628
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
628 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
10618 readers
670 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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 primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And are you trying to tell me the UN is anything else than that? As soon as you're under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US, you can do whatever you want. Their might already makes right whatever you do.
Yes, it very much is anything else. The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one. If the UN was just might-make-right, then there would be no reason to sidestep it the way we see it done. In fact, if anything, the false equivalence of Iran and Israel is actually an excellent example:
Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program, up to and including supervisions, sanctions, arms embargoes and asset freezes. As a result, Iran eventually accepted a nuclear monitoring and the sanctions were lifted, thus the conflict being solved through diplomacy, without resorting to war, and without fighting any kind of explicit protection from Russia. Point for the UN.
On the other hand, looking at the US golden child, they're practically the only reason the US even uses it's veto since Apartheit ended (huh. strange, that). But even with Israel being the rogue nation that it is, and being defended by the 900lb gorilla as it is, it's capacity for damage was largely constrained, not even by veto, but by the simple fact that everybody votes against them, and all of their neighbors hate them. Until, of course, the cold war ended, Fukuyama wrote the worst article of all time, and the anglos decided negotiation is for pussies who don't have the guns to make shit happen. Now, if Russia or China actually decide to protect Iran, we're staring down the barrel of WW3, just like we were when Russia invaded Ukraine. You may think this is the UN's fault for not stopping this, but this is, in fact, how things worked before the UN. The UN is the alternative to precisely what we're looking at in the news right now.
Yea, the discussion part is very strong with the UN. We see a constant stream of arguments, opinions, etc presented there. Everyone can present their country's view on things. But then what? When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.
And I'd strongly disagree: the veto is not there primarily to prevent world war (which rather is prevented by a huge global stockpile of nukes pointed at eachother), but to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they'd never have to face a decision against their will.
So, while the commoners of countries on the cheap seats keep on exchanging heated discussions based on international law and values they feel more or less obliged to, the elite in the front watches them smiling, knowing they themselves aren't bound to the same set of rules as them. They literally are above the law.
Yea. Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation was so unhinged that no veto power saw use in openly protecting it. Or wanted them to get nukes. They still are as unhinged, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens for daring to speak up against oppression, but since they're now also a key enabler of Russia's imperialistic war aspirations, at least Russia would not let Iran be punished by the UN again. So there's that.
Only if by "enforcement" you mean "going to war", which, once again, is what the system is designed to prevent. Military intervention is difficult to authorize by design, precisely because it is, and should, be the last resort. Thinking of anything short of war as "paralyzed" is the exact "Stop-war association is worthless because it won't let me go to war" anglo brainworms that are to blame for the 21st century being what it is.
Yes. Exactly. That's how they prevent WW3. By making sure everyone else knows what the red lines of nuclear powers are. Otherwise, every time a nuclear power would want to take an action, it would be playing a game of chicken with all the other powers.
Who, Israel? Because from where I'm sitting, Iran's foreign policy has been, on the whole, more than reasonable. Last I heard, they even agreed to completely stop uranium enrichment alltogether - and then the theocratic regime determined to destroy their whole nation murdered their head of state.
If what you're saying is true, every single resolution on Iran's nuclear program would have been vetoed by Russia, and none were. None. Zero. Instead, the nuclear rogue state under the veto shield by a global power is the exact country you're defending.
No, by enforcement I mean actually applying the law to stop the trespassing of the law. Or at least punish the trespassing if you couldn't stop the actual trespassing in time.
How? WW3 would need a direct, open conflict between at least two major nuclear powers. A constellation we - luckily - haven't seen since WW2. I'd argue that this is because each of those countries knows that a conflict like that cannot be reliably contained and would end in MAD. So nukes are the balancing factor keeping these countries at check. I cannot see how the architecture of the UN comes into play here.
I guess you're sitting in an IRGC hq then. Because, not trying to downplay Netanyahu's actions, calling Iran's foreign policy, "on the whole, more than reasonable" is quite a hot take. One key aspect of Khomeini was to export the Islamic Revolution worldwide until everywhere on the globe we would shout "There's no God but Allah". I don't know about you, but I don't fancy to live in a theocracy under sharia law. Also, the position to outright annihilate Israel is one at least I cannot condone, won't fly legally in my jurisdiction, and is a position that will not bring peace to the region, let's be honest.
As I said: Iran was so isolated that neither Russia nor China saw any gain in protecting them. That was then, though. Today, I think we both agree, Russia would veto.
