Which is a retaliation for Iran providing weapons, training, funding and guidance to multiple proxies attacking Israel (Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc)
Not saying the retaliation is a smart move (honestly have no idea), but this didn't come out of the blue.
> An Israeli airstrike carried out within Syria without its consent would be in contravention of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits a state from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state... Unless Israel were able to justify any airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would be in violation of international law.
> Unless Israel were able to justify any airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would be in violation of international law.
So... not illegal since hezbollah has been targeting and attacking Israel with Iran's help. Israel is defending itself.
In any case there is no law between sovereign states.
Now, Iran's use of drones to retaliate seems calibrated to avoid a further escalation because it is unlikely that they will cause much damage. But let's see how things unfold as apparently Iran has launched a large number of drones...
Maybe. It would depend upon just how much the Irish government was supporting the IRA. What if the Irish government was backing the IRA to the degree that Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas? If that were the case don't you think the UK would respond in the same manner?
Honestly the Israeli response (killing Iranians in a third country) is probably more restrained then the UK would have been. I expect the UK - in a hypothetical world where the Irish had supported the IRA to the degree that Iran supports Hamas/Hezbollah - would have struck Ireland directly and not offered even implausible denials that they had done it but instead trumpeted that fact.
The Hezbollah is currently attacking Israel with Iran's backing and operational support.
That building in Damascus was obviously used by Iran and Hezbollah as operational or command centre, or similar, since personel from both the Iranian military and Hezbollah were killed in the attack.
Hence it was perfectly "legal", for Israel to destroy it in self-defense.
Do you think it was "legal" for Iran to fire hundreds of drones at Israel's civilian areas (which is what Hamas does as well, btw)? I think that this would be a more obvious breach of "international law" if you wanted to be such a stickler for it...
If American proxies in Guatemala attacked say Cuba, would it be legal for Cuba to retaliate by bombing an American embassy in Mexico? If Cuba did do that, would America be justified in responding by bombing Cuba?
My moral framework rejects absolute laws. Breaking laws sometimes doesnt make me bad at all. I can accept that it does in yours, but I dont really care.
Killing completely random people is easy (and a war crime), killing a bunch of military commanders is much harder (and a valid military operation). This was the second one.
I remember hearing almost exactly the same weak excuses when Israel bombed the Church of Saint Porphyrius. “Well actually it was the building right next to it (that is exclusively used by it)”. It’s not fooling anyone.
The military commander occupied the building with his subordinates was in charge of weapons transfer from Iran to hezbollah, which has been bombing northern Israel with thousands of rockets in the past 6 months.
The US supports Israel and itself causes terror in the Middle East. US citizens are safest if we withdraw completely and sanction Israel, like we would any other country violating human rights.
I do agree that Iranians are nice people. The people who are in power, however, may have a different vision (and that concerns both Americans and their own people). This is the sad reality of many Arab states.
It simple actually, Iran has no impact on my life where Israel has a very negative impact on my life. I barely want to remain in the tech industry because all of the VCs are pro-genocide. My tax dollars, military and political capital all go to cover Israel. I do not think Israel should have ever been created. It does not benefit me, only harms and endangers.
A broader perspective might suggest that in order to continue your life without adverse impacts, it is in your interest that Iran be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Israel is doing a lot of work on your behalf in retarding that outcome.
So, even if you are not sympathetic to the plight of our ideological fellow travelers, from a purely utilitarian view, it is in your interest to support Israel.
You support Iran having nuclear weapons in order to keep Israel in check? You're delusional if you think you'd like a world with the people running Iran in charge.
MAD is a well established doctrine for deterrence. The people running Iran are running Iran, not the world. The people running Israel however have undue influence on my and many other countries.
All humans have a will to live, Hamas is fighting against occupation not to commit suicide. The Israeli theocracy however seems to have lost control of all logic and instead is operating in the death throws of an apartheid state coming to its end. The world would be safer with more opposition to Israel.
Thanks for the link, I read every source cited by the wikipedia page, and so far it's been a bunch of uncorroborated claims, and in particular no official confirmation --
> U.S. and Israeli officials said they have no firm evidence so far that Iran authorized or directly coordinated the attack that killed more than 900 Israelis and wounded thousands.
> U.S. officials said Iran has regularly trained militants in Iran and elsewhere, but they have no indications of a mass training right before the attack. U.S. officials and the people familiar with the intelligence said they had no information to suggest Iran conducted training specifically to prepare for the events of Oct. 7.
I'm sure this reserved stance from officials might have something to do with the US not wanting to get dragged into opposition with yet another potential nuclear power, but still.
