Introduction
The Al Masri case has reignited in Italy the long-smouldering controversies following the news that Libyan authorities decided to arrest him in compliance with the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant. It seemed truly singular that Italy had instead released him and flown him back to Libya on a special flight, fearing Libyan reactions, while Libya, after nine months, complied with the international court’s decision and arrested him: the world seemed upside down.
Let us try to bring a little clarity beyond the confrontation — more propaganda than substance — between government and opposition.

ALMASRI
Al Masri (which apparently means “the Egyptian”; his full name would be Najeem Osema Al Masri Habish) is officially a general who heads RADA in Libya, the police force tasked with fighting terrorism and organized crime and who, among other things, controls Mitiga prison, where there are reports of killings, torture and allegedly sexual violence (against men and children). However, we should not think of it as a state organization of a European type, governed by precise laws and regulations: in essence Al Masri is one of the many gang leaders who control Libya more or less directly, theoretically recognizing the authority of one of the two governments, that of Benghazi and that of Tripoli, the latter being the one recognized internationally.
In this prison detainees include people considered anti-Islamic, atheists, followers of other religions — in short, those considered enemies for various reasons that we Westerners generally struggle to understand.

The International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an institution that is in some ways related to the Nuremberg Tribunal that judged Nazi crimes. It has operated for about twenty years following the agreement signed in Rome: it has jurisdiction over the countries that adhere to it (about 135 currently), among them Italy and also Libya (but not the USA, Russia or China).
The Court has indicted figures far more prominent than the obscure Almasri, such as Netanyahu and Putin.
It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), an organ of the UN that has competence over disputes between states and should therefore resolve them without resorting to force (in reality I cannot recall any case where it actually succeeded).

The facts
At the beginning of this year Al Masri decided to take a trip to Europe, departing on January 6, passing through London, Brussels, Munich and then to Italy.
During the trip, on January 18, an arrest warrant was issued and the next day in Italy he was arrested by the Digos. At that point, however, the Italian government decided to repatriate him on a state flight: upon arrival in Tripoli, Al Masri was triumphantly welcomed by a group of his followers (not by the population in general, as is often said).
Evidently, the government preferred to free Al Masri for fear of repercussions in Libya against our interests, which are substantial, and also because there might have been bloody reprisals against our compatriots in the country. In reality, then, a case of realpolitik, one might say.
The event was reported by the Italian press and heated controversies began. The government offered unconvincing explanations; in particular Nordio relied on legal quibbles and the government found itself in deep embarrassment.
Subsequently, some ministers were indicted by the judiciary (but not the Prime Minister). Later Parliament denied authorization to proceed: only a non-parliamentary government official would remain accused, but even for her, at least for the moment, a legal quibble was found to avoid proceeding.
In short, from a legal point of view the affair appears resolved, but not on the political level.
In November, however, unexpectedly, the Libyan government decided, to everyone’s surprise, to comply with the ICC’s request. Certainly this is not a sudden change of heart of a humanitarian or legal nature, but the result of some power struggle among the various factions and militias that hold power: if Al Masri is guilty, the government would not be less so, since it certainly had a much broader and clearer knowledge than the distant International Criminal Court of what was happening in Mitiga prison.

Considerations
Undoubtedly the ICC and similar organizations respond to a strong ethical sentiment — the rejection of violence, of crimes against humanity as the phrase goes — but their effectiveness, or rather their ability to intervene and repress the evil in the world, appears entirely theoretical.
First of all, they lack the coercive power that all courts possess.
If a national court convicts a murderer, there are police forces to arrest him and thus the convict is forced by force to serve his sentence.
But if the State does not pursue the accused, how can the ICC intervene? An international force would be needed, a power superior to individual states, a world empire, so to speak, that does not exist, and one cannot realistically imagine a military intervention.
It was by chance that Al Masri came to Europe (the warrant did not yet exist, or, as they say, it had not been published), but arresting such a figure also means exposing oneself to reprisals that can be bloody. The Nuremberg tribunal was able to operate because there had been a war with 60 million deaths, and then the victors could judge the vanquished: we more or less agree that justice was done, but there still remains the shadow of justice carried out by victors on the vanquished.
Consider, for example, the practical possibility of arresting a Netanyahu or a Putin: certainly it is unthinkable, and in any case it would not resolve the war in Ukraine or in Gaza — it might even exacerbate them.

