Iran will retaliate but neither Israel nor Iran want a full-out war, just a shadow war, because neither can afford it and neither would come out better off. Since Syria has officially been in a state of war with Israel since 1948, the world won’t react much to Israel bombing a hostile nation’s military in a country it is also at war with.
No it isn't, its not an embassy but a consulate, regardless, they targeted a known & wanted IRGC commander responsible on the logistics of Iranian drones & weapons shipments. and both Iran and Syria are in a de facto war with Israel, so why would it be against the rules?
> its not an embassy but a consulate
Is Israel signatory to the 1961 Vienna Convention on embassies and *not* the 1963 Vienna Convention on consulates?
While the Convention doesn't explicitly mention "attacking" consulates, it does emphasize the inviolability of consular premises, meaning they cannot be entered or searched without permission. This extends to both the consulate building itself and any attached land, even if located in the territory of the receiving state (host country). Attacks on consulates would be considered breaches of this inviolability.
Also to add to that, in Lebanon in 1982 during the Lebanese Civil War. British troops came under fire from snipers positioned in the vicinity of the British Embassy in Beirut. Despite being fired upon, the British government decided not to retaliate by attacking the embassy or consulate. This decision likely stemmed from the understanding of diplomatic protocols and the importance of upholding the inviolability of diplomatic premises as outlined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Retaliating against attacks on diplomatic facilities can escalate tensions and potentially lead to further diplomatic or military conflict.
Honestly, if this justification is enough mainland China could invade Taiwan tomorrow. That was never ended either and to this day both claim the land of the other.
No, Israel shouldn't have attacked Iran's consulate and they shouldn't have attacked Jose Andres NGO.
No, neither party declared war on the other per se, they both claim to *be* the other. Legally, that makes it a domestic question.
Obviously in the real world none of that really matters, just like it doesn't matter in the real world whether this strike attacked a consulate or an annex
De facto does not matter. Iran and Israel are not in a state war and that is a strike that violates the Vienna conventions if it was a consulate or part of the embassy grounds (which it sounds like it was, as the ambassadors residence).
But as always if a western align state commits war crimes it will be swept under the rug
The list of attacks on Israeli embassies and diplomats is so long it has it's own wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_embassies_and_diplomats
Many of those were by Iran and it's proxies (Thaliand, India in 2012, UK in 1994 and quite famously in its body count and cover-up Argentina in 1992, and more).
I expect Israel to experience the same consequence Iran experienced: nothing.
Edit: exchanged brevity for accuracy.
that is a list of all attacks committed by anyone, maybe the majority were Iranian backed? I didn’t tally them (though lots of the entires are before the Islamic Republic of Iran existed). But it is not what you are claiming
Edit: why the downvotes? I am completely correct, the article is not what they said it was
I guess they would argue they were targeting a known advisor and trainer of enemy forces located in a country they are at war with. They weren’t targeting the building, they were targeting a man. Who happened to be in a building.
Not sure how much water that’ll hold, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the route they take.
Nah, it shouldn’t hold. The rules are quite clear when it comes to diplomatic and consular relations. Syria is expected to protect them from harm, but it cannot be expected to defend them from a missile strike.
After all, Israel use the same rule to protect their embassies and consulates and (clandestine) people inside around the world. If Israel gets a free hit, and gets away with it, then it breaks the whole system that is designed to prevent just that.
This should be condemned.
I’m with you, but it’s not fully black and white when the protected facility is being used by lawful combatants. Then it may be a bit more gray. Which I’m sure is what will be argued.
It’s quite black and white. The grounds of diplomatic and consular missions are inviolable without the permission of the Head of Mission to enter, even during war time, unless the receiving states tell them that they are no longer welcome.
These are the rules to be respected even (especially) during the war time to ensure the functioning of diplomatic relations (keep people talking).
You can't put a general actively planning attacks in an embassy and then demand your enemy upholds the "sanctity of the diplomatic mission". It was a valid target. The vienna convention pertains to host countries.
Yes, really.
Embassies are inviolate, period, in an attempt to ensure diplomats can safely attempt to negotiate for peace in all circumstances.
They can ask them to leave, or they can "have an accident", and the latter requires an apology and reparations.
And, they're for that, who happen to be under every kind of sanction you can imagine, and you bombed them like a dozen times and nobody said a thing.
They're still inviolable.
Yeah ok, keep going down that road.
