Europe
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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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
view the rest of the comments
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.
The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.
Well.. in the case we're talking about here, the occuring violations of basic human rights were very tangible and real and not 'propagandised ideology'.
The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.
If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.
But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.
The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence. If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.
Also not a technicality, lol.
Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.
But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.
Edit: lol, if that doesn‘t fit:
Merz: Iran should not be protected by international law
And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there's no-one else to benefit from it?
You're almost there! In fact, it's actually the veto powers that secured themselves the power to override whatever rules and regulations we thought of giving ourselves internationally after the horrors of WW2. You apparently already have a keen eye on the wrong-doings of the Western parts of these veto powers. Why not extend your view to the Eastern parts, too? Because the feeling of not being obliged to human rights or international law whenever they oppose your own geopolitical interests isn't at all limited to the "westerners".
Don‘t do this lame ass shit, where I‘m now supposed to argue in favor of human rights violations. That‘s not the point. You‘re shifting the discussion. Bad faith argumentation is for losers.
My points are quite clear:
Either way, NATO was the aggressor with no mandate to bomb a sovereign state. They acted against international law and did some human rights violations themselves, while they‘re at it.
Are you able to agree with (at least some of) these points without reacting with strawmen or whataboutisms?
I never said that there are no other bad actors, that‘s bad faith argumentation. I‘m also not going to give you a China bad! Russia bad! nod, just so you can further feel validated in your restricted horizon. That’s coping, you cope, hard. The West is the world‘s cancer.
I don't ask you to do that. I just ask you to question why you choose to get more upset about a group of countries bringing an end to the ethnic cleansing than the ethnic cleansing itself. When you say that there were also other motives than the stated humanitarian one for NATO to intervene, that directly leads to the aforementioned follow up question: is your opinion that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it? You wrote a lot in your response, but failed to address this question.
Yugoslavia never was a territory of the Soviet Union. It wasn't even part of the Eastern Bloc after 1948.
So "I won't say the truth because I don't want you to feel right"? This isn't about me at all. I just encourage you to broaden your view on things, as apparently you have very strong opinions but they're painted in only black and white. If you feel comfortable with this and don't want to challenge yourself, that's also fine with me.
So, when Israel...
..does ethnic cleansing under Netanyahu's power-hungry expansionism, you'd be as justified removing Netanyahu from power. Problem is: that path necessarily leads towards conflict with the US and so far, I can't see any US near-peers capable and willing to do so. The point still stands, though.
But if you both accept that a veto blocks an intervention if backed by firepower, but doesn't if not, then the vote itself is just window dressing and all you're left is might makes right.
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.
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?