And this leads us to an even more general consideration.
We indict certain individuals as if they were ordinary criminals acting alone (like a murderer or a thief). In reality, if horrific acts occurred in Mitiga, it is because an entire group, a gang, acts in that way and for that reason chooses its leader. In Netanyahu’s case we have an entire people who elected him democratically and still legally maintain his power.
In Putin’s case there is no democracy, but certainly the Russian people as a whole support him in the fight against Ukraine.
In short, if in Mitiga, in Gaza, in Donbass there are crimes against humanity, they happen because masses of people commit them and responsibility cannot be assigned to only a few individuals. It may also happen that the leaders are the more moderate ones but cannot restrain their own men.
It is as if we wanted to condemn only the leaders of a gang of thieves or murderers and not all the members who committed the crimes.

We must then consider what is just and unjust.
Do our Western values apply to the whole world?
In fact, they do not even fully apply in our own world.
In Palestine Hamas and the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) claim the whole of Palestine for themselves by direct will of God, even. The secular side, while not sharing this stance, believes that practical and realistic needs point to the creation of two states, though not necessarily that this would be “just.”
Where does reason lie, what is good or evil?
Who decides? Some people placed in international tribunals chosen according to criteria of political balance (or division, if you prefer).
So if the Russians see Ukraine as a threat to their country, will judges determine whether that concern is real or merely a pretext?

We should also add that arrest warrants are not verdicts. The fact that a prosecutor initiates criminal proceedings in no way means that the accused are guilty.
In the administration of justice it often happens that defendants are acquitted after many years and find their lives destroyed: arresting a politician, a political leader, and then acquitting him years later would mean changing history.
Now, in reality, for Al Masri, Netanyahu and Putin there are no convictions but only the prosecutors’ opinions.

One final consideration: indeed horrendous prisons are not only Mitiga, but in fact many prisons throughout the Middle East (think of the Regeni case) and in many other countries are the same. So why arrest only Al Masri? All political leaders, and also all those who operate in this way around the world, would have to be prosecuted.
Something utterly impossible without a world empire.

In common language, the term "revisionism" has taken on a negative meaning: it is understood not so much as an error in historical reconstruction but as a conscious falsification, dictated by a "malicious, criminal" intent. A prime example is Holocaust denial, which in many countries has even become a proper criminal offense. And it is truly singular that in democratic countries where the fundamental principle is freedom of opinion and expression, some historian (one by recognized profession) is even condemned for their reconstruction and interpretation of historical facts, as if the democratic state could establish a historical truth by law. This is truly an exception.

But beyond this, which seems to me a contradiction of democracy, even the not entirely negative interpretation of Fascisms and a not entirely celebratory interpretation of the Resistance and analogous anti-fascist movements is considered not a different historical interpretation but a conscious falsification, to be condemned without IFs and without BUTs, as an act of evil, we might say.

We do not share these revisionist reconstructions which seem to deny what, according to the prevailing view, appears to be contrary to the truth, but we want here to clarify the concept of revisionism, delving into its meaning and relative implications.

First of all, let's say that every historical work is always a revision: whoever writes history is always revising what others have written; there is no ultimate and definitive reconstruction or interpretation, and this actually happens in all fields of knowledge. Even a scientific text that is not merely popularizing is actually revising what others have written, or rather, what the scientific community considers valid up to that moment.

Therefore, we can say that in general, every non-popularizing work is a revision of what is generally accepted.