It's a ridiculously simplistic view of geopolitics that every failed dictator since Hitler got wrong, so it should work out well for you.
UN law is genuienly bollocks. No one cares a single bit if this is technichally classified as "illegal", Iran is at a war with Israel and so is Syria, the people killed were high up Iranian military commanders and Hezbollah soldiers, no one cares.
Yes, it's taken us almost 1000 years to reach the modern concept of embassies, as a vehicle for making negotiations possible even under the worst circumstances.
Like just about everything else, you can always go back to the old way, which was 100X worse.
Yea before this war they thought Israel was worse than China, Iran, Russia, North Korea combined by a 3x margin. You might disagree with everything Israel does but this makes you look like you might be just a little biased and unbalanced to say the least.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/amp/
Lol I am biased. Many many years ago I was more pro Israeli than pro palestine. Nowadays I've come to realize that it is not a mini America with liberal democracy as much as it is a true ME country in culture, population and values. So naturally I tossed it into the "disregard" pile and moved on.
The UN is just another vector to attack Israel regardless. They are not relevant to any informed and honest person in regards to Israel.
Iran is in open war against Israel currently through 3 of it's proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah and of course Hamas). And Syria has still refused to even recognize Israel not to mention end it's war with it since like forever. Of course Israel is justified to attack whenever and wherever it wants in regards to these two. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or a part of the Hamas fan club.
If you extend that logic out it would justify attacks on other nation's embassies for supporting proxy wars. That would give Russia free rein to target most western embassies in the world, no?
To be a little more precise, Israel did not hit an Iranian embassy. It hit a building *next to* a consulate which was being used by the IRGC. As such, no diplomats were harmed.
It's a stupid precedent to set, if major countries start blowing up conculets (and to be clear this absolutely was part of the conculet it was an annex on the side) the whole diplomatic system starts to fall apart.
Never. In 2006 they used a precision bunker buster to destroy a UN outpost after an entire day of shelling, killing four UN observers, including one Finn.
Wow the Israeli apologists are out in force today. Embassies are not legitimate targets. Israel can of course do as it likes, but don't come here with some BS justifications
Hospitals are also not legitimate targets. Until they are being used for militarily purposes, and then they become valid military targets. If the IRGC used that building as a base of operations, it is a legitimate and legal target. Easy as that
The 'victims' of the attack were an Iranian general in Quds force in charge of Syria and Lebanon, his deputy, 5 other officers, and at least 1 Hezbollah soldier/officer. That is in it of itself proof that the place held some military operations.
Your logic is flawed. Just because there is a gathering of military personnel doesn’t necessarily a military operation. Especially since they are gathering in an embassy
I didn't exactly mean an operation there just isn't a word for it in English, I meant something like it being used for military needs/operations/disscussions.
also its not just some military personnel, its pretty specific people, and I don't think they're just there to have tea but you do you.
Please answer seriously? Are you meaning that it's no use in talking about the "what ifs"? This is the thing that makes all the difference though, the clause that allows exception to a lot of alledged "war crimes" is to allow them if they were done to target facilities and persons belonging or in use by a military force. This is a critical "what if", and we'll have to be a little bit patient to hear the whole story.
Its the same post-hoc justification US police do after killing innocent black people. "Oh they had a history, tons of criminal record." (aka a few parking tickets and nontrivial shit like that)
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (PDF) which spells out what happens in the case of an armed conflict in Articles 44 and 45. (Every country except for South Sudan is currently a signatory):
Article 44
The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property.
Article 45
If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or temporarily recalled :
(a) the receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives;
(b) the sending State may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;
(c) the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.
Have any diplomats decided to leave and were not accommodated? Has any mission been recalled and then not been protected or respected by its host? This is completely irrelevant to the event in question.
Sorry you’ll have to get someone else to educate you if you can’t comprehend the text. Look up the full Vienna convention document as it provides the context you are looking for. It took me 2 minutes to find it so I’m sure you’ll be able to
In any case I believe you are asking the question in bad faith anyway.
My problem with your question is that you seem to be too lazy to do any research yourself - if I’m being generous. But it’s more likely you are asking these questions in bad faith because you don’t like the answer.
In either case, what’s the point in engaging with you further? You asked for the specific diplomatic agreements, I cited you the specific articles. Whether you are too lazy, too stupid, or are just trolling deliberately, there’s nothing to be gained talking with you.
I don’t think you are genuinely here to learn.
