Again I have to express disbelief that the zealous guardians of this article genuinly 
believe it to be neutral, in its current form. Come out of the closet, do not be ashamed of your motives, admit you feel it is humanitarian and noble to defend Saddam being called "A rising star in the revolutionary Ba'ath Party", (mention for his trial as a war criminal and on what suspicions), while Arik Sharon is termed "The Butcher of Beirut", with every mention of the mere attempts for his trial as a war criminal all in the same Encycolpedia, 

I am mystifieed for the moral ground here;
justify them instead of hiding behind a procedural beurocracy. 

Why is it so important to pretend neutrality? in 100 years, Israel shall be gone anyway but your earnest efforts to that end shall go uncredited and unrewarded.

Be proud of your motives, so that one day, you will be to tell your grandchildren by the fireplace, "In my small way, I was part of that." 

or perhaps I am wrong after all; not humble care for the future-
but mere cowardly mathematics, weighing the traditionally shorter lifespan afflicting 

detractors of Iraqi leaders, compared to the relative safety and spoils of criticisizing Israeli figures?

And as to this:
"As far as I know, privilegied relationships with African or Middle-Eastern strong-man regimes is a trademark of the "old Gaullist guard" ..."

Is "as far as I know" sufficient for references? as far as I know, Jaques Chirac, President of France, was a prime supporter of Saddams nuclear enrichment project, 
and not some anonymous old guard. why, here is an article with photo of the two civil rights champions in one of their favourite hangouts: a nuclear reactor.
Ah the good happy days 

Also as far as I (and CNN, but too bad they don't have Wikipedia block rights) know, Saddam ordered His Air force to Chemical bomb 60 Kurd Villages, which you continously block. Why is my as Far as I know not as good as your as far as you know? 

CNN Report on Iraqi Kurds
CNN Map