Jump to content

Talk:Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gimmethegepgun (talk | contribs) at 10:05, 10 May 2024 (→Requested move 9 May 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 2 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR. It's possible that "airstrike" is more precise but there isn't consensus to make that change; a second RM might be useful if people want that. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus – I think the article being retitled to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus by User:Dylanvt is not appropriate. I suggest moving it back to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus:

  • Is not a concise title (WP:Concise)
  • If you look at List of attacks on diplomatic missions you'll see that a good portion of articles are named by a year, mission attacked, bombing, location of mission or year, attack, mission attacked, location of mission format. Very rarely is the assailant named in the title like it is in United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
  • Israel is suspected/accused of the attack. The lede doesn't even mention this like 2023 Damascus airstrike. Currently, it only mentions Iran blaming the United States (and Israel in the infobox). So I fail to see how this is WP:Precise. Huge number of news sources are still running with Iran accuses. I can also see this becoming an issue later down the line and used for justification in future contentious titling arguments. It would be best to avoid that.

I suggest we move it back to the original title of 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus or 2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to maintain a sense of consistency and accuracy. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As it appears, the perpetrator is not mentioned in the titles of articles regarding attacks on embassies. For the sake of both consistency and conciseness, naming the perpetrator in the title itself is not useful. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example of United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was literally presented in the opening statement. It is in fact the case that state on state attacks normally do include the perpetrator. Titles without perpetrators are often a function unclear, non-state origins. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is the only example which is presented. There is also the 2024 raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador which doesn't mention that the perpetrator is Ecuador in the title. In any case, why should specifically state-on-state attacks mention the perpetrator in the title, while those perpetrated by non-state actors aren't mentioned? In addition, when attacks are state-on-state but do not focus on the attack of a diplomatic mission, then the perpetrator isn't usually mentioned (for example: Bombing of Dresden, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Raid on the Medway). ―Howard • 🌽33 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I agree. Both titles work for this. I think it's important to include the fact that the airstrike is Israeli, since removing it kind of seems to remove that link between the airstrike and the country itself. Werkwer (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with Ecrusized's title is it goes back to considering this a consulate and not an embassy. This was an embassy. If someone bombed a truck at an embassy you'd still say they bombed the embassy - having a building part of the embassy compound get blown up is still the embassy. Damascus is the capital and any degradation of such is not reasonable or informative. Amyipdev (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your statement, however I disagree that it is a degradation to the capital itself. It was a mere mistake on my behalf for not looking into the technical language. Werkwer (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is widely accepted (and actually undisputed) that the bombing was by Israel. No need to remove or change anything.
Stephan rostie (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per above and because the title '"2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"' suggests that it was an Iranian attack against whatever consulate in Damascus instead of an attack against the Iran embassy by Israel, as acknowledged by all major international media and Israel itself. MaeseLeon (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Diffrent suggestion: move to Assassination of Mohammad Reza Zahedi. The main buildind of the embassy was not hort, so bombing of the embassy is missliding. useing consulate isnt beter, since thet makes it seem like it was in a separate are from the embassy and not the next buildind over. +, Zahedi and the rest were not diplomets, and there the center of the story.Pen Man (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Crossing out the comment due to ARBECR restrictions in force on this page. — kashmīrī TALK 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only in very dystopian, post-international law speak can demolishing the entire consular services wing of an embassy be whittled down into a mere "assassination" - aside from being a clear POV framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone. Also the "fact" that Israel carried out the bombing, although widely alleged, is not established by evidence provided by Iran or Syria. The title should not be including an alleged perpetrator.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT, Axios, WP, AP - all finger Israel in own voice. Who's denying it? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone.

    So what? We already know the consulate isn't performing the attack, because that would be a "consular airstrike".
    The problem is that "consulate Iranian airstrike" is grammatically forbidden, or at least unnatural. Thus "Iranian consulate airstrike" becomes idiomatic for both "an airstrike on an Iranian consulate" and "an Iranian airstrike on a consulate". Context (including that "buildings...can't attack anyone") is insufficient to distinguish between the two.
    Moreover: Iran is famous (in English-language sources, anyways) for attacking a diplomatic facility. Context-dependence here effects the incorrect interpretation. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: My third bullet point was about the article at that exact time point in time. New information and statements have been made since then. Clearly Israel has made more comments about the strike. Obviously, the article on Wikipedia has changed as well.
My main point was about how it should follow the precedent of other articles as I mentioned in the second bullet point. See 2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut as another use case example. See also, World Central Kitchen drone strikes. That attack happened on the same