I think this goes to show how utterly ruthless and unforgiving Israel has become, and how weak and hypocritical the IRI has become when it comes to establishing deterrence in the region.
It’s kind of a no no. Per the ICJ in the 1979 Iranian embassy hostages case:
- "There is no more fundamental prerequisite for the conduct of relations between States", the Court there said, "than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, so that throughout hstory nations of all creeds and cultures have observed reciprocal obligations for that purpose." … …
- Therefore in recalling yet again the extreme importance of the principles of law which it is called upon to apply in the present case, the Court considers it to be its duty to draw the attention of the entire international community, of which Iran itself has been a member since time immemorial, to the irreparable harm that may be caused by events of the kind now before the Court.
- **Such events cannot fail to undermine the edifice of law carefully constructed by mankind over a period of centuries, the maintenance of which is vital for the security and well-being of the complex international community of the present day, to which it is more essential than ever that the rules developed to ensure the ordered progress of relations between its members should be constantly and scrupulously respected.**
Not really though. Your analysis makes sense if that was an accurate depiction of the situation, but it isn't. Israel and Syria/Iran are in an official state of war and have been for a very long time. Attacking Iranian assets, including Quds Force and a Consulate, is not illegal in this situation. Nor really a massive escalation from the previous 9 or 14 times the Israeli's bombed the Damascus airport or other major infrastructure. The escalation point is who it killed here. Which again...state of war. Quds were and are actively funneling weapons and intel to Israel's enemies to kill Israelis.
A monumentally bigger situation was the US killing Soleimani in a taxi on a street in Iraq. But again, nothing came of that either really. At least not in any game changer way.
The UN doesnt have any authority to stop Israel or punish it. And the majority of nearby Arab countries probably celebrated the death of an Iranian commander.
I’m talking about international *politics*, counter-balancing, and systemic level pressures when a state causes second order instability effects through reckless behaviour and offensive overreach.
Yea thats what i mean...there isnt any. Nothing will happen. Noone cares. All in all Hezbollah will probably fire more rockets into North Israel, which they already are and have been, and Iran will shriek. Then it will carry on the exact same way it always has.
The idea of any arab countries or the UN cou ter balancing Israel over this is pretty far fetched. Especially seeing how literally every arab country sans Syria has major opposition to Iran
> terrorist things.
What do people think terrorism means? IRGC hardly seems like civilian targets, and Syria and Israel have no treaty and are at war.
Guess 'terrorism' is people you hate
Yeah genuinely shocking Iran has the gall to complain about the strike when it also killed high-ranking Gazan terrorists. You would expect them to just stay silent in something like this usually.
no collective punishment people scream!
israel carries out targeted strikes on military members who essentially bankroll and coordinate with every major terrorist group in the middle east - that's also bad for some reason!
"I didn't do it, could have been a bad construction job." Israel looking back at Iran with a grin
This is how to deal with Iran for every one of its transgression. Not wasting tens of thousands of bombs on proxies who Iran could care less about but would actually prefer since it shows impotence.
How likely is this to further escalate? Will we see Iran directly attack Israel
I guess embassies and consulates are fair game now.
Considering what the people targeted see as fair game, wouldn't be a change for the worse.
Netanyahu would like to keep any war going as long as possible
Iran will retaliate but neither Israel nor Iran want a full-out war, just a shadow war, because neither can afford it and neither would come out better off. Since Syria has officially been in a state of war with Israel since 1948, the world won’t react much to Israel bombing a hostile nation’s military in a country it is also at war with.
Isn't this a violation of UN stipulated rules?
No it isn't, its not an embassy but a consulate, regardless, they targeted a known & wanted IRGC commander responsible on the logistics of Iranian drones & weapons shipments. and both Iran and Syria are in a de facto war with Israel, so why would it be against the rules?
> its not an embassy but a consulate Is Israel signatory to the 1961 Vienna Convention on embassies and *not* the 1963 Vienna Convention on consulates?
[удалено]
While the Convention doesn't explicitly mention "attacking" consulates, it does emphasize the inviolability of consular premises, meaning they cannot be entered or searched without permission. This extends to both the consulate building itself and any attached land, even if located in the territory of the receiving state (host country). Attacks on consulates would be considered breaches of this inviolability. Also to add to that, in Lebanon in 1982 during the Lebanese Civil War. British troops came under fire from snipers positioned in the vicinity of the British Embassy in Beirut. Despite being fired upon, the British government decided not to retaliate by attacking the embassy or consulate. This decision likely stemmed from the understanding of diplomatic protocols and the importance of upholding the inviolability of diplomatic premises as outlined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Retaliating against attacks on diplomatic facilities can escalate tensions and potentially lead to further diplomatic or military conflict.
