Филип Фићовић 1244

Dear Mr. @suljagicemir1 , What is presented as a defense of memory reads, on closer inspection, as a claim to authority over who is permitted to participate in it. Mr. Dodik’s statements are introduced as grounds for exclusion. Some are indeed offensive and deserving of criticism. Yet the argument does not remain at that level. It elevates those statements into a criterion for participation itself, turning political rhetoric, however objectionable, into a mechanism for drawing moral boundaries around public space. That move is not neutral. It is a political act of selection. Across Bosnia and Herzegovina, inflammatory language, denial, and historical distortion are not confined to a single actor. They appear across the political spectrum. Isolating one figure as uniquely disqualifying does not establish a universal principle. It reflects selective application presented as moral clarity. Mr. @MiloradDodik , as the elected representative of the Serb population in Bosnia and Herzegovina, has consistently emphasized the victims of Jasenovac, including tens of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma. His presence at a Jasenovac commemoration can therefore be understood not merely as a political gesture, but as part of a memorial framing that highlights the shared Jewish-Serb suffering during the Second World War. Equating presence with legitimization introduces a restrictive logic in which public space becomes a binary of purity and contamination. Under such a premise, shared commemoration is only possible if all participants first conform to a single approved narrative. In divided societies, this does not preserve memory. It consolidates control over it. More revealing are the conditions being proposed. Public denunciation becomes a prerequisite for engagement, with withdrawal as the alternative. This moves from awareness into compliance, transforming commemoration into a space governed by prior declarations of acceptability. Reference to Mr. Kaploun’s role in combating antisemitism further extends the argument. That mandate cannot credibly function as a general instrument for arbitrating other historical and political disputes. Expanding it in this direction risks weakening its clarity rather than reinforcing it. As someone who stands in the Jewish tradition and who does not relativize the unique significance of the Shoah, I see in the fight against antisemitism no license to hierarchically rank other historical traumas or to select political actors according to their degree of adherence to a single narrative. Invoking friendship toward the Jewish people adds another layer. Genuine solidarity does not rest on expectations that Jewish representatives adopt externally defined thresholds of legitimacy. Framed as obligation, such expectations begin to resemble pressure rather than partnership. At its core, the structure is clear. An undisputed tragedy is invoked. From it, a broader interpretative claim is constructed. That claim is then used to define who may participate in remembrance. This sequence does not simply protect memory. It reorganizes it into a regulatory framework. A crucial distinction remains between confronting harmful statements and establishing conditions under which access to memory becomes contingent on political alignment. Crossing that line alters the nature of remembrance itself. This is no longer only about defending memory. It is about administering it. And once memory is administered in this way, it no longer protects truth. It protects the authority of those who claim the right to define it for others. Sincerely, Frano Yehuda Kolomonos Martincevic @StateSEAS @USEmbassySJJ @StateDept