Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

It could be a mistake, but it isn't a crime. When a country is conducting military operations against another country from an embassy, it has no legal protections.

The most obvious mistake is Iran getting too directly involved in its proxy's wars with Israel and using its overseas diplomatic buildings as active command centers in an ongoing conflict that it claims it does not wish to be a participant in.

[The Brain]

Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of their accredited home countries

Are they? Or are they just commonly believed to be?

[Razgovory]

It could be a mistake, but it isn't a crime. When a country is conducting military operations against another country from an embassy, it has no legal protections.

The most obvious mistake is Iran getting too directly involved in its proxy's wars with Israel and using its overseas diplomatic buildings as active command centers in an ongoing conflict that it claims it does not wish to be a participant in.

You can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy.  Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.

[Iormlund]

You can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy.  Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.

That's a weird take. So you aren't supposed to target an enemy command and control center or ammunition depot?

[OttoVonBismarck]

It could be a mistake, but it isn't a crime. When a country is conducting military operations against another country from an embassy, it has no legal protections.

The most obvious mistake is Iran getting too directly involved in its proxy's wars with Israel and using its overseas diplomatic buildings as active command centers in an ongoing conflict that it claims it does not wish to be a participant in.

You can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy.  Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.

That isn't how it works. Generals in their HQs have always been valid targets. High level officers and military planners are not noncombatants, their weapons just aren't wielded as a personal firearm.

[Razgovory]

You can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy.  Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.

That's a weird take. So you aren't supposed to target an enemy command and control center or ammunition depot?

Not if it's in a third party country or an embassy.  I do doubt that it was a enemy command and control center or an ammunition depot.  So far the reports are simply that Iranian military met with Palestinian militants in the building.  That's not the same as a command and control center.

I have no proof of this, but I bet the US has met with Ukrainian soldiers in our embassy in Ukraine and we would be well within our rights to complain if the Russians just blew it up.  I suspect the US, France and Britain have coordinated with militaries and militants in embassies and consulates in the past.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think that Iran is obligated to explain to the international community the movements and intentions of its military members any more than the US is.  There is no such thing as a "civilian consulate" (or embassy).  Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of their accredited home countries, and pretty much every country has military members of its diplomatic missions.

Bombing the embassies of hostile countries in third nations is not in accordance with international law and sends a message of lack of respect for international norms. 

Hezbollah is currently at war with Israel; they are exchanging live fire.  Zahedi gave direction and support to Hezbollah; he was a legitimate combatant and target.  At the time of the strike he was reportedly meeting with other Hezbollah and Palestinian militants.  If Iran chooses to allow such people to shelter in a consular building, it is on them for putting the consulate at risk.

Embassies and consulates are protected under international law from hostile acts by the host country, but the host in this case is Syria not Israel. In wartime, I'm not aware of any international law that prevents a country from striking hostile forces that locate themselves in a foreign consulate. I suppose one could argue that Israel should not be striking targets in Syria, although Syria's clear role in sponsoring and directing Hezbollah undermines that claim.

It's worse than a crime:  it's a mistake.

Well yeah I agree with that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Russia and America have diplomatic relations, so that situation is not directly comparable. AFAIK Iran and Israel basically don't have any diplo relation at all, no mutual embassies, no formal diplomatic recognition etc.

[The Minsky Moment]

Russia and America have diplomatic relations, so that situation is not directly comparable. AFAIK Iran and Israel basically don't have any diplo relation at all, no mutual embassies, no formal diplomatic recognition etc.

Not to mention that Russia refrains from such attacks not out of concern for international law or any norms about inviolability of embassies. They do so out of fear of the consequences.

[grumbler]

Hezbollah is currently at war with Israel; they are exchanging live fire.  Zahedi gave direction and support to Hezbollah; he was a legitimate combatant and target.  At the time of the strike he was reportedly meeting with other Hezbollah and Palestinian militants.  If Iran chooses to allow such people to shelter in a consular building, it is on them for putting the consulate at risk.

So if the Russians bomb the US embassy in Warsaw to kill the US military attaché there who is providing direction and support to the shipment of US arms to Ukraine, you'd be okay with that?

Embassies and consulates are protected under international law from hostile acts by the host country, but the host in this case is Syria not Israel. In wartime, I'm not aware of any international law that prevents a country from striking hostile forces that locate themselves in a foreign consulate. I suppose one could argue that Israel should not be striking targets in Syria, although Syria's clear role in sponsoring and directing Hezbollah undermines that claim.

Embassies and consulates are protected by diplomatic immunity against even countries at war, though the personnel can be declared non grata and forced to leave.  The revocation of immunity and sovereignty for the embassy itself has to be carried out in writing and must allow time for the original owner to evacuate its property.  The Germans did not bomb Allied embassies in, say, Switzerland during WW2 because that would have been a breach of international law.

[Tamas]

The Germans in WW2 also didn't have the means to bomb embassies in neutral countries without doing enough damage to the surrounding cities to force said neutrals into the war.

Also I never see demands for Hezbollah and Iran to adhere to the rules of war and while I understand that is largely due to racism, I still am not sure why one side respect a set of rules the other is purposefully ignoring.

[Josquius]

The Germans in WW2 also didn't have the means to bomb embassies in neutral countries without doing enough damage to the surrounding cities to force said neutrals into the war.

Also I never see demands for Hezbollah and Iran to adhere to the rules of war and while I understand that is largely due to racism, I still am not sure why one side respect a set of rules the other is purposefully ignoring.

Racism?

Kind of obvious why the western democracy is held to higher standards than terrorists.
For Iran...well they are expected to behave themselves and that they don't is key to why they're prominent members of the global shit list.
The level of respect is reciprocated.

With WW2 it wasn't just a lack of decent bombing abilities that were behind it.
1: There's been plenty of later wars where the technology was available when embassies weren't hit. This just isn't the accepted way for countries to behave.
2: If we're going with WW2, the Germans had plenty of sympathisers in Switzerland. Swap out "bomb the British/Polish/Soviet(?) embassy" for just torching it through other means. Yet they didn't nor did they even plan to do so. Its fundamentally against the rules of diplomacy.

[garbon]

Committing genocide across Europe 'isn't the accepted way for countries to behave'.

[Josquius]

Committing genocide across Europe 'isn't the accepted way for countries to behave'.

You think?

[Tamas]

Racism?

Kind of obvious why the western democracy is held to higher standards than terrorists.

Why Iranians cannot be expected to create a government that adheres to standards we take as granted/mandatory from Israelis? What quality is it they are lacking? Why Palestinians cannot be expected to fight for their goals without terrorism if we expect Israelis to refrain from it? What is it they are lacking? If they lack nothing, they can be held to the same standard.