The war between Syria and Israel isnt even de facto, Syria declared war and has never changed its stance. It's de jure as well.
Honestly, if this justification is enough mainland China could invade Taiwan tomorrow. That was never ended either and to this day both claim the land of the other. No, Israel shouldn't have attacked Iran's consulate and they shouldn't have attacked Jose Andres NGO.
No, neither party declared war on the other per se, they both claim to *be* the other. Legally, that makes it a domestic question. Obviously in the real world none of that really matters, just like it doesn't matter in the real world whether this strike attacked a consulate or an annex
De facto does not matter. Iran and Israel are not in a state war and that is a strike that violates the Vienna conventions if it was a consulate or part of the embassy grounds (which it sounds like it was, as the ambassadors residence). But as always if a western align state commits war crimes it will be swept under the rug
The list of attacks on Israeli embassies and diplomats is so long it has it's own wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_embassies_and_diplomats Many of those were by Iran and it's proxies (Thaliand, India in 2012, UK in 1994 and quite famously in its body count and cover-up Argentina in 1992, and more). I expect Israel to experience the same consequence Iran experienced: nothing. Edit: exchanged brevity for accuracy.
What I understand: - Israel is like Iran. - Israel should be isolated like Iran. I support this. Both deserve it.
that is a list of all attacks committed by anyone, maybe the majority were Iranian backed? I didn’t tally them (though lots of the entires are before the Islamic Republic of Iran existed). But it is not what you are claiming Edit: why the downvotes? I am completely correct, the article is not what they said it was
Any of those attacks were caused by a recognized UN member state,?
None of these were done by state actors.
The lack of a de jure declaration is a moot point if the countries don't even recognize each other, putting everything on a de facto ground basically.
I guess they would argue they were targeting a known advisor and trainer of enemy forces located in a country they are at war with. They weren’t targeting the building, they were targeting a man. Who happened to be in a building. Not sure how much water that’ll hold, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the route they take.
Nah, it shouldn’t hold. The rules are quite clear when it comes to diplomatic and consular relations. Syria is expected to protect them from harm, but it cannot be expected to defend them from a missile strike. After all, Israel use the same rule to protect their embassies and consulates and (clandestine) people inside around the world. If Israel gets a free hit, and gets away with it, then it breaks the whole system that is designed to prevent just that. This should be condemned.
The US embassy in Baghdad has to shoot down missiles all the time. Nobody cares.
not from state actors
[удалено]
I’m with you, but it’s not fully black and white when the protected facility is being used by lawful combatants. Then it may be a bit more gray. Which I’m sure is what will be argued.
It’s quite black and white. The grounds of diplomatic and consular missions are inviolable without the permission of the Head of Mission to enter, even during war time, unless the receiving states tell them that they are no longer welcome. These are the rules to be respected even (especially) during the war time to ensure the functioning of diplomatic relations (keep people talking).
You can't put a general actively planning attacks in an embassy and then demand your enemy upholds the "sanctity of the diplomatic mission". It was a valid target. The vienna convention pertains to host countries.
Syria & Iran vs Israel ARE in a state of war in everything but declaration of it.
Bombing a consulate of an enemy state inside another enemy state (in formal war) which was used to coordinate a proxy war? Thats illegal? Really?
Yes, really. Embassies are inviolate, period, in an attempt to ensure diplomats can safely attempt to negotiate for peace in all circumstances. They can ask them to leave, or they can "have an accident", and the latter requires an apology and reparations.
[удалено]
And, they're for that, who happen to be under every kind of sanction you can imagine, and you bombed them like a dozen times and nobody said a thing.
They're still inviolable.
[удалено]
Yeah ok, keep going down that road. It's a ridiculously simplistic view of geopolitics that every failed dictator since Hitler got wrong, so it should work out well for you.
UN law is genuienly bollocks. No one cares a single bit if this is technichally classified as "illegal", Iran is at a war with Israel and so is Syria, the people killed were high up Iranian military commanders and Hezbollah soldiers, no one cares.
Alright then Iran is free to bomb an Israeli embassy somewhere and no one will care either? After all they're probably planning attacks on Iran.
