The bombing of Iran's consulate in Damascus on April 1 killing 16 people was an obvious trap to through the Iran-theocracy's longstanding rhetoric force it to do "something" highly visible or lose the prestige amongst some people that it has been generating through its posturing, proxy low-intensity war and through its rhetoric regarding Palestine which it would lose unless it acted somehow in return for what was technically Israel bombing Iran (diplomatic mission grounds are legally actual territory of the State it represents) and therefore it would lose more of its grip to brutally oppress the people at home as well as to project imperialist power,
which was undoubtedly a situation Netanyahu and pals specifically intended to trigger by its bombing since Netanyahu desperately needs a long and escalated war as protection against the years long huge domestic protests and demands for Netanyahu's ouster and continued prosecution for corruption.
That several major world "leaders" refused to even condemn the bombing of a diplomatic mission by Israel made it clear relying on supposed intl law was not an option; Biden et al are thus co-responsible for this world-endangering escalation.
Also, as I've said many times regarding several other wars and single armed incursions,
there is no "retaliation", "vengeance", "balance" or similar casus belli. Applying equally for every State regardless of what we think of the State/regime in question.
There is a "self-defense" mechanism which is defined as only valid while defending against an actually ongoing armed attack, which ends the moment that armed attack ends, meaning a single instance of attack, not an entire war or campaign. After that, the matter is to be taken to the UNSC and/or ICJ.
"Counter-attacking", "retaliatory strike" or whatever weeks or even hours later is NOT valid "self-defense" and neither is crazy claims some made of "preemptive self-defense" attacks. They are all simply acts of war of aggression.
That's not "my opinions", but the rules all States imposed on themselves by declaring themselves as States; current intl law.
Compare to if Steve was out partying and was punched by Joe, then everyone goes home, but then Steve drives over to Joe's apartment a couple of weeks later to punch back. Nobody would consider that to then be a "self-defense" act.
Same if Steve just decided that "I think Joe will punch me soon, so I will drive over to Joe's place and punch Joe first, in self-defense".
That is not self-defense.
─────
Retaliatory military attacks between Israel and Iran violate the right to life and must cease immediately, UN experts said today.
[...]
“Israel’s attack consequently violated the prohibition on the use of armed force against another state under Article 2(4) of the Charter,” the experts said. “Illegal force was used not only against Iran’s armed forces but also against Syrian territory. Israel’s attack was partly launched from the Golan Heights, which is illegally annexed Syrian territory,”
[...]
The experts said Iran’s response was also a prohibited use of force under international law. Israel’s strike on 1 April may have been serious enough to qualify as an “armed attack” on Iran, since it targeted senior military commanders and diplomatic premises. Yet Iran had no right of self-defence on 13 April because Israel’s attack concluded on 1 April. Self-defence is only lawful where is it necessary to stop a continuing armed attack. “Forcible retaliation, punishment or deterrence are illegal,” they warned.
───── https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/israel-and-iran-must-de-escalate-conflict-protect-human-rights-warn-un
@b9AcE I wouldn't have expected you among all people to disapprove the killing a bunch of IRGC high ranking members. Netanyahu is a fool and a war criminal. But I thought that Iran protester would be relieved that some organizer of the repression don't get to grow old finally.
And, Israel has not started the consulate targeting war with Iran, far from it.
@derle I am always against war between States, as it is always the poor and already most vulnerable people that get the most crushed ad a result.
Always and especially when it is at extreme risk of becoming a region-wide war of civilian obliteration, or even worse.
Besides, these events have only strengthened the regime's crushing grip on the populace, as wars almost always do.
A war between States is not a people's liberatory revolution.
Add comment