It certainly seems wrong to me to think that the Holocaust did not happen, but if someone supports this thesis, in order to refute it, their arguments, their reflections must be examined. I cannot say that this thesis, because it is revisionist, is false and dishonest, but on the contrary, if I show that it is false, then I can say that this revisionist work is false. But we cannot say a priori which interpretation is truer, the traditional or the innovative (revisionist), even assuming that an ultimate and definitive truth exists.

 

I would also note that alongside proper scientific history, there is a history that I would call "history of the homeland" (storia patria), which has the purpose of exalting ideals that we consider positive and foundational, and perhaps one might think that it is more important than the scientific one, which, from a certain point of view, is true. Ultimately, it is very important for an entire people to recognize itself in certain ideals that make it a nation, rather than a real critical knowledge that always and anyway puts everything in doubt.

To give an example: in school books we find an unqualified exaltation (senza SE e senza MA) of our Risorgimento (the name itself indicates it) in which the patriots, the liberals are the good guys, the reactionaries and the Austrians are the bad guys.

In reality, the events are much more complex and the general judgment can also be considered from other points of view.

For example, we consider Garibaldi and Mazzini as fathers of the homeland, but in effect post-unification Italy is completely different from the one dreamt of by Mazzini and Garibaldi. The facts are interpreted in a certain way, some ignored and others exalted and sometimes even falsified.

It seems that all the people were with the liberals and oppressed by the absolute monarchs and their followers: in reality this is not the case, because liberalism was the patrimony mainly of the educated classes and therefore of the affluent ones. Thus, the Garibaldini are glorified but post-unification brigandage is ignored. Everyone knows the battle of Calatafimi and the Volturno, but few know about the massacre of Pettorano and the battle of Macerone.

We sometimes have real falsifications. Thus, for example, in the very famous "La spigolatrice di Sapri" (The Gleaner of Sapri), taught for over a century in all schools, a peasant woman (gleaner) is shown as fascinated by and supportive of the “300 young and strong who have died,” killed by the wicked Bourbon soldiers: in reality, they were massacred by the peasants and even by the peasant women, who were also fierce and ruthless, while those who surrendered to the soldiers had their lives spared and were freed a few years later with the arrival of the Garibaldini.

But the idea of an Italy freeing itself from foreigners and pro-Austrian kings has shaped our national consciousness, a prerequisite for our nationality. But in reality, only Lombardy-Venetia was part of the multi-national Austrian empire.

Thus, the Neo-Bourbon revisionists re-evaluate the Bourbons: it is necessary then to examine their arguments which can perhaps be rejected, but we cannot say that their interpretation, being revisionist, is wrong.

Revisionism is seen above all in the evaluation of the Partisan struggle and of Fascism.

There is always talk of a German invasion, but in reality, if Italy surrendered to the Allies (it was called an armistice), certainly the Germans could not allow them to pass through our entire territory undisturbed to reach their borders.

In reality, as in the Garibaldian enterprise, it was always a civil war in which one part of the Italians continued to believe in Fascism and to fight as allies of the Germans, and another part, the partisans, revolted against them, while the great majority only waited for all that horror to finally end, thinking that the outcome of the war was already certain and therefore everything was useless.

Then, especially in the 60s, the sanctification of the partisans was born.

Certainly, the partisans were on the right side, but this does not mean that they were not caught up in the tragedy of war.

War is not a sports competition where the one who breaks the rules loses, but a horrible tragedy where the one who uses the means that lead to victory wins, no matter how terrible.

Atrocities are inevitable due to hatred, fear, vengeance: combatants are not noble knights without blemish.

That there were atrocities committed by the partisans too is obvious; one does not need to read Pansa, it is enough to see "La ragazza di Bube" (Bube's Girl), whose author was certainly not a Fascist.

The atmosphere was the one described, in which Bube kills the son of the marshal who had nothing to do with it.

But our republic is founded on democracy and therefore it is necessary for the entire people to become aware of this, thus identifying the partisans with good and the Fascists and Germans as evil.