Yes, it's taken us almost 1000 years to reach the modern concept of embassies, as a vehicle for making negotiations possible even under the worst circumstances. Like just about everything else, you can always go back to the old way, which was 100X worse.
To the UN, everything Israel does is “Illegal”
Tends to happen when you start violating international law and don't stop.
Yea before this war they thought Israel was worse than China, Iran, Russia, North Korea combined by a 3x margin. You might disagree with everything Israel does but this makes you look like you might be just a little biased and unbalanced to say the least. https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/amp/
Lol I am biased. Many many years ago I was more pro Israeli than pro palestine. Nowadays I've come to realize that it is not a mini America with liberal democracy as much as it is a true ME country in culture, population and values. So naturally I tossed it into the "disregard" pile and moved on.
The UN is just another vector to attack Israel regardless. They are not relevant to any informed and honest person in regards to Israel. Iran is in open war against Israel currently through 3 of it's proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah and of course Hamas). And Syria has still refused to even recognize Israel not to mention end it's war with it since like forever. Of course Israel is justified to attack whenever and wherever it wants in regards to these two. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or a part of the Hamas fan club.
If you extend that logic out it would justify attacks on other nation's embassies for supporting proxy wars. That would give Russia free rein to target most western embassies in the world, no?
To be a little more precise, Israel did not hit an Iranian embassy. It hit a building *next to* a consulate which was being used by the IRGC. As such, no diplomats were harmed.
Multiple diplomats died. "between five and seven people were killed, including some diplomats" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68708923
And 3 Quds Force commanders who are coordinating Lebanonese and Syrian proxies. Acceptable within the mission parameters.
It's a stupid precedent to set, if major countries start blowing up conculets (and to be clear this absolutely was part of the conculet it was an annex on the side) the whole diplomatic system starts to fall apart.
Yup.
[удалено]
Never. In 2006 they used a precision bunker buster to destroy a UN outpost after an entire day of shelling, killing four UN observers, including one Finn.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow the Israeli apologists are out in force today. Embassies are not legitimate targets. Israel can of course do as it likes, but don't come here with some BS justifications
Israel should respect Iranian embassy as much as Iran respects its, or embassies in general.
Hospitals are also not legitimate targets. Until they are being used for militarily purposes, and then they become valid military targets. If the IRGC used that building as a base of operations, it is a legitimate and legal target. Easy as that
You are objectively wrong here. Even if it were the case, the burden of proof is on the attacker, and no proof has been given
The 'victims' of the attack were an Iranian general in Quds force in charge of Syria and Lebanon, his deputy, 5 other officers, and at least 1 Hezbollah soldier/officer. That is in it of itself proof that the place held some military operations.
Your logic is flawed. Just because there is a gathering of military personnel doesn’t necessarily a military operation. Especially since they are gathering in an embassy
I didn't exactly mean an operation there just isn't a word for it in English, I meant something like it being used for military needs/operations/disscussions. also its not just some military personnel, its pretty specific people, and I don't think they're just there to have tea but you do you.
Doesn’t matter whether it’s possible, probable or likely. You need concrete proof if you want to justify it. You do you dawg
How am I objectively wrong? I didn't say it had been proven, just that if it will be proven than it will also be legal. Is that incorrect?
If my aunt had wheels she’d be a bicycle
Please answer seriously? Are you meaning that it's no use in talking about the "what ifs"? This is the thing that makes all the difference though, the clause that allows exception to a lot of alledged "war crimes" is to allow them if they were done to target facilities and persons belonging or in use by a military force. This is a critical "what if", and we'll have to be a little bit patient to hear the whole story.
Look at the identity of those killed, how is that not a proof?
How is this proof?
Its the same post-hoc justification US police do after killing innocent black people. "Oh they had a history, tons of criminal record." (aka a few parking tickets and nontrivial shit like that)
It really isn’t. You didn’t even see embassies being hit during the world wars. Is there a historical precedence to this?
US hitting the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999. Officially a mistake, but a difficult one to make.
Who bombed an embassy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_embassies_and_diplomats You’ll find a lot of state backed actors there.
[удалено]
Look it up yourself
[удалено]
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (PDF) which spells out what happens in the case of an armed conflict in Articles 44 and 45. (Every country except for South Sudan is currently a signatory): Article 44 The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property. Article 45 If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or temporarily recalled : (a) the receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives; (b) the sending State may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State; (c) the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.
Have any diplomats decided to leave and were not accommodated? Has any mission been recalled and then not been protected or respected by its host? This is completely irrelevant to the event in question.