Not blindly jumping on the echo chamber hate-wagon in every aspect is not defending. Netanyahu is a criminal and should be prosecuted. He does not want peace but to save his skin. Setting up more and more settlements on Palestinian soil and deporting the inhabitants is a crime. Starving the population in Gaza is a crime. But also: Israel has the right to exist as a country within its international borders. And those that cannot accept that are bringing injustice on themselves and are more part of the problem than of the solution.
@Quittenbrot @Aqarius
"more part of the problem than of the solution"
What is the solution in your view?
Two sovereign states, each accepting the legitimate existence of the other.
@Quittenbrot
And where would you draw their borders?
Irrespective of the fact that I think that's something they themselves have to conclude on together, I personally would opt for the internationally recognised Green Line in an ideal world.
Yes, that's what the sanctions are for. And I once again point out you literally brought up a case in which they demonstrably worked.
Yes. Thanks in no small part to the UN.
I know, it's crazy, and yet entirely correct. They took on the chin decades of open warmongering and multiple naked acts of war, retaliations that they did take were very carefully measured and precisely executed, going so far to telegraph their strikes a full day in advance so they would cause no casualties, and they even agreed to compromise on an armament program they (as we now see, rightfully) considered vital to the security if not outright survival of the country. It was like Ukraine agreeing to the Budapest agreement again. When their competition is a state that throws a hissyfit when asked nicely to stop killing children, I'd say they have been more than reasonable, even without considering we're talking about an Islamic theocracy.
So, then, you agree that "under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US" was a false equivalence?
Veto what? A naked war of aggression US and Israel can't even articulate why they're starting? I'd hope there would be no need to have to resort to a veto.
So does Iran. And the UN's job is to try and enable both, no matter how much they'd like to run eachother over with a Zamboni machine. That's the whole point.
..which won't come into effect if the trespasser is (under the protection of) a veto power.
Iran failing to secure a veto power that saw something to gain in protecting it in the past isn't proving or disproving anything. Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russia's war ambitions, they would be protected.
No. I said:
And that is still correct.
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime. You know, something people on the left side of the political spectrum normally show great sympathies towards (fighting the oppression, that is, not killing the citizens).
Who said otherwise? I haven't head many people opposing the mere "idea" of Iran. It is the sclerotic theocracy despised by the own populace, being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community. Mind you, of course it's not the only strain. Yet, there's an awful lot more people completely sympathetic to the idea of making Israel itself disappear from the map than there are that wish for maps without Iran.
How good does that work if there's an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
Which, as we can plainly see, they are not.
They didn't need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked. If anything, had the sanctions still been in place when Trump first won, I would expect a US veto on lifting them.
No it is not.
You're equivocating real, actual vetos on real, actual resolution proposals with vetos you imagine would be invoked to resolutions you imagine would be proposed. You keep making arguments that don't exist outside your head. And possibly Congress.
Oh? So not the war? You're arguing for illegal war because veto umbrellas make the UN useless, but even in your imagination the veto is used against sanctions, instead of a war?
Uh... something something western world, something holy crusade, blabla Amalek, blablabla red heifer, blablabla Jesus coming back. It's been all over the news recently, but various rephrasings and dogwhistles were around for decades. Hell, now that I think about it, Iran's theocracy being sclerotic and unpopular might even be a point in Iran's favour.
See, this is another one of those equivocations: This entire phrase applies a lot more directly to Israel than it does to Iran. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I don't remember them assassinating Israeli officials or bombing Israel out of the blue, and when the international community gets serious, they are willing to make concessions. Israel, on the other hand, is under cover of more than two dozen SC vetos, and currently arguably engaged in an ethnic cleansing, a genocide, and an ~~illegal war of aggression~~ two, actually, they just invaded Lebanon. Again.
That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel. Maaaybe the NorKs. Past Apartheit, Russia was by and large covering it's own ass, and China was mostly backing Russia up, presumably to fuck with the yanks. America is the only one with a problem child that needs constant bailing out of juvie. So, really, the question is less about the UN, and more "how do we get the US to either reign in their brat, or stop covering for it".
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
Sanctions that only came into place because the failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
What? Why would Iran be sanctioned for this war??? Iran has its own actions to be sanctioned for, but this war isn't one of them.
I'd love to see "the news" that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Since day one of their existence as an "Islamic Republic", they threatened Israel with annihilation. A threat that Israel knows only too well, after having to fight a war against all neighbours in the moment of founding of their state. I can't blame them that they want to take that "noise" seriously. It is a core objective of the IRI to destroy Israel. Not Netanyahu's Israel, but simply Israel. They don't want a Jewish state in "their neighbourhood". Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
Yes, yes. I know. We can't talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel. If you're too fixated on these two to be able to discuss a broader picture, that's fine. But then, that'll be a very limited discussion to be had with you.
