Have the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, committed crimes that are punishable under international law?

Yes.

And does the lack of indictments against American and Israeli officials for their war crimes by the International Criminal Court detract from its right to indict Sudanese officials for committing war crimes in Darfur?

No.

It is true that there is a selective application of justice in the world. It is also true that the powerful can commit crimes with impunity. Even so, just because others committed crimes and escaped justice does not mean that crimes can be immune from morality, and that the charges against these countries are void. Such an excuse would be even worse than the crimes.

Let us, at least temporarily, put the Americans and Israelis aside. The question is: Has the Sudanese regimes committed war crimes in Darfur or not? And why do we deny the International Criminal Court lawsuit, the reports of human rights organizations, and what we see with our own eyes, but believe what the Sudanese rulers say?

Personally, I think that the International Criminal Court is more honest than the rulers and judicial system of Sudan, and I think that they must pay for their crimes in Darfur. I also think that bringing them to justice, or raising a political and legal uproar over the issue, will deter other rulers in the Arab world from committing additional crimes against their people.

This is precisely the point that explains why centers of Arab political power are now worried, and why they have shown solidarity with the rulers in Khartoum. After all, the Arab peoples are ruled by armies and intelligence services, and human rights violations in the Arab world are considered fairly routine and do not create any anxiety in ruling circles unless they feel frightened of scandal or possible punishment. Therefore, the solidarity of Arab leaders with those in Khartoum has the aura of self-defense. All the rhetoric about “conspiracies against the nation,” “dignity,” and “sovereignty” is a crude attempt to hide behind nationalist sentiments.

But what is much more important, and what deserves contemplation and reflection, are questions like “Do human right violations and crimes punishable by law command the attention of public opinion in the Arab world?”

Yes, and no.

It is “yes” when crimes are committed by Israelis and Americans, because this validates harming them and violating their rights and dignity.

It is “no” when they are committed by the ruling regimes, or by criminal fundamentalist and rejectionist groups. And this indicates the existence of double-standards, an imbalance in values, and the continuation of an attitude of victimization.

Let us take what happened in Guantanamo and Darfur as illustrative examples.

News about Guantanamo occupies center stage in the Arab media, and Arab satellite channels pay thousands of dollars to obtain, at a great distance, the footage of metal bars and men moving behind them. Arab commentators employ every rhetorical technique to remonstrate against the violations that are committed there. And that is fine, because it is true and important.

But where is the news from Darfur? If we exclude news emanating from Western news agencies that is published in the Arab media after, of course, it is edited, we will not find much. Even in the conferences that call for the renewal of Arab nationalist thought, nobody seems to notice that the Sudanese rulers are committing crimes against their own people (and these are their own people, after all) because of fears that mentioning this would potentially endanger Arab national security, or because this would bolster the positions non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities in the Arab world, and that the minimum should therefore be said and done.

The difference between Guantanamo and Darfur is that the first reaffirms a sense of victimization, while the latter incites Arabs to look at the man in the mirror, something that they don't like to do. And this, among other things, demonstrates a prevailing political culture in the Arab world of selectivity, impurity and imbalance of values.

Let us, then, return to the subject of Americans and Israelis. It is true that they could be held accountable under international law for their actions, and that none of their generals and politicians have been tried in the International Criminal Court, but it is also true that the best briefs against those generals and politicians where developed by their own citizens, and not by Arabs or Muslims.

It is also true that Palestinians and Arabs who have acted in a way consistent with international judicial standards have been able to file some successful cases, at least to the extent that some Israeli generals have stopped travelling to countries such as Britain or Belgium for fear of prosecution.

But it is also true that what Palestinians and Arabs have done so far in this regard is negligible when it is compared to their resources and abilities, which should enable them to do much more. The problem, certainly, is more complex than one of simply resources and abilities, since it necessarily reflects the balance of power on earth, including political, military or moral force. And it is certainly not helped by Jihadists and rejectionists, who are not any more moral than their enemies and who don't hesitate to commit actions that are punishable by law.

This is a vicious circle, and a dark time.

Even so, similar rights and crimes both here and there are not negated by such limitations. It is important that we stop caring only about what others do and fail to ever look in the mirror.

When looking at Sudan, and its rulers’ crimes in Darfur, we will be confronted by a grotesque image that demands that we be ashamed, admit guilt and call for a reckoning of accounts.

Arabs are not always the victims.

[Translation by Mike Husseini of ATFP]