this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
392 points (99.2% liked)

Europe

10596 readers
728 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)

  1. 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.
  2. 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.)
  10. 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

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
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
392
NATO will not join US–Israel campaign, Rutte says (tvpworld.com)
submitted 1 week ago by Pip@feddit.org to c/europe@feddit.org
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Quittenbrot@feddit.org 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The countries on that graph, by virtue of being on that graph, are not normal countries. That precisely was my point.

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?

one of the two countries you brought up talks about destruction

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.

And that’s the thing: What if I don’t?

You wouldn't agree that there were violations of basic human rights occurring there? Are you really sure?

if the kind of consensus you assume were real, it would just be law.

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.

From what I’ve seen these “other people” go through with in just the last week or two, I’m not exactly heartened.

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?

But punishing law-breaking by breaking the law is just the Dirty Harry thing again.

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?

…Yes?

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.

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…

..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.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

…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.

...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?

You wouldn’t agree that there were violations of basic human rights occurring there? Are you really sure?

Oh, there were. I was replying to the whole block with the question.

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.

...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.

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?

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.

Just watching the law-breaking idly is also just Dirty Harry.

Well, more like the Uvalde cops, I guess. Or those cops in that town run by scientologists.

Well, you said ““Jain”.[..]

Ah. Yes, exactly, I agree.

[–] Quittenbrot@feddit.org 1 points 11 hours ago

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.

Frankly, none of these countries is normal at all. It is a bit concerning that you apparently think otherwise.

So when you put the four in a sentence, it sounds reasonable to assume everyone can call on a veto whenever

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.

This is a digression, but: this is not trivia. Accession control is vote control.

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.

Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?

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?

That some fatcats are warrant-proof is true, though.

..and these fatcats can extend their shield against any warrant to anyone. That is a problem.

IDK, they’re already making excuses, what’s one more?

Talk is cheap. Actually pushing the button that will end the wold isn't.