• SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    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?

    • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can you show me in that quote where it says there should be no consequences? Not that it will push people to the right.

        • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          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?

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                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?

                • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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.