To conclude and loop back to where we actually started here: there's a fundamental flaw in the principle of the UN. The veto powers created a system in which they are able to protect them and their proteges from whatever unwanted consequences they'd have to face. This effectively paralyses the UN, and especially the application of international law. A commenter wanted to criticise NATO's actions in Yugoslavia, as they weren't backed by an UN resolution. Although ethnic cleansing was going on.
You said:
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention. The veto can stop the work of the UN, but not of the member states. As happened here: the UN was too paralysed to react to the human rights violations, so the NATO states took it in their own hands. That isn't ideal but a direct consequence of the flawed architecture of the UN thanks to the veto the nuclear global elite gave themselves. And now, everyone is free to pick a side to stand: either saying that it is more important to end human rights violations, even if the body responsible to approve that is incapable of doing so - or saying that it is more important to strictly stick to the rules, even if that means idly watching ethnic cleansing when the responsible body has been deliberately put in standstill by other members affiliated with the perpetrator.
You can choose yours, I've chosen mine.
The fact that you're trying to weasel out of the obvious answer tells me you know you're wrong. So in lieu of falling for it, Did Russia recently veto something grave against Iran?
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass. Which, as we have seen, only works if you're a permanent member. Or Israel, apparently.
Yes I am. They have before, and will again. If anything, I would expect it to let the sanctions happen, then break them, then veto being punished for breaking them. Fits the MO much better.
Oh, we'll get there, don't you worry...
As long as the country isn't Palestine.
We can, but your core argument hangs on a great power covering an ally with a veto no matter what, and we currently only have one actual example of it happening.
This is an excellent point! A country can, absolutely, act without UN legitimacy, and "get things done". But it doesn't just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
I know. And what you have chosen is "Might makes right". I can understand why, it's an appealing fantasy, it's why Dirty Harry is popular, but the flip side is that if you declare the rules don't apply to you, you can't object to everyone else doing it, whether it's Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel.
What are you on about? I've always been talking about recently, status quo, today. The only one trying to make this into a historical competition on who vetoed for whom how many times is you. I've been trying to make that clear repeatedly. My problem isn't who vetoed for whom but the possibility to veto at all, as that's the core problem. If you want to discuss something else, fine. But that's not the discussion I'm having here.
Why? Please elaborate.
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the "West". Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the "West" and dependent on Iran's support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That's the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn't let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
But that's a UN problem and not a "persons that call that out" problem. After WW2, there was the understandable desire to create a platform where international topics could be resolved in peace. Good idea! However, the big players didn't trust each other and also didn't want to be subjugated to anything else than their own free decisions. That's also understandable. But a true and fair international platform issues the same rights to all its members. Which the UN doesn't, so that's an elemental design flaw it will always stumble upon.
No. Because I don't advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases. I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly. Why should people let themselves get killed just because the UN is incapable of fixing its design flaws?
Let's not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the "lost empire". Similarly, China doesn't care at all if the world thinks there's any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they'll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a "Chinese" country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle "might makes right".
No you haven't. You've been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, I'd love to hear it.
Because normal countries don't see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries don't see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members don't just plop vetos willy-nilly. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except for...
This isn't an argument, it's an opinion. It's not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
Once again, you're criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven't actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. You're doing the thing again.
Yes you do, you just don't realize it, because you think right isn't made by might if it's made by might you agree with.
Exactly! Let's not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew... And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly you're fine with them following the precedent.
Exactly! Because, I'll repeat it again once more, my problem is not who vetoed when for whom specifically but that it is possible to veto at all for a certain group of countries. Got it?
Yea.. no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.
Source
It doesn't go against current and I explained why I expect different than prior behaviour. And you?
No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. I'm criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve. When it comes to Israel, these citizens don't have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
I don't. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle "might makes right". What you're trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the "eternal enemy USA", has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. You'll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.
Ah, you're finally looking stuff up. Fantastic. I don't know what picture you think the graph paints, but I'll take the win.
Yes it does. There was no veto for sanctions. That's the current. You're doing it again.
That's exactly it - I don't see them trying to achieve it. I could be wrong, but I don't even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago. You're doing it again.
They have the option, yet the action is still hypothetical. You're doing it again.
And who ~~makes the right~~ decides what counts as exigent circumstances? That's right. The mighty.
