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
10621 readers
563 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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
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).