If you believe that what’s “normal” happens all by itself each and every time, consider the following:
Given that we, human beings, instinctively believe that
the laws we make are meant to apply to all of us equally – whether we are a downtrodden
individual or a mogul, whether we represent a small and backward nation, or
represent a big and advanced nation – we expect more than being treated equally;
we expect being seen as treated equally.
That would be the normal that will satisfy any of us. But
seeing that life does not always unfold in that manner, says that the abnormal
is at times made to look “normal.” Because the resulting product can never be a
natural one, we must think of it as a synthetic normal. It is therefore a
concoction that has as much affinity to the natural normal as a synthetic
flower has to a naturally grown flower.
And so, the question to ask is this: How does that transformation
come about?
Two recent publications reveal much of what goes on
behind the backs of people – be they downtrodden individuals thirsting for
justice, or weak nations hungering for equal treatment. One of the publications
came under the title: “The International Criminal Court at 20,” written by
Irwin Cotler, Allan Rock and Brandon Silver,” and printed in Project Syndicate
on September 2, 2022. The other publication is an editorial of the Washington
Examiner, printed under the title: “Will Biden wake up on Iran?” It was
published on September 4, 2022.
What the two publications have in common, is that they
began the process of agitating for the transformation of “equal justice” –
which we instinctively believe is the natural way to proceed – into a system of
“tiered justices” dispensed in accordance with the status and power of who
seeks it, or in some cases, in accordance with the level of protection that a
weak seeker receives from someone powerful.
Whereas the Washington Examiner’s editorial argues for speculating
about the potential that someone may commit crimes before any are committed,
Cotler, Rock and Silver argue for evaluating the severity of crimes already
committed when the time comes for justice to be imposed. This being the case,
impartial observers are made to assume that the theme of crime and justice has
been entirely covered by the two arguments. But the reality is otherwise
because, while the Cotler group and the Examiner’s editors gave a thorough
analysis of what needs to be done when the weak nations make errors, they
deliberately omitted mention of the crimes committed by Superpower America and
by Israel, its weak protégé.
In fact, it is the repetition of that sort of omission which
sets the foundation for the abnormal to acquire the look of the normal, thus
become more entrenched with the passage of time. Despite this reality, look how
the three writers have treated the relationship that now exists between “might”
and “right”:
“The idea of individual criminal
responsibility for mass atrocities challenged the old notion of unfettered
state sovereignty and its animating ethos that ‘might makes right.’ As a
permanent venue for securing justice for victims and accountability for
violators, the ICC is the crown jewel of the current system. It continues to
represent the greatest hope for international justice. Complementary to the ICC
is the international sanctions regime, which includes global legal norms
(so-called Magnitsky laws) that allow for punitive measures – travel bans,
asset seizures, financial prohibitions, and asset repurposing – against
individuals responsible for human-rights abuses. The ICC and targeted sanctions
are each significant in themselves; but to achieve their full potential, they
should be mutually reinforcing. For example, the sanctions regime should be
deployed against anyone who is evading an ICC arrest warrant, or against
foreign officials from Rome Statute states who fail to cooperate with the ICC
in the fulfillment of its mission”.
The writers not only failed to mention America and Israel
throughout the article, they kept them out of the melee by not speculating
about what they might do before they do it, and by neglecting to assess the
severity of the crimes they are known to have committed. Instead of scolding America
and Israel for the crimes they committed in Palestine and elsewhere, urging
them to submit to the same treatment as everyone else, the writers justified
keeping them out of the melee on account of them being non-members of the Rome
Statute, which they chose to be to avoid being judged like the others. This is
not a sin of careless omission on the part of the three writers; it is a
deliberate sin of commission. It shall remain unforgivable till they apologize
and halt the wrong they are trying to propagate.
As to the editors of the Washington Examiner, look what
they say that boggles the logical mind – reproduced here in condensed form:
“The Islamic
Republic of Iran is increasingly unconstrained. Of most immediate concern are
Iran's continued attempts to kill American citizens on US soil. In recent
months, the FBI has disrupted advanced Iranian assassination plots against
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. They continue to receive full-time security details
in the face of this threat. Others have been less fortunate. President Joe
Biden should be confronting Iran over these provocations, which are all acts of
terror inspired or ordered by Iran's theocratic regime. Even if Biden won't get
serious about Iranian assassins, it should be a no-brainer for him to take
nuclear weapons seriously. Alas, no”.
So here we have an Iran that responds in kind to the
threats and activities that America and Israel never stop throwing at it. And
when Iran responds, the Examiner’s editors describe its doings as terrorism
while exonerating the same sort of doings by omitting mention of them when they
are committed by America or Israel.