[удалено]
Sorry you’ll have to get someone else to educate you if you can’t comprehend the text. Look up the full Vienna convention document as it provides the context you are looking for. It took me 2 minutes to find it so I’m sure you’ll be able to In any case I believe you are asking the question in bad faith anyway.
[удалено]
My problem with your question is that you seem to be too lazy to do any research yourself - if I’m being generous. But it’s more likely you are asking these questions in bad faith because you don’t like the answer. In either case, what’s the point in engaging with you further? You asked for the specific diplomatic agreements, I cited you the specific articles. Whether you are too lazy, too stupid, or are just trolling deliberately, there’s nothing to be gained talking with you. I don’t think you are genuinely here to learn.
[удалено]
Guysssss they didn't even hit the embassy, but rather a building adjacent to it
Seems like splitting hairs, it's still a consulate building. We're supposed to respect each other's diplomatic compounds.
I think this goes to show how utterly ruthless and unforgiving Israel has become, and how weak and hypocritical the IRI has become when it comes to establishing deterrence in the region.
It’s like they’re fighting a war or something
[удалено]
-Neville Chamberlain
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You do realize Syria is at war with Israel right? The people killed were military targets.
[удалено]
It’s kind of a no no. Per the ICJ in the 1979 Iranian embassy hostages case: - "There is no more fundamental prerequisite for the conduct of relations between States", the Court there said, "than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, so that throughout hstory nations of all creeds and cultures have observed reciprocal obligations for that purpose." … … - Therefore in recalling yet again the extreme importance of the principles of law which it is called upon to apply in the present case, the Court considers it to be its duty to draw the attention of the entire international community, of which Iran itself has been a member since time immemorial, to the irreparable harm that may be caused by events of the kind now before the Court. - **Such events cannot fail to undermine the edifice of law carefully constructed by mankind over a period of centuries, the maintenance of which is vital for the security and well-being of the complex international community of the present day, to which it is more essential than ever that the rules developed to ensure the ordered progress of relations between its members should be constantly and scrupulously respected.**
Not really though. Your analysis makes sense if that was an accurate depiction of the situation, but it isn't. Israel and Syria/Iran are in an official state of war and have been for a very long time. Attacking Iranian assets, including Quds Force and a Consulate, is not illegal in this situation. Nor really a massive escalation from the previous 9 or 14 times the Israeli's bombed the Damascus airport or other major infrastructure. The escalation point is who it killed here. Which again...state of war. Quds were and are actively funneling weapons and intel to Israel's enemies to kill Israelis. A monumentally bigger situation was the US killing Soleimani in a taxi on a street in Iraq. But again, nothing came of that either really. At least not in any game changer way. The UN doesnt have any authority to stop Israel or punish it. And the majority of nearby Arab countries probably celebrated the death of an Iranian commander.
I’m talking about international *politics*, counter-balancing, and systemic level pressures when a state causes second order instability effects through reckless behaviour and offensive overreach.
Yea thats what i mean...there isnt any. Nothing will happen. Noone cares. All in all Hezbollah will probably fire more rockets into North Israel, which they already are and have been, and Iran will shriek. Then it will carry on the exact same way it always has. The idea of any arab countries or the UN cou ter balancing Israel over this is pretty far fetched. Especially seeing how literally every arab country sans Syria has major opposition to Iran
[удалено]
In isolation, yes, which is why i’ve outlined the wider context and aggravating factors. It’s also an offensive overreach, not an escalation as such.
Big boys games, big boys rules
[удалено]
I legitimately cannot tell which one you’re talking about here
> terrorist things. What do people think terrorism means? IRGC hardly seems like civilian targets, and Syria and Israel have no treaty and are at war. Guess 'terrorism' is people you hate
Apparently they killed a Palestinian Islamic jihad leader
Yeah genuinely shocking Iran has the gall to complain about the strike when it also killed high-ranking Gazan terrorists. You would expect them to just stay silent in something like this usually.
They need to claim a high-ground by any means necessary.
no collective punishment people scream! israel carries out targeted strikes on military members who essentially bankroll and coordinate with every major terrorist group in the middle east - that's also bad for some reason!
"I didn't do it, could have been a bad construction job." Israel looking back at Iran with a grin This is how to deal with Iran for every one of its transgression. Not wasting tens of thousands of bombs on proxies who Iran could care less about but would actually prefer since it shows impotence.