Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest otherwise − and that sets a dangerous diplomatic precedent
Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest otherwise − and that sets a dangerous diplomatic precedent
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.
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.
The West is exposed as full of shit M.B.A.s that will sell thier families for anything above market value.
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
Guess someone forgot to include this one... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.