...Wait, you think there's such a thing as an initial source of injustice? And you think I'm arguing it's America? Christ on a stick, every fucking thing is a team sport to you people. Though I shouldn't be surprised, you are after all arguing that breaking the laws is good when the good guys do it. What I'm trying to sell - of course! - here is that either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you believe it's acceptable to discard law where it hobbles you, then you're arguing that it's acceptable for anyone to discard law where it hobbles them. And when told this is what "might makes right" is, your reaction - of course! - is "We don't do that, also, everyone does that!". Which is why you're blaming Iran for things Israel does, because "everyone does that" so they must do it too, and then absolving Israel for things they are doing, because "we don't do that", so it's clearly a fluke.
Check out the attached link to the source, that should make it clearer what the graph is showing.
Sure! Sounds just like him. Non-stop winning.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in "directly" here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesn't matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But I'm sure we actually both know that, so what's there left to say.
But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
I absolutely don't. Do you?
There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasn't me. In fact, I've tried to tell you numerous times that I don't care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! I'm under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didn't make at all and hence this is a discussion where we're talking at cross-purposes.
I know what it's showing, but "Actually, Russia does veto more!" isn't the interesting part.
I didn't sneak it in, I wrote "directly" because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly. It very much does matter who pulls the trigger. Terror groups are not UN members.
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it, and that's the big reason they're being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasn't involved in any of them, I don't think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. It's politically unacceptable for Iran to say it out loud, but they have the full triad now. I believe the motivation for Iran even considering a nuclear program is precisely the fact that they're facing a foe they can't destroy, and don't trust to keep a peace, so their approach is to try and keep the conflict from boiling over.
So, now you put together a very interesting picture here. You "can accept [...] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands", and that "exigent circumstances" is defined by the mighty, "As has been the case all along". Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, "can accept" might to make right. But you also "don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases", so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. Hm. Have you ever encountered the term "Crooked Timber Conservative"?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but there's no head vampire everything traces back to. Evil is an emergent phenomenon, not a river with a source.
I believe you were the one who brought up the comparison of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US. I just ran with it. And it's not a competition, but a comparison. Time and time again, I see arguments made by what I'm sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to "the good guys should just kill all the bad guys", and I find the shortest, simplest way to throw a wrench in this mindset is to flip the positions and see if they recognize what they're doing. This either gets people's gears going, or devolves into the "No you don't get it, I'm a Good Person." meme, which is always funny.
The second, broader point, to put it plainly: Either there are laws, or there are no laws. And if there are no laws, then might makes right. And I believe strongly that having laws is wildly preferable.
If you will forgive a history lesson to point out a few highlights, ever since war got too expensive to be profitable, countries went to great effort to prevent it, or at least minimize it. After the 30 Years War, the powers that be effectively invented the modern state. After the Big One, they effectively invented the international community. Then the Other Big One happened, they went to troubleshoot the problem, and what they settled on as a solution is honestly kinda interesting. In essence, the vast majority of states like working together. Or, at the very least, they prefer it to war. This is to be expected, this is normal, this is how humans are. Those that aren't willing are mostly just stubborn, and can be incentivized to compromise, usually through sanctions and other pressure tactics. For those who genuinely refuse to play nice, the UN solution is to force compliance. However, even putting aside the "fucking for virginity" paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isn't to be done lightly. The answer we ended up with is the GA, the SC, and the veto: the GA to be used for negotiations, when those fail, the SC will assist with coercion, and, if nothing works, move to enforcement. However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother. This may sound ridiculous looking at what peacekeeping looks like now, but I remind you the UN police action know as the Korean War ended with some 3mil. dead.
And if you'll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that they're inherently reactive and limited: you can't force a thing done, just prevent it. For example, a veto can prevent the UN from officially declaring sanctions that all members would need to follow, but it can't stop individual members from imposing them - in theory, this is the approach to be taken when a veto power is stonewalling action, and if it isn't, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isn't really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as you're not allowed to cheat: If a country breaks the law and gets away with it, the other countries will rightfully wonder how protected they are by law. Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an "I can do what i want" card. If the lawbreaking continues, and there's no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until they're either brought back in line or the line disappears. It won't happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, you're back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
The graph you posted is interesting, but not for the reason you think. What that graph shows is the number of times a veto power announced to the world "I find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!". What the red on that graph tell me is that instead of one veto power being outvoted and fighting a delaying action against decisions everyone else agrees with, we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
It's why I take a dim view of "yes, it's illegal, but it's the right thing to do". It's also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemies' enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright. And, honestly, it's why I'm a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm "well, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuilding". Which I now realize is also "yes, it's illegal, but it's the right thing to do".
Your words:
Please refrain from moving goal posts. Your words:
..implying Iran is only words but no actions. Although they very much act, but through the hands of their affiliated terror groups.
