629
NATO will not join US–Israel campaign, Rutte says
(tvpworld.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
629 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
11218 readers
642 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well duh, it's a defensive alliance.
Tell that to the people of yugoslavia in 1999
That was a humanitarian intervention to STOP a genocide.
I bet most were happy that the Serbians were reigned in. Even many Serbians.
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
Well… I think a lot of people in Iran are also happy about these strikes.
But that does not change the fact that Nato is clearly not only defensive.
I don’t get the downvotes, you are correct. The OP’s comment that NATO only intervenes defensively is clearly wrong.
Should they intervene here? No, definitely not because this is a stupid, stupid war, and that’s reason enough.
I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
It wasn't a NATO operation though. It just involved NATO countries. The majority of NATO countries didn't participate.
Participation was voluntary. If it was a NATO operation, it would have been mandatory for every member.
Ah, so it's not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.
No it is, since not every member participated.
The whole operation was voluntary. The only reason it gets a NATO sticker is because only NATO members participated.
If it was an actual NATO operation, it would have been mandatory for all 32 nations. Not just the 13 that actually intervened.
Article 5 does not mandate every nation to participate if any one nation is attached. It is voluntary.
From the nato.int website. It reads to me that if a country refuses to come to the assistance of a country legitimately invoking the article, the country is breaching the treaty.
That's the opposite of article 5
Depends what your definition of defence is though, doesn't it. NATO could just be considered to be defence of peace in which case yeah you could have a mandate to intervene in certain situations and it would still be in defensive peace.
I think you're trying to make a distinction without a purpose.
Ah, like the US.
Yes, under this ‘definition’ they could be intervening all over the world, including in Iran.
No under the NATO definition of peace. Don't be moving the goal posts now.
lol.
Should’ve bombed Israel while there was still something left of Gaza then
Absolutely. But USA has gotten steadily worse, esp. since Bush.
They hadn't in Serbia. Not every illegal attacking war is bad. Reality is messy.
I did, they were in my class growing up in Canada, they said thanks. Have you talked to any of those people who fled that genocide?
Not my point at all. I did in no way say it was unjustified. I was just saying it was offensive and thus contradicted what the original comment said.
You know, I don't actually know how that unfolded. Was it NATO itself, or just all the NATO members? I kind of assumed it was like Iraq.
Yea.. poor Yugoslavia that already faced three UN resolutions concluding their violation of basic human rights wasn't allowed to go on with their ethnic cleansing. Shocking! /s
Correct me if I’m wrong. But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right? Therefore nato was in violation of international law.
But that’s besides the point. I commented under a commenting claiming Nato is purely defensive. Which it clearly isn’t.
Pretty hard to get the UN to mandate anything substantial if there's almost always a veto power protecting its pawns...
Now your moving the goal post. I’m not arguing about if the UN is effective or not. Just arguing that the UN didn’t sanction the bombing, unlike you implied.
If there's ethnic cleansing going on, do you want to wait for the UN to act (in vain, because veto powers) or do you act based on the principles the UN should act on if it actually worked?
Because let's not pretend that the UN actually decided on the substance of that matter and decided against it based on what was happening. It never decided solely due to political reasons and its architecture.
If you want to hold that against NATO, fine. Sometimes, being technically correct isn't the thing to aspire.
You are clearly right. It was an illegal attack.
At least in that circumstance there were already active hostilities that did threaten to flood NATO countries with Albanian refugees trying to escape ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and a strong possibility that the conflict would expand into NATO states.
In this war with Iran there is nothing but Israeli bloodthirst and an American President who desperately needs a distraction and something to regroup his base.
I guess? But where does nato draw the line? Does it bomb a country because it can possibly attack a nato memberstate in 30 years?
How do you get there from what was an ongoing genocide and an immanent threat? Has NATO ever bombed a country because they might attack in 30 years? There is your answer.
Well, Iran having nukes could also be seen as an imminent threat. I just don’t see why one thing would be seen as defensive and the other thing wouldn’t be.
Iran was not about to have nukes. If you listen to Netanyahu, Iran has been a week away from having nukes for decades.
If Iran did get nukes, why would that be a threat? You think Iran would be interested in putting their arsenal up against the United States? Using a nuke would be national suicide. All it would do is provide them protection from regime change wars.
I mean, this would be plenty of justification for bombing texas
Or Bosnia in 95
Nato intervened when Serbian forces committed genocide against the Bosnians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War
That's when NATO decided to intervene.
How come the one conflict where NATO was in the right and defended an ethnic Muslim minority is what people chose to die arguing against
Because it made Russia and China really nervous and that's the propaganda they choose to spread through leftist circles.
*rightist
Well they both hate NATO now yeah.
Was Bosnia a member of NATO in 1995?
I see your point but it was an offensive action. But in defence, I suppose.
Sure?