The Court of History... and the Defendant is the Scholar

The Court of History announced the opening of its extraordinary session. The case was not against a specific state, nor against a leader or government, but against the entire world, which witnessed the tragedy, possessed the means to prevent it, and contented itself with issuing statements of concern.

Everyone stood inside the hall. No seats were reserved for the major powers, and no flags were raised above the podium; for history recognizes no veto power and grants no one permanent immunity.

The judge asked: Who is responsible for the wars ignited by interests, the bills of which are paid by the innocent?

Representatives of the major powers presented their usual arguments: national security, political necessities, balances of power, and the protection of interests. The justifications were numerous, but none of them could return a child to his school, a family to their home, or life to a hospital that had turned into rubble.

Then the judge opened the file on international justice. He found elegant charters, prestigious courts, and speeches speaking of human rights; but he also found that the law becomes strict in front of the weak and flexible in front of the strong. He asked: If the principles are one, why does justice change whenever the name of the victim or the identity of the perpetrator changes?

Silence prevailed. For the defendant this time was not an individual who could be sacrificed, but an international system that mastered the management of tragedies more than it mastered their prevention; it sends aid after destruction, calls for restraint after victims fall, and seeks a settlement after cities are destroyed.

The judge closed the file and said: The verdict will not be issued today; for history does not rush its judgments, but it does not allow crimes to expire by statute of limitations, nor does it acquit those who possessed the power to prevent the tragedy but chose to stand as spectators.

The session was adjourned, but one question remained hanging over the world: When history writes its final testimony, will it say that we were unable to protect humanity... or that we could have, but we did not want to?