Doesn't sound like it, when you're listening to their officials. Not now, not prior to Israel's attack. So what's your basis for this assumption?
No. The existence of these exigent circumstances never was up for debate: the occurring ethnic cleansing was not a secret. It is not like those states made up a "trust me bro" story like for example the US did a couple of years later with Iraq. The UN knew about it but still wasn't capable to act accordingly due to being deadlocked - yet again. Hence, as was the case numerous times before and will be the case countless times in the future, states acted on their own behalf. And in this case, I can understand it, as, we've been through this before, the existing exigent circumstances called for immediate action. I don't see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.
The main problem I have is that the UN, due to this veto architecture, is not capable of responding appropriately in situations where it, as the guardian and agent of the international law we once agreed upon, should defend this law specifically. There's a backdoor for certain countries to hinder, stop, override the actions of the UN. But not for others, rendering these principles undemocratic and useless.
Most of the times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. But that mechanism isn't here. A group of nations CAN do just as they please. For decades. And right now, they are as unhinged as ever, showing us that they no longer care what we think about that.
Fine. But since I never made that claim, please don't vent that frustration on me. I told you what I'm criticising - the general principle irrespective of who is using it - and how little this has to do with the whole tribalistic competition between the badness of the individual actors of the Middle East conflict ... Frankly, these are the most toxic and useless discussions to be had on the internet. I'm really not interested.
But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldn't fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that can't be won. On the other hand though, these countries effectively received a perpetual get-out-of-jail card. This card frees them from consequences from their own actions, frees them from the need to compromise. All of which the other countries that weren't as privileged didn't receive. So we have a two-class system: the vast group of commoners that must play along nicely or sufficiently suck up to one of the elites to be protected (fueling political bloc formation), and the elites that can choose how much they want to play along. At the same time, this severely undermines and even destroys the effectiveness of international law, as it can at any point be halted/stalled by these countries and they can't be held responsible. It is a flaw that must be fixed, should the whole construct of international law have any form of future.
My point exactly.
(X) Doubt. And big time! Look at the linked source. Most of the first 30ish? vetoes were about countries' membership applications. This was pure tactical political power play to secure/gain majorities but nothing you actually would send your tank for against the other political bloc.
Yes. Exactly. Being a veto power is a privilege and should be honoured accordingly by the nations holding this privilege. I can see that less and less.
It depends on the circumstances. And, let's be real, most don't really care about these but rather only about who's doing it. Back at the tribalistic m.o. For some, it is just fundamentally wrong because it was "NATO"/"the US" and they build their entire (political) world view around the core principle of opposing them. I'm not implying you're one of them, but I guess you'll know what kind of people I mean. On the other hand, you've got those that cheer for the US whatever they do. Who don't care about the countries on the receiving end of US military ambitions, because it is the land of the free bringing democracy. But we're speaking about this case specifically, and I really have to say, given these specific circumstances, I can understand why NATO did what they did.
Well. I don't. Because I'm certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldn't resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was "only" the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldn't kidnap Maduro with impunity or bomb other countries just as he pleases. He also would have to resort to stirring up as much dirt with the means he has at hands. But his goals and ambitions would remain the same power-hungry, criminal and outright unhinged. Same with the Mullahs.
Correct. The amounts used don't affect any of that.
Likewise. My claim isn't that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesn't look like an attempt at nation-destruction in any serious way. If they did, it would look like... well, what Israel is doing to them right now. So, yknow, doing it again.
And that's the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. That's the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what I've seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the "well, dictator, illegitimate" opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures it's justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going "What, you did it too!". Hell, right now, the US and Israel are engaged in a war that they can't even give an excuse for, and Carney, who just came back from Davos and the "remove the sign from the window" speech put the sign right back were it was. Your entire argument works perfectly as long as there's either an absolute judge of right, or a universal agreement of what right is, but if that were true that consensus would be law and there wouldn't be a need to break the law in the first place.
This is a fair complaint. But I point again to the problem it was trying to solve: to make a UN, you have to convince countries to give up some of their sovereignty to an external force. The League of Nations failed because A) a bunch of countries left the minute they didn't like a ruling, and B) a bunch didn't even join because they didn't wanna risk even getting to that point. The veto was a way to coax them into the community and get them to see the value in staying, instead of taking their toys and leaving. And if that sounds fucked to you, I'd point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.
I... no. The "but" there doesn't do anything. The rest of the statement is unrelated to the first sentence, and the first sentence is what I'm pointing at. You say you care about the underlying mechanisms, but I don't see you making the connection here.
Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of "we're taking you all with us" and two are run by geriatrics who clearly haven't made peace with their own mortality, one of which's warchief just said they're doing Armageddon to bring Jesus back. Not to mention, if taken for granted, it would mean that any country with a nuke is incentivized to immediately get troops involved into any dispute that may interest another power, just to mark the territory.
But the nuance I was making is this part: "the veto itself is still the same". The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking. It alone is not exactly fantastic, but is limited. It's the second part that turns it gamebreaking.
"Jain". It's an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.
The problem with this is the same as with the "mostly" above. Though I am reminded of an old Chris Rock routine (no, not that one) where he talks about OJ and the murder of his wife, and the repeating punchline is "Now I'm not saying he should've done it, but I understand". There's a big gap between "I understand" and "he should've done it".
...I'm tempted to say "you're doing it again" again, but actually this poses an interesting question: say, for example, Iran had US military possibilities. Like, somewhere in 2024, they somehow get ahold of, IDK, a US carrier group or two, and then proceed to use it to bomb Israel to force them to get out of Gaza and retreat... let's say back into the 1967 borders. Would you approve?
Again, your words:
Frankly, graph and link show that this is not true.
You're mixing up aspiration and possibilities.
NATO 1999: evident violations of basic human rights. Do you agree?
Maduro: IS a dictator and IS illegitimate, but still I say abducting him like that is wrong.
Russia: NATO or any of its member states didn't invade a neighbouring country in the biggest war since WW2 in order to annex and expand the own borders. I know too well that Russia and their sycophants love to play that "just mirroring NATO!!1" card as a shabby veil to hide their indigenous blatant imperialism under. But that "argument" has always just been a steaming pile of bs.
It isn't restrictive as it didn't hinder them to do what they wanted to do all along. Rather, in a world of Putins and Trumps, no side is trying to be the "better" side by following the rules - more or less. Instead, they released all brakes and don't care anymore. Yes, I understood your explanation on why the UN was designed that way, but that cannot be the end of the story. Especially, after seeing what kind of problems come along with it. This thing needs to be further evolved instead of just saying: well, it is what it is. Otherwise, as can be seen right now, the whole thing will go down.
Well, it is a dangerous world we live in, merely hanging by a thread. No point hiding from that hard truth. The only thing keeping us kinda safe is that neither of these geriatrics has the power to completely single-handedly actually fire the nukes. There's other people in the lines of command from his button to the ship/silo carrying the warhead that the lunacy of only one mustn't necessarily mean the end of us all. But a UN, which especially is toothless against the veto peers, is of no use for the disputes between the nuclear elite.
Since we're eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If there's the possibility, there will be law-breaking. Hence, since the law-breaking will occur, you must ensure that it can be punished.
An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, there's no point announcing it.
Well. In a world with the UN working the way it does (or rather doesn't), we'll face that dilemma time and time again. Instead of reacting to urgent causes like violation of human rights, we will argue about the existence of these urgent causes, their legitimacy, who brought them forward, what they might gain from it, etc.. but we won't respond to it, helping those in need. As said, I made my choice regarding this specific intervention - knowing that I'd also prefer a system that would actually work internationally and would abolish the need (and possibility) of unilateral action. But until we have that..
That largely depends on what you mean by "approve" and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many "Jewish infidels" as possible won't find my "approval", especially as in advocating, ever. But an hypothetical Iran without the wish to simply annihilate Israel targetting IDF and other legitimate targets to get them to retreat to their international borders, I could "approve", as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.
The countries on that graph, by virtue of being on that graph, are not normal countries. That precisely was my point.
Possibly, but right now, one of the two countries you brought up talks about destruction, and the other is currently, as we speak, bombing desalination plants. If the possibilities were different, maybe the aspirations would be as well.
And that's the thing: What if I don't? The inherent problem remains: if the kind of consensus you assume were real, it would just be law.
That much is, at least, clear, the way things worked so far is pretty much over. Unless you're Mark Carney, apparently.
From what I've seen these "other people" go through with in just the last week or two, I'm not exactly heartened.
Fully agree. But punishing law-breaking by breaking the law is just the Dirty Harry thing again.
...Yes?
Reasonable. Now, suppose they don't have that kind of muscle, and instead all they can do is, IDK, try and muster a bunch of regional, allied or loosely affiliated militias to maybe try and enforce a half-blockade of shipping through the Red Sea, or maybe attack a few army outposts on the opposite end of the country...
Of course they are not normal countries - but vastly privileged ones. Exactly the point I'm trying to convey. Why would we talk about "normal" countries here, when the veto is exclusively available to these few? And - that's the point of the graph and the linked list - these few privileged countries made ample use of their veto power. Even for trivia such as admitting country xyz to the UN - a question neither of them would go to war for with each other. Have we settled this point?
