The International Day of Positive Neutrality, which falls on December 12, is part of the United Nations' agenda for the month of December. The United Nations defines it on its official page as "the legal status resulting from a state's abstention from participating in a war with other states, maintaining a stance of neutrality towards the belligerents, and recognition by the belligerents of this abstention and impartiality."

This means that positive neutrality from a political perspective is non-intervention or non-participation in any conflict between two states, standing in the middle between the conflicting parties (the aggressor and the victim), so that disagreements can be resolved peacefully under the umbrella of the United Nations in an attempt to prevent the conflict from expanding. However, from my humble perspective and through many political events, we have seen that the international community has not succeeded in resolving many issues due to political interests.

I do not believe that positive neutrality is possible for many countries, especially those whose interests are tied to other countries, making their decisions linked to those countries. And because politics is the language of interests, we see a constant change in ideologies and ideas according to developments; yesterday's enemy may become today's ally. Therefore, I will not delve much into the concept of political neutrality, and I will dedicate this article to the impact of neutrality at the human level and its effect on relationships among people.

At the human level, we often hear popular examples encouraging us to be neutral and stay away from getting involved in others’ problems. There is a saying: "Nothing good comes from the loyal except tearing his clothes," and "Who interferes in what does not concern him hears what displeases him." The result is that we now see conflicts among members of the same community, and other parties do not intervene to resolve the dispute out of not intervening in matters that do not concern them. I see that this is not neutrality in the true sense of neutrality but rather a lack of pride and conscience.

What is negative neutrality and what is positive neutrality, and what should we do to be neutral and balanced without canceling our human role in supporting justice and opposing injustice?!

To be positively neutral, you must be a person of thought and logic capable of inference and analysis, and you must have a living conscience. These are the important tools that qualify you to discern between right and wrong, and to stand by the oppressed against the oppressor because a living conscience does not accept its owner to side with wrongdoing.

To be positively neutral, you must stand equidistant from all people when presenting a topic or issue. Study the matter well and investigate its details without issuing preconceived judgments based on personal convictions or emotional feelings.

The positive neutral refrains from engaging in useless verbal disputes, especially when he does not have clear information, such as religious and political discussions that disturb social peace without benefit, because in these discussions everyone philosophizes matters according to their personal vision.

As for negative neutrality, it is one of the most dangerous negative phenomena that may destroy social relationships, and personally, I consider it a kind of betrayal or selfishness (bias towards only personal interest).

We cannot stand in a gray area and refrain from expressing our opinion and what our conscience dictates when it comes to the injustice of a person. No sane rational person can remain neutral in clear situations where there is a perpetrator and a victim, because this will embolden the wrongdoer to continue his mistakes.

From daily observations, we notice many situations where people remain silent towards a conflict between two parties despite the clarity of the truth and the presence of a victim and an oppressor, but they do not dare to support the oppressed out of fear of the power and influence of the oppressor, or due to material needs they prefer to remain silent so as not to be harmed. These people apply to the saying "The one who remains silent about the truth is a mute devil," Fear of speaking the truth creates a shaky generation that fears more for its gains than for its principles.

We come to a very important topic, which is negative neutrality at the family level, which is neither reasonable nor logical. Standing neutral towards family problems without intervention from any family member to solve them is unacceptable because problems may escalate and lead to the disintegration of the entire family structure.

How can we justify a father, for example, standing neutral toward a problem between children while he sees the clear truth and does not contribute to solving it?!

How can a person seize the rights of a family member and find no one from the family to restrain him?!

How can a person take a hostile stance against a family member and sever kinship ties just because he emotionally sided with someone and relatives of that person stand by him without intervening to fix matters?!

How can a husband disobey his parents for his wife who refuses to communicate with them, and find no one among the family members to advise him and remind him of the necessity of honoring his parents?!

Let us admit that sometimes we may be non-neutral and unfair in our judgments when matters are emotional, but that does not prevent us from opening our hearts, cleansing them with good intentions, and judging our consciences to maintain strong and cohesive family bonds.

Neutrality in the media:

Absolute neutrality does not exist in media institutions, especially those funded by certain parties, because they certainly will not enjoy full independence and will follow the agenda of the funders. However, professionalism and the media code of honor require media professionals to side with good against evil and to support human values because they are the most valuable of all.

I cannot comprehend some media outlets ignoring important and urgent issues and not shedding light on them under the pretext that they are neutral. This is negative neutrality that falls under selfishness which makes them close their eyes to important issues and address trivial issues that benefit no one. One of the ethics of the media profession is to clarify facts whatever the results and not to adopt suspicious views for the sake of position or financial gain.

Neutrality on social media:

Social media platforms are like public cafés frequented by different types of people, each carrying a special point of view based on certain circumstances. These platforms give everyone space to express their opinion on various issues without restrictions; therefore, we may encounter people who differ completely from us in thought and culture, and here being neutral and not intervening in discussions is a positive thing, especially with groups that use social media as arenas of conflict where extremist individuals practice their fanaticism in all fields: political, religious, or sports-related.

In the end, in this age governed by materialism, interests, and self-love, we must uphold our values and morals, judge our consciences, and call things by their names. Interfering in people's private matters is not required, but intervention is necessary, and we must not remain neutral in issues that may cause harm to others. I conclude my article with the title "Neutrality is Not Always Positive," rather much neutrality is negative, destructive, and unfair..

Salwa Hammad