt we've heard of the winner of the first Nobel Prize for Peace in 1901. His name was Henry Dunant, a businessman from Geneva who had shot Solferino, Italy, with his work on the historic battle between the French Empire and Austria in 1859. He had quit those jobs and became a war witness. He had described crimes, which were not actually known as crimes until then, and had given his vision in a monument book called “The memories of Solferino”. Dunant stands on the foundations of the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention.

Denouncing the Special Court, philosopher Blerim Latifi had declared that “it was judging Skenderbeu's war tradition”. In fact, the Skenderbean tradition of war does not exist because there is nothing authentic in it. War crimes have been committed throughout history. Civilians were killed. The wounded and the slain have been cruelly treated. But this war tradition has been broken by Dunant, who proposed being treated as humans and warriors of enemy sides.

But why does the adviser give the exact word “ivils innocent” and not mention the treatment that potentially inhumanally police officers and Serb paramilitaries? Why does his humanity not go so far as to seek justice even for these Serb police and military officers, potentially criminals? Don't even right criminals? Maybe we should read the Geneva Convention.

Today, our society should seek responsibility for all who pour out hate and impatient tongues. For all those who, within political war, treat all others with whom they have radical differences in in inhumane form.

War is permanent. It can change tools, it can go from war with democratic means to war with weapons, but essentially remains a permanent process of restoration. So says Nietzsche. And even democratic war, like the armed one, requires rules. The tongue of hatred of violence is not and will not be lawful. The person's inhuman and degrading treatment is not and should not be permitted.