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.
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.
Hmm, the side bar says I should use mbfc in order to spot misinformation. Did I do it wrong?
Absolutely, to spot misinformation you need to crosscheck reputable and trusted sources.
And no. A Blog even a good one does not have enough entity to be source of Information by itself. It could be a reputable source of opinion. But that’s all, never about facts.
This is just bleaching propaganda, and if you read the news from Sud America countries, you will notice why.
So you’re telling me mbfc is wrong?
Edit: it’s good enough to be used by fact checkers :) this is hilarious
Analysis / Bias
In review, the website publishes articles from a legal perspective related to national security issues. Articles typically feature minimal to moderate loaded language such as this: The Potential Trouble with Nominating a DNI from Trump’s Central Casting. This story is properly sourced to the President’s daily briefs and the Washington Post. All articles reviewed are properly sourced from credible media outlets such as Reuters, Associated Press, Justice.gov, and the New York Times.
Although Lawfare is known for its straight factual reporting, they also produce editorial content that frequently discusses former President Trump’s legal issues and policy that may not be constitutional. This reporting is always evidence-based. In general, Lawfare is factual and utilizes minimal personal bias as they do not take sides. They report on the law and how it impacts national security.
Failed Fact Checks
They are used as a resource for IFCN fact-checkers.
I am telling you to be dare, and in the name of the truth to explore other narratives, stories and facts. All of it to get your own conclusions.
Be dare, the truth is just awaiting you
The fuck does this mean? Don’t listen to highly reputable sources?
I have found MediaBiasFactCheck to be … not entirely trustworthy.
Same with Snopes.
the comment about the UN being more-trustworthy in terms of framing is dead-on.
the ICC issued a warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest, not because of a blog-post, or because of mere-opinion, but because of an ocean-of-evidence sufficient to justify a warrant for a man’s arrest.
You apparently discount that, as do many, & hold that websites are more-valid than the ICC’s determination.
Good for you.
The ICC’s right, in this case, in my opinion, & the opinion of many others.
_ /\ _
Hmm, why would a “blog” be a source for fact checkers? Someone ought to tell them they’re sourcing propaganda. And maybe someone should tell Brookings that too.
The rest of your opinion is just… Your opinion. Your personal disapproval of mbfc means nothing. Unless you have another highly reputable source that supports your claim about mbfc, I’m gonna stop listening. It’s simply an attempt to silence information you personally disagree with and would not like to have discussion around. You offer no evidence to support your doubt of mbfc but your own anecdotal experience. They’re a widely accepted trustworthy source, even as described by their competitors.
You attack the source and not the information. This article describes a take on how this punishment may not lead to peace. No one is “discounting” anything, I don’t even understand how you’d get that from what I’d said, since you’re saying I discounted something.
Seems like a lot of users here want this article to say what they desire, but can’t find any way to quote where it says that.