Japan Today

Here
and
Now

opinions

Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest otherwise, setting dangerous diplomatic precedent

7 Comments
By Jorge Heine

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

7 Comments
Login to comment

@Desert Tortoise

But NATO's bombing of Serbia was not sanctioned by the UN and was therefore the whole operation was illegal and the F-117 should not have been there to begin with. So much for rule-based order, eh?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It could be said that the US set the precedent by bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, although no mention of that here.

Ignoring the 1983 Beirut embassy bombing and the 1988 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? How about more recent Iranian militia rocket attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad? The Arabs/Muslims made embassies targets all around the world.

China had picked up pieces of the F-117 the Serbs shot down and took the parts to their embassy. Considering how classified the materials were the US Gov at the time apparently chose to bomb the embassy to prevent those materials from being compromised. The Chinese knew the game they were playing.

Iran turned their so called consulate into a military command headquarters. That might be ok if they were not simultaneously using it as a base from which to attack Israel via their proxies in Syria and southern Lebanon. I have almost nothing nice to say about Israel but Iran made their consulate a legitimate target by using it as a command post for operations against Israel.

As for Mexico, they stuck their nose into the internal business of a sovereign nation. Maybe the Ecuadorans should not have forced their way into the Mexican embassy but they sure as heck could have declared their diplomats persona non grates and force them all to leave in 48 hours so they could arrest the convict holed up inside. Mexico had no business taking that guy in and protecting him.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It could be said that the US set the precedent by bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, although no mention of that here.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

One might recall that in mid March 2022 Iran attacked what it called a "Mossad spy base" at an Israeli diplomatic compound in Irbil Iraq.

But there is a crucial legal difference here. When Iran targets Israeli 'diplomatic' compounds, they can legitimately claim to be targeting a non-state actor, because Iran has withdrawn recognition of Israeli statehood (something they are entitled to do under international law). In contrast, Israel does recognise the Islamic Republic of Iran, and by doing so they voluntarily assume certain obligations under international law to respect diplomatic property of other states.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

One might recall that in mid March 2022 Iran attacked what it called a "Mossad spy base" at an Israeli diplomatic compound in Irbil Iraq. The attack also damaged a newly built and yet to be occupied US Consulate there.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Embassies and consulates are protected by international treaties. The actions by Ecuador and Israel were wrong.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest otherwise, setting dangerous diplomatic precedent

Off limit?

Russian invasion to Ukraine or occupation and massacre of Palestine just show to the world that if something it's doable, then it will be done soon or later.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites