And that is the question to be debated: whether Israel’s current course of action will lead to a bad outcome for them, or whether they won’t in fact face additional negative ramifications from a world that doesn’t reject this. Which is sort of my point: if the reaction tops out at something like the ICJ — or a junior-high class — saying stuff that can be breezily dismissed, then it shouldn’t factor in to their calculations.
…the reaction doesn’t “top out” at the ICJ.
The ICJ here (in the most basic terms) points out what laws, INCLUDING Israeli law, is being violated here, if at all. It isn’t a ‘reaction’.
It is very difficult to understand what you are talking about because what you have said here literally makes no sense. Again: if you don’t understand the role of the ICJ or what this advisory opinion says, then perhaps making another thread will help you out.
And I’d like an answer to this question, please.
It wasn’t the UN that brought down apartheid in SA, it was the combined independent actions of dozens of countries, driven by their populations, who were angry about apartheid injustice and brutality (plus, quite obviously, ongoing and unrelenting internal protests and resistance).
If (hypothetically) the next US administration, and future European leaders, see Israel as a dangerous, supremacist pariah state rather than a democratic ally, how long could Israel continue on its present path? How long could Israel survive without Western trade and allies?