• Altofaltception@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Embassies are 100% off limits.

    If we are going to accept Israel attacking Iran’s embassy in Syria or Ecuador attacking Mexico’s embassy in Ecuador, then we should accept Al Qaeda’s attacks on US embassies, including in Benghazi in 2012.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      There is a difference between state and nonstate actors. Al Qaeda is a nonstate actor. Benghazi was not an embassey but an adjunct consulate.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      What do you mean by “we”? Embassies are established bilaterally, and third parties don’t really get to “accept” them or not.

      In the case of Mexico, they have decided to maintain diplomatic relations with Ecuador despite the raid, and that’s their prerogative.

      Israel and Iran have been attacking each other directly or indirectly for years, targeting an embassy in Syria instead of an apartment in Tel Aviv or factory in Isfahan doesn’t really change anything.

      • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        By we, I mean the civilized world.

        In the case of Mexico, they have decided to maintain diplomatic relations with Ecuador despite the raid, and that’s their prerogative.

        Literally the opposite has happened. Mexico has severed (i.e., cut, not maintain) all diplomatic relations with Ecuador, and has announced plans to take Ecuador to the ICJ.

        Israel and Iran have been attacking each other directly or indirectly for years, targeting an embassy in Syria instead of an apartment in Tel Aviv or factory in Isfahan doesn’t really change anything.

        Attacks through proxies have happened, or as a result of secret operations, but this is a clear aggression on the part of Israel.

        As for the second part of your comment, the targeting of diplomatic missions is contrary to international law. However, it doesn’t change anything for a country that has no regard for human life. If you’re able to justify the killings of thousands of civilians in violation of international law, what’s another law broken? We already have seen that international law does not apply to Israel.

        Edit: the insane part is that at least 7 people agree with you despite the outright lie about Mexico.

        • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          There is no civilized world. It’s just a bunch of apes playing Sid Meier’s Civilization irl and doing poorly against the AI.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Mexico is not severing all ties with Ecuador. For example, the Ecuadorian ambassador is still in Mexico City.

          Regardless, my point is that how Mexico responds is up to Mexico, not the “civilized world”.

          Furthermore, international laws protect diplomatic missions from actions by the host country, they don’t offer any special protection from third parties.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    11 months ago

    This sets a very, very problematic precedent. Imagine Russia just randomly deciding to storm the US embassy in Moscow. The shitshow would be crazy. Of course embassies should be absolutely completely off limits. If you have a problem with an embassy, there are mechanisms to kick the staff out, or hell even kick the embassy out

  • antidote101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Israel has done so many things that are untenable in the modern age, yet the support from the west has not budged an inch, and it’s bringing the West’s claims to be post-colonial and anti-genocide into question…

    …as well as raising some questions that previously only nazi leaning conspiracy theorists would entertain.

    The level of unwavering support makes it look like Israel is in-charge, and Western leaders need to explain why this is.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if western support is cited in future terrorist attacks. It’s highly unpopular among the public, yet so uniform to the point of being incredibly questionable.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The West is exposed as full of shit M.B.A.s that will sell thier families for anything above market value.

    • GenEcon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Thats not how embassies work. Embassies aren’t a ‘you get out of jail free’ card. Hitler or Putin couldn’t just hide at an embassy and thats it.

      Itt works in a way, that one state offers a second one a piece of land under its protection. That piece of land belongs to the second state as long as the first state allows it. If they want to claim it back, they have to go through a formal process.

      Thats why the actions of Ecuador are unheard of: they offered Mexico a piece of their land under their protection. And then they violated it.

      Israel attacked an embassy of Iran under Syria’s protection. Thats not off the limits but of course can be seen as an attack from both countries.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    To be quite honest embassies are very different from what they once were. Once upon a time the American Ambassador to France was responsible for foreign relations and diplomatic expressions - the person chosen to hold the position was invested with a lot of power and responsibility.

    These days national leaders can instantaneously communicate for most purposes (protected communications aren’t available for all nations so some sensitive conversations still need an in person component) and embassies serve more as a place for people abroad to interact with their government in emergency situations.

    In most cases these embassies are just prestige appointments, all the diplomacy they do could effectively be done through representatives in New York (North Korea even has ambassadors in NYC) and there’s likely a reasonable way to consolidate citizen services (at least those that can’t be done by mail which most can).

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not every country is an ally like France or Brition. What you say it true for those, it’s more of a social posting and overseeing a lot of book keeping. But, State departmentst professionals are in most of the embassies and they are the conduit between countries

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Embassies are bases for spies and paperwork. Embassies that engage in more of the former are often targeted. Generally it’s kicking the staff out of the country, but it’s hardly unheard of for embassies to be targeted. In most cases countries are smart enough to withdraw their people from countries that are hostile.