(In case you're wondering, I suspect your choice of word "Orc" might have something to do with the downvote as well...)
Warning bells are going off in the international community about an imminent attack by Iran on Israel. If it comes, it won’t come be because Iran was unprovoked, as Israel has been provoking Iran into an attack for the last three years by its regular bombing of Iranian bases in Syria, which so far has not worked. Seemingly to increase the provocation, In the first week of April, Israel bombed Iran’s embassy in Damascus, which is a clear violation of diplomatic immunity and which no nation does including in wartime out of respect to other nation’s diplomatic missions.
This bombing provocation went even further than violating embassy sovereignty by Israel killing several of Iran’s high ranking military officers which were meeting in an embassy annex at the time. Israel could not have known
about this meeting without high level penetration of Iranian and Syrian governments by Israeli spies. So, just as the war on Hamas was started by inviting the attack by the IDF pulling out most of its soldiers from Southern Israel and leaving it wide open and vulnerable, Israel is apparently
itching for a fight with Iran by provoking it. In short, if war comes, Israel will be just as responsible for it as Iran.
Here's an article that goes into more detail on what international law says about embassies [1].
I'm not sure if the NYT enforces their paywall on that article--it works for me and I'm not a subscriber, but I am signed up for one of their email lists and it is possible that's why I can see it.
For those who get stopped by the paywall TL;DR would be that the international law for embassies and other diplomatic facilities is all about what the "receiving state" can and cannot do. The "receiving state" is the state that the embassy is in.
As far as other states go there is nothing legally special about embassies. So if country X attacks country Y's embassy that is located in country Z as far as international law goes it is pretty much the same as attacking any other random building in Z that happens to have people and stuff from country Y inside.
I think we'll be seeing a lot more of this. It's a massive brand liability to have an association with Israel and there's an unknown potential for future damage.
Two days isn’t even a break, it’s just necessary time to catch up on the work of maintaining a household so you at least start the work week not living in a falling-down house full of dirty clothes and garbage.
Especially with kids.
WFH helps a ton with that, though. Can make dinners during the week instead of prepping on the weekend as much (do most of your mise during a meeting or something), don’t lose time to a commute so there’s more time to get stuff done during the week, get a couple loads of laundry run when it’s time to stand up and stretch and look away from the screen for a few minutes anyway, et c. It saves the weekend for actual relaxation, or at least more of it for that.
> living in a falling-down house full of dirty clothes and garbage.
This is my life, and I just accept it now. I've tried so hard to change. I've tried to balance it all. I don't/can't care anymore. My place is always a wreck and so be it. I only have two days to myself and I value other things in life more.
That's not true at all. Nakba was an ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians. Voluntary Jewish immigration at behest of Zionist urging to Israel is not the same thing.
No. There was little voluntary about the immigration we're discussing. Jewish people were chased out of Tunisia, Yemen, Morocco, and Iraq by lead-pipe mobs. You can go to Yemen today (well, you could before the Houthi takeover) and buy the silversmithing the fleeing Jewish people left behind in open-air markets.
From the thread below, you appear to believe Israel also coordinated the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, so I think our premises are probably too far apart to discuss anything productively.
I do not believe that (although I could see how you would read it like that). I meant your insinuation that the well documented Zionist false flag was the equivalent of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but you admit that Israel did do the false flag.
A pattern that continued through their controlled demolition of the World Trade Towers, I'm sure.
Like every other country in the 1950s, Israel did a bunch of crazy shit. But attempting to attribute significant amounts of Jewish emigration from MENA countries to Zionist operations is risible. Pogroms against Jewish enclaves are well documented.
I edited this comment, adding the second paragraph, while its reply was being posted. Sorry about that.
I don't follow you. Osama Bin Laden said that the bombing of the WTC was in retaliation for Israel bombing Beirut:
> God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed - when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US sixth fleet.
Gaza was under complete blockade from Israel (after it was occupied by it). That's not an environment you can create reliable governance since it wasn't allowed to be a sovereign state.
Palestinians were free to travel through the Egypt-Gaza border. Plenty of TikTok videos of Gazans having trips abroad.
Even now, during the war, they can still leave but have to pay $7k in bribes, that's how Hamas leaders smuggled their families out or some actual terrorists left.
Interesting how quickly this was addressed and redacted vs. the fabricated rape propaganda that Israel has been spreading about Oct 7th. Just as with this case, a family member said that there was no rape. The difference is that The New York Times ran the Israel propaganda as fact.
