The bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus and storming of Mexico’s embassy in Quito breaks with accepted diplomatic norms − and could spell trouble.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.