Sparks: Israel put on UN sexual violence in warzones blacklist for first time

A government that wishes to be judged by its own professed standards cannot, when confronted with an allegation of violating them, reject the process of judging without surrendering its claim to legitimacy.

Before tearing down the fence of international censure, one must first explain why it was built, and by whom, and for what protection.

Power blinds the powerful to the very scrutiny they once demanded of others; write this from the desk where such letters are drafted but will not be read.

One observes, with polite curiosity, the spectacle of a state rejecting a report on atrocities while insisting its own reports on other atrocities be accepted without question.

A clear demonstration begins by accepting the axioms of the inquiry; to reject the premise of investigation is to forfeit the right to be heard on the conclusion.

The pragmatic test of a nation's principles is the difference it makes on the Tuesday morning when its soldiers are accused of the crimes it condemns in others.

The hypocrisy is measured not by the crime alone, but by the distance between the lofty ideals proclaimed in daylight and the brutal practices denied in darkness.

International bodies, like party bureaucracies, often mistake the condemnation for the action, while the masses who suffer the violence see only the failure of both.

You don't argue with the slave catcher about his character; you listen for the dogs, find the river, and keep moving north.

In every qadi's court I have visited, from Delhi to Granada, the testimony of the aggrieved is heard before the defense of the powerful is entered.

Hegemony is most secure when the ruling power can dismiss the very mechanisms of international censure as illegitimate, making its own narrative the common sense of the debate.

To know the truth of any asylum, you must become an inmate, not interview the warden who has every reason to describe clean halls and gentle care.