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.
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?
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.
No, you’re trying to conflate their disagreement with this action with the idea that they disagree with any action, which you’ve thus far been unable to support with quotes from the article.
Can you cite where it says there should be no consequences?
What do you think the consequences should 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.
Removed by mod
Can you show me in that quote where it says there should be no consequences? Not that it will push people to the right.
Removed by mod
The ICC’s current action is considered by the author to potentially not lead to peace but inflame aspects of the conflict.
Can you summarize the article, with quotes directly supporting your claims, in the way you see it?
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
No, you’re trying to conflate their disagreement with this action with the idea that they disagree with any action, which you’ve thus far been unable to support with quotes from the article.