Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
over/under on this:
a) dissolving NATO
b) getting Turkiye removed from NATO
bc I assume it doesn't result in NATO member states doing anything to Isntreal
There was a lot of discussion about the possibility of Italy becoming communist and how to prepare against that. There are expulsion or suspension mechanisms and those were considered to be off the table as an addition, so the general idea was that if a nation is not fulfilling the “values” of the charter or able to be expected to fulfill obligations it has no expectation of having the obligations to it met.
Another point that was raised in the context of a member state becoming communist is that would likely leave anyways, which deflated some of the worry about not having a removal mechanism explicitly laid out.
In theory precedent says who attacked first didn't matter. The US was bombing Afghanistan for 20 years, but when 911 happened the US invoked article 5 and every single NATO country had to donate blood to the cause and suffered fatalities in Afghanistan.
over/under on this:
a) dissolving NATO
b) getting Turkiye removed from NATO
bc I assume it doesn't result in NATO member states doing anything to Isntreal
(Israel Attacks a NATO member)
There was a lot of discussion about the possibility of Italy becoming communist and how to prepare against that. There are expulsion or suspension mechanisms and those were considered to be off the table as an addition, so the general idea was that if a nation is not fulfilling the “values” of the charter or able to be expected to fulfill obligations it has no expectation of having the obligations to it met.
Another point that was raised in the context of a member state becoming communist is that would likely leave anyways, which deflated some of the worry about not having a removal mechanism explicitly laid out.
They would just argue Israel is the victim of Turkish aggression and not the other way around so Article 5 doesn’t apply even if Israel retaliates.
In theory precedent says who attacked first didn't matter. The US was bombing Afghanistan for 20 years, but when 911 happened the US invoked article 5 and every single NATO country had to donate blood to the cause and suffered fatalities in Afghanistan.
They'd take (b) because the only thing Euros hate more than each other is Muslims.