this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
227 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39282 readers
1667 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Altofaltception 85 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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 15 points 8 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 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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 1 points 8 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 -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Altofaltception 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So by your logic Al Quaeda was okay to attack the US consulate in Benghazi as they were not the host nation.

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

Sure, but the civilized world can speak about it, instead of crickets at the UN Security Council.

As for Mexico and Ecuador, please see below:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/06/americas/ecuador-vice-president-arrest-mexico-embassy-diplomatic-tensions-intl-hnk/index.html

[–] FlowVoid 0 points 8 months ago

Attacking the US consulate was not a violation of international law. Especially since al-Qaeda never signed any international treaties.

However, the attack could be considered an act of war. The same is true of attacks by Israel and Iranian proxies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yep, or a potential incursion of the Ecuadorian embassy to get Julian Assange.

[–] FlowVoid 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Potential? You realize the police already took Assange from the embassy, right?

Not only that, the Ecuadorian ambassador literally invited them in.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

...the Ecuadorian ambassador literally invited them in.

Which is how embassy rules work. The ambassador has to authorize police of other governments before they enter. The UK government never entered until they had authorization, which seems to be something the Ecuadorian government didn't get from Mexico.