That is again severely downplaying the actions of Iran. Iran has actively funded, equipped, supported.. terrorist groups that spread terror, death and destruction over Israel for decades. Given the situation Iran is in, they are putting a lot of effort into the cause of fighting Israel as a country, with the clear stated goal to do so to destroy it. I really don't get why you wouldn't acknowledge that, as it doesn't take anything away from Israel being wrong for their own actions. You literally don't lose anything, you still can criticise Israel for everything they're responsible of.
You wouldn't agree that there were violations of basic human rights occurring there? Are you really sure?
It already is law. Just the body destined to enforce it has been stripped of the full authority to do so. We gave ourselves a police but allowed the biggest land owners to prohibit them access to their property whenever they feel like it and irrespective of what violations of these laws they do.
There's a very strong difference in going through with dropping bombs targetted to buildings of an enemy army, knowing the destruction will be limited to a couple of hundred metres at worst, and going through with launching weapons that will inevitably not only end the enemy but also you and your family, the entire world. Don't you think?
Just watching the law-breaking idly is also just Dirty Harry. Only that you chose to accept your fate of being object to the lawlessness of the others. Why would a country do that?
Well, you said "“Jain”. It’s an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not." to me raising the point that the veto powers used their vetos for tactical political power play rather than solely serious matters they'd actually be ready to go to war over. To which I reply that an announcement must be treated as a veto, hence it only works if the other side musn't see it as a bluff. Otherwise, the point of the announcement vanishes.
..except they did that - using allied militias/terrorist groups under their guidance and equipment - for decades already, while Israel decided it would be a smart move to bomb the whole country - to achieve what? - last week. Normally, a reaction comes after the action. And that's exactly my problem in that entire conflict. People love to paint a conflict black and white that is filled to the brim with a plethora of entangled shades.
Because the original remark was "explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US", and my whole point is one of those countries is normal, two aren't, and the last one should be normal, but very much is not. So when you put the four in a sentence, it sounds reasonable to assume everyone can call on a veto whenever, when, in fact, the odd one out is the only one that's not an outlier.
This is a digression, but: this is not trivia. Accession control is vote control. Also, a legitimacy claim. I can only imagine China's reaction to Taiwan getting back in.
Because I don't think you're being even-handed, so I'm trying to knock you out of the talking points and put you into the other side's shoes. For example...
...the 'action' only happened last week, but the hypothetical wasn't about self-defense, it was about illegal intervention in prevention of gross human rights violations. Those didn't begin last week, did they? Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?
Oh, there were. I was replying to the whole block with the question.
...Well, the police shouldn't be able to just access your property, not without a warrant. That some fatcats are warrant-proof is true, though.
IDK, they're already making excuses, what's one more? In fact, we already have one: Jesus is coming back, you won't die, you'll be raptured! Like, this isn't just bad governance, these people act like a fucking apocalypse cult.
Well, more like the Uvalde cops, I guess. Or those cops in that town run by scientologists.
Ah. Yes, exactly, I agree.
Frankly, none of these countries is normal at all. It is a bit concerning that you apparently think otherwise.
Not everyone, but two of these CAN call a veto whenever, to the benefit of whoever.. Why should we pretend it isn't so? Again, while you're apparently very much focussed on who actually used the veto when, I am not. I am criticising the fact that the mere possibility exists.
Yea.. pretty hard to establish an international institution to handle international relation between countries if you end up using your vetos for countries you don't even have any direct dispute with just to mess with your opponent. Political power play, no reason to actually go to war over.
Was Iran attacked by Israel before they started to fund and steer all of their terror pawns in Arab countries several decades ago? Before they announced their objective to eliminate Israel?
..and these fatcats can extend their shield against any warrant to anyone. That is a problem.
Talk is cheap. Actually pushing the button that will end the wold isn't.
Normal isn't a compliment here, it just means they're not too far outside of what you run into out there, at least foreign policy-wise. For example, Pakistan springs to mind: fundamentalists with a vendetta, terrorists, and a nuclear program. Sounds about right.
...Honestly, I was gonna say overuse would render it meaningless, but with the last week being what it is, It may very well be moot at this point.
Milosevic didn't attack NATO either. Once again, the hypothetical wasn’t about self-defense. It was about illegal intervention in prevention of gross human rights violations.
That wasn't the question, though. You said:
..which begs this aforementioned follow-up question.
That wasn't the question either. The original question was would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through overwhelming firepower, and you said yes. Then the next question was would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, and you started yelling "terrorist terrorist" and making bad faith arguments. If the first answer is yes, but the second makes you this uncomfortable, it would be a good idea to think about why.
