While the Union for Reform Judaism and many others came out in strong support of this decision to indict President Bashir, the first sitting leader to be charged , some in the succeeding weeks have offered the critique that in pursuing international "justice," the ICC and the UN Security Council have actually placed a significant road block toward the creation of a lasting peace. In their view, efforts toward peace are inversely proportional to efforts of justice, because such charges simply strengthen the leaders resolve to stay in power and takes away the potential for a diplomatic end to the conflict.  In academic literature this is known as the "peace v. justice" paradox.

However, as two powerful pieces written in the last two weeks point out this is simply a false choice.  It is not peace v. justice, but rather justice as a part of peace.   As the ENOUGH Project's excellent report on the subject explains "Holding people accountable for war crimes is not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective--it directly promotes peace and makes future such abuses less likely."  Additionally as renowned Sudan academic and activist Eric Reeves explained in the Guardian Newspaper, "With its relentless and principled pursuit of those responsible for atrocity crimes, the ICC has created opportunities for political pressure that offer the people of Darfur their best chance for improved humanitarian conditions, security and a glimmering hope of peace."

Ultimately, if the UN Security Council decides that this warrant would put more people at risk it will be able to put the trial on hold.  However, they have not yet chosen to do that.  So while only time will tell, it remains our movement's firm belief that international criminal prosecutions are in fact a part of peace not antithetical to it.