Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Articles based on misinformation or outright propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
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?
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 explain this comment to me again only using quotes by Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony?
GG no re?
You’re asking me to support my argument using only quotes from your trash article even though I’ve explained my position to you very simply, so I’m asking for an equivalent useless exercise from you.
You're claiming the author's opinion using the article, which is trash (according to you), so you can't use the article to support your claim. So your claim is unsupported, even though you say the article supports your claim?
Yea, no re.
If you can’t explain your position using Twilight Sparkle quotes, do you even understand what you are saying?
While that reasoning is impenetrable, I am gonna have to stand firm in my opinion :)
What a uttermost piece of garbage this article is. Like everything trying to bleach the Israel actions
This genocide propaganda does not have a place here. They need to feel that they are not in the right side of the history.
Sigh, not the first time these highly reputable sources have been called propaganda.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/
Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence-based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact-checkers.
The fuck, you link to a Website that is saying this is reputable because semantics and potatoes.
Do you want reputable sources?
Check U.N. Which US and Israel are also members and then try to contain the shock of what is their opinion. If you are not fully convive then you can continue with several Un agencies, routers new agency and basically the rest of the world outside us.
My god, people really grab a burning nail instead of accepting the truth.