Easy: because we at that point left the hypothetical sphere and entered what Iran actually is doing since decades in this conflict. Terrorism. You basically say it yourself by tying the hypothetical example to their real actions, trying to transfer the 'legitimacy' from the first to the latter:
Given that these actions of Iran aren't hypothetical but very real, let's not try to pretend that the questions around it still are hypothetical. But treat them real as well.
So when you try to raise real questions, let's hear your real answer:
Was Iran attacked by Israel before they started to fund and steer all of their terror pawns in Arab countries several decades ago? Before they announced their objective to eliminate Israel?
Because that's what it boils down to at this point.
So, you're willing to stand behind your principle of interventionism, as long as the people you don't like can only do it hypothetically?
No. Real terrorism existing since decades can't be justified by an attack that started last week.
You asked:
I'd still like to hear your answer.
No, I'm not letting you change the subject. I told you, either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you support humanitarian intervention, then whether by jet or by rifle shouldn't matter.
Um, I've been wanting you to answer a question you yourself raised here. So if at all, blame yourself for changing the subject. Why are you wriggling like an eel so hard about a question you posted yourself?
Because it was a rhetorical question, posed in callout of your bad faith argument. It's entirely irrelevant. It can even be "yes", as you claim it: Would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, granting that Israel will bomb Iran last week.
You're the interventionist here, make your argument.
For a "rhetorical question", you seem to find it awfully hard to answer. Normally, the one asking a rhetorical question has a clear answer to it. But yet again, a lot of text but no answer to the question you raised yourself. Why are you becoming so defensive?
I gave you an answer. Shit, I'm giving you your answer: yes. I don't see how that helps your case, but have at it:
Would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, granting that Israel will bomb Iran last week.
I'm not interested in my answer, I want to know what you think. Do you also think it is yes?
I don't think the fact that Israel is going to bomb Iran in 2026 is relevant for justifying a humanitarian intervention in 2024. That I would instead see as a justification for Iran attacking Israel shortly before said attack in line of a preemptive attack (fending of an imminent attack). For a humanitarian intervention, the motif is to end the violation of human rights.
Given that in this case, Iran wouldn't have access to the US carrier group or two from the other hypothetical example, but rather the same financially dependent religiously fanatical fighters as in reality (I presume?), I'd ask how the indiscriminate terrorism against Israelis we see in reality from these groups would help achieve the goal that wants to act as a justification for these actions? Sure, Irani-instructed groups that would target the IDF and other "legitimate" targets specifically which are responsible for said violations of human rights, could be considered legitimate. That is, if in that hypothetical world, just like the other example, Iran wouldn't actually have the desire to simply eliminate Israel and wouldn't be one of the key drivers in said conflict. A huge factor for this personal legitimisation would be if it actually could end the violation of human rights and not just add up to it. And here, the hypothetical Iran with the carrier groups would be far more effective (and hence legitimised) than the hypothetical Iran that enables some militias to indiscriminately fire makeshift rockets across the border, hoping to hit something meaningful.
You mean in reality? Clearly no - the 12-day war was a year ago.
Well, they do also have the ~~PFJ~~ ~~JPF~~ ~~JPPF~~ PFLP, I guess. Splitters...
Now, this is ...novel. I was gonna say "ends justify the means", but this isn't even that, it's legitimacy through... competency? Fait accompli? Like, would it be retroactively criminalized if they fuck up? Or is the intervention presumed illegitimate unless it works? Where was that joke from? "Gentlemen, here's the new kidnapping case, obviously I'll be taking you off duty, hand in your badges, you can have them back when you find the girl."
If you're going to take matters in your own hands, you should actually be able to stop what you're using as reason to act. And in the end, of course, also stop it. And not add to it. That is the key point.
NATO managed to stop it in Yugoslavia. The US, while technically capable, didn't achieve anything meaningful in Afghanistan, but left a steaming pile of mess when they withdrew. Or take Venezuela. Kidnapping Maduro didn't help the human rights situation but only produced marketable pictures for the domestic fan base. Hence, it is very hard to see any 'legitimisation' in that, even if Maduro is no-one to shed a tear for. Also, throwing bombs on Iran won't topple that regime or achieve anything for the Iranian population. So what's the 'positive impact' this whole venture should have? If you want your intervention to be seen favourably, it should improve the situation. As happened in Yugoslavia. Hence, I'd say, their success proved them 'right', as in it is one of the few situations where I'd say I approve they took matters in their own hands when UN couldn't respond (which undeniably would have been favourable).