One Step Forward for the ICC, One Leap Backward for Peace
One Step Forward for the ICC, One Leap Backward for Peace
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan's recommendation for arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant will make ending the conflict more difficult.
You're viewing a single thread.
This article talks about how people shouldn’t have consequences or it’ll push the population further right then go on to say this:
The brutal fact is that if Netanyahu and Gallant were the bloodthirsty genocidaires that their critics claim them to be, the death toll in Gaza would be orders of magnitude higher than what we see today. The Rwandan genocide, for example, was perpetrated over several weeks and resulted in 800,000 deaths
This is satire, right?
Can you cite where it says there should be no consequences?
Edit: to anyone down voting, not that these numbers mean much to me, would you care to back up the above user's claim? Because I think bias is showing through instead of actual consideration.
What do you think the consequences will be?
I can't even begin to make any sort of judgement on that, there are multitudes of mechanisms at their disposal I'm surely unaware of that could be employed. Netanyahu may be suffering his own consequences at home without help from the outside, creating a setting for the ICC in the near future to come after him in a different way with fewer potential pitfalls, though again I can't say what should be done. I can see the author's point in how this action could potentially not lead to peace right now, and agree.
But would court action against Israel help end the conflict? RAND’s Raphael Cohen argues that it is likely to backfire, bolstering Netanyahu politically and making Israel more likely to shift to the right.
It’s right in the preamble of the article you posted.
Have you read it?
Can you show me in that quote where it says there should be no consequences? Not that it will push people to the right.
What is the point of this article you posted?
Can you summarize in a simple sentence?
The ICC's current action is considered by the author to potentially not lead to peace but inflame aspects of the conflict.
The move might be one small step forward for some sort of symbolic justice, but it’s going to be a giant leap backward from reaching a far more important goal—peace.
Can you summarize the article, with quotes directly supporting your claims, in the way you see it?
So you agree this article is saying there should be no consequences.
Can you summarize the article, with quotes directly supporting your claims, in the way you see it?
No, because it’s a trash article.
Again, that doesn't show up in the article. I can see you want it to say that, but I'm sorry, the article is objectively not suggesting no consequences.
The consequences are the court ruling and the article is arguing against it.
How do you explain that the court ruling isn’t a consequence?