Israel supporting counter marches in London - about time

[mids2019]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13304895/Met-Police-arrest-Palestine-Israel-march-London-protest-Gaza.html

I think in a democracy this is absolutely necessary. Obviously policing will be important but it is good to see that in terms of street protest this is not a come sided issue.

I wonder how many are going to be arrested losing their rag seeing Israeli flags an masse after getting themselves riled up calling for a ceasefire.....

You need to have a Google about why Israel decided to attack that embassy. Also someone mentioned it upthread.

That doesn’t really make it much better tbh. You don’t have to be anti-Zionist to support Palestinians and anti-Zionist Jews aren’t somehow superior to Zionist ones. You’re similarly guilty of projecting your own prejudice and misapprehensions onto an entire group of people as the people you’re accusing.

Jews who don't think Israel should exist?

Iran doesn't think that Israel should exist either.

? I thought the CIA and Five Eyes and everyone found zero evidence that Iran was involved in the October 7th attack?

An embassy is not a military command centre. It is not a legal target. The UN law states that no embassy is a legal target, ever.

A prominent group in Iran apparently claim he was. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202404043146

No, it’s as if people don’t support one nation exterminating another. IDGAF what religion you are, wiping out 1000s and 1000s of people is not ok, and is not ‘self-defence’.

Shocking how many people think that Israel is above the law and can ignore it, but Iran isn’t above the law and can’t ignore it. It is becoming evident that all UN Security Council veto countries and their best friends are above the UN laws, and everyone else is under the UN laws.

The double standards on display will destroy the UN.

Can you tell me which UN law that is please?

Someone in another thread mentioned Article 31 of the vienna convention on consular relations, 1963 but that only outlines the obligations of the 'receiving State' to protect a consulate team which is vulnerable due to being embedded in their country. That doesn't apply here, since the consulate wasn't in Israel.

You can download it here:
https://legal.un.org › englishpdf vienna un convention on consular relations, 1963

There is also a convention which is intended to protect heads of state and other officials including consular ones from assassination and kidnapping. I'm pretty sure that where the person also has a military role, that removes their protection but I can't find the details.

It's usually the case that when something/someone which is normally protected is used for military purposes, the protection is withdrawn. Which makes sense really, since otherwise people would just abuse that and then the genuine legal protection wouldn't be sustainable.

People trying to use the UN for their own purposes rather than to uphold it's aims in good faith is what puts the UN at risk.

There you go

Isn’t this what Israel is doing ? Un approved a call for ceasefire not long ago which Israel has ignored and even called UN anti Israel and antisemitic and now is using it on their benefit

Quite apart from the point that consulates lose their status if they are used for military purposes (and I don't think that this meeting was considering creating a safe local habitat for great crested newts), I suspect this wasn't the sort of consulate full of people picking up their visas, while helping their citizens who lost their passports after having too many drinks on an 18-30 holiday. Maybe I'm wrong and there is an Iranian telly documentary following a day in the life of the consular officials, but I doubt it...

In short:
Israel can bomb anything and anyone, anytime and anywhere in the knowledge that big brother (USA) have got their back. They can disregard any international laws when it suits them and invokes them when needed.
They can starve to death innocent people, deprive them of the basics to survive and so on and the world governments side with them because it is self defence.

Iran decides to use the self defence card and warns the whole world of their intentions, even disclosing how they would do it and the world condemns them.
No one was killed and minimum damage was done. Iran planned it that way.

It is also a great distraction from the horrors, inflicted on the Palestinians, in Gaza.

Finally, I can't believe what I am about to write here but Iran has the moral high ground here.

By the way I have no love for the Iranian regime.

Ofc, it is all detailed in the UN press release the exact laws that were violated by bombing the Iranian Consulate in Damascus even with military personnel inside it. See:https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15650.doc.htm

“…seven missile airstrikes from the occupied Golan Heights intentionally targeted her country’s diplomatic premises in Damascus, including the consular section building and the Ambassador’s residence.”

“In the ensuing discussion, many delegations asserted that any attack on diplomatic and consular premises violates the Charter of the United Nations as well as the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.”

”Assistant Secretary-General for Middle East, Asia and the Pacific, Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations, noted that Iran transmitted a letter to the Secretary-General and the Security Council stating that Israel has attacked its diplomatic premises in Damascus by missile strikes, killing at least five Iranian personnel, including senior military advisors and injuring others. According to media reports, the death toll has risen to 13 — seven Iranian personnel and six Syrian citizens. Reiterating the Secretary-General’s condemnation of the attack, he declared that the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel must be respected in all cases and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States must be respected under international law.
“The rules-based international order is essential for international peace and security, which this Council is mandated to maintain,” he said.

For those of you unfamiliar with consulates they usually have military personnel posted abroad working in them. It doesn’t mean they are being used as a military command centre. Every consulate and embassy will have a Defense Attaché and their staff (active duty military) there to advise on military cooperation and treaties between the countries. Embassies and consulates will also have use their own nations active duty military working as security guards for the premises, they don’t hire rent a cop contractors for security. This is perfectly normal. Edited to correct typos

Can you give a few examples of the world condemning Iran's attack on Israel?

The strongest condemnation I've seen is David Cameron saying '3000 rockets was a bit much'.

After orchestrating October 7th, I don't think Iran can even see the moral high ground.

It was that “sort of consulate” 🙄

There are many examples. Perhaps try reading the news?

An ultra-conservative conspiracy theory fringe group or the five top intelligence agencies in the world. Who to believe?

It’s right to condemn the attack by Iran, but it is also right to condemn the prior attack by Israel that provoked it. The problem is that polarisation means sides will applaud one and condemn the other. This is dangerous as the region is on “the brink of the abyss” as has been said.

The Wise hold strong views, weakly.

I think Israel were right here..

“Today, we, the G7 Leaders, condemned Iran’s unprecedented attack against Israel in the strongest terms. We express our solidarity and support to the people of Israel. And reaffirm our commitment to its security. We’ll continue to work to stabilize the situation” said Ursula von der leyen.
As another poster said earlier, just listen to the news.
Iran played a game of chess with Israel, deliberately avoiding casualties and any significant damage while Israel bombs the shit out of anybody.

Thanks @Auvergne63 do you know what Ursula said when Israel bombed the consulate ? Bet she was quiet. Same way she’s been quiet about Palestine for a long time

On the basis of what? Some internet random calling a consulate in Syria a ‘terrorist HQ’? What if someone applied that extremist redefining of reality to the Israeli consulate in Istanbul, Turkey? As you know both Iran/Israel have been flinging the you’re just a bunch of terrorists insult between each other. Israel has upped it a notch by calling Iran the same as the Third Reich, and their leader as no different from Adolf Hitler.

I think you're exaggerating the condemnation. That's why I'm asking you to give examples.

From the front pages of the bbc:

Sunak tells the Commons that Iran showed its "true colours" OK. But it's hardly a rant.

And it's followed by 2 points he made on de-escalation, and then a comment from Sunak that the conflict in Gaza "must end", highlighting the "appalling toll on civilians" and the need to see new aid crossings into Gaza and he paid tribute to three British aid workers killed in an Israeli strike in Gaza and called for a humanitarian pause in Gaza. So Sunak said more against Israel than Iran.

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey condemns Iran's attack as an "alarming escalation" in a conflict that has "already seen far too many deaths and suffering". 'Alarming escalation' isn't really a condemnation, is it? Like before, he criticises Israel in the same breath.

Mhairi Black from the SNP doesn't even bother mentioning Iran before mentioning the "violent acts of Israel" in Gaza, and says "there must be a political and diplomatic solution" to conflict in the Middle East.

Your turn.