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.
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:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is a difference between state and nonstate actors. Al Qaeda is a nonstate actor. Benghazi was not an embassey but an adjunct consulate.
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.
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.
There is no civilized world. It's just a bunch of apes playing Sid Meier's Civilization irl and doing poorly against the AI.
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.
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:
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.
Yep, or a potential incursion of the Ecuadorian embassy to get Julian Assange.
Potential? You realize the police already took Assange from the embassy, right?
Not only that, the Ecuadorian ambassador literally invited them in.
...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.
Should be treated as an declaration of war and treated as such.
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
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.
Alright, I agree the west isn't doing enough, but not having budged an inch? How so? The previous status quo was absolute support no matter what, no room for any criticism. Obviously that's not still true, right? Things aren't where we want them to be, but the bullshit that nothing is being done at all is less than helpful. If you want them to win your support your support has to be winnable. You have to recognize when steps are taken, though continue to tell them it isn't enough yet. There should also be a hard set point where it is enough. If you don't have that then you aren't worth pandering to.
I mean, arms sales continue? Arms sales circumventing congressional approval, even.
Like, it'd be one thing if this was an existential threat, but it isn't. It's selling fighter bombers to fight malnourished people who are essentially in the stone age. Additional arms won't impact the outcome at all. At all.
And yet it's still "emergency measures" to get them weapons they don't even need.
Within this context... I don't think it's unreasonable to say the actions thus far have been incredibly hollow.
“Don't tell me what you value; show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value” is something that Biden has said repeatedly over his career.
I can't really hear people talking about asking people to exercise restraint while pulling out all the stops to send them weapons.
I mean, arms sales continue? Arms sales circumventing congressional approval, even.
Not to the same degree. Last big one I heard from the US was jets, but they were air superiority fighters, which isn't useful against Palestine. They will be useful against Iran if something happens with that.
I can't really hear people talking about asking people to exercise restraint while pulling out all the stops to send them weapons.
Again, we have changed the degree to which we are selling them weapons. Yeah, it's still going and it almost certainly always will. If they're defensive weapons only, I'm good with that as a place to start.
According to Times of Israel, the jets are F-15IA (Israeli-variant F-15EX), which are quite capable of carrying over a dozen bombs equipped with the JDAMs also being provided.
Stop sending weapons to what end?
To stop the killing in Gaza? Israel has all the bombs it needs right now to level Gaza and the West Bank multiple times over within about 90 minutes, if it wanted. So the idea that Israel needs US weapons to continue prosecuting the war in Hamas is made up nonsense. So stopping weapons sales to Israel will have literally zero effect whatsoever on the future of Gaza or anyone in it, but it does have the effect of giving away our leverage for nothing in return.
Israel has the luxury of operating as a regional belligerent based on the perception that the USA has given them carte blanche. There is no reason for Israel to engage in any good faith diplomacy with anyone in the region. This is a major reason for the reality that exists now.
So, yeah, I wholly disagree with you on this one. Communicating (through demonstration) that there exist limits to military support would necessarily force Israel to retool their foreign policy.
That's logical and all, and they would certainly have to retool, again though, to what end? Israel is surrounded by people who view democratic government as infidelity to God for which the punishment is death. The widely popular idea throughout the Arab world, especially among the bigger powers, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, is that governments should suspend diplomatic relations with Israel and stop recognizing its rights to exist, if they even do recognize it right now.
If the US pulls out support for Israel, what incentive do those nations have not to obliterate Israel and steal back all the holy piles of rocks they think are so important?
Israel is surrounded by people who view democratic government as infidelity to God for which the punishment is death
This is plainly put not true. I'm honestly at a loss of how to even respond to this statement, because it is completely unteathered from reality.
If the US pulls out support for Israel, what incentive do those nations have not to obliterate Israel and steal back all the holy piles of rocks they think are so important?
It's not a binary state.
If I walk into a bar with my buddy, the two statements of
"You're the king and any fight you want to start I'll finish" and "If we get into trouble I have your back, but don't go looking for a fight" are obviously two completely different things.
Now this is just plain racism toward Arabs. Your reasoning suggests that they are incapable of organising democratic forms of government, and that only enlightened Israelis are able to achieve that.
Not really. Hamas really is part of an ideological pan-Islamist alliance who literally does believe in killing all the non believers.
If it has zero effect, why are we selling the weapons to them?
It has zero effect on Israel's posture as to Gaza, which Israel views essentially as a local police matter, but it has an obvious and massive effect on Israel's posture as to Iran.
The West is exposed as full of shit M.B.A.s that will sell thier families for anything above market value.
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.
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).
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
The world is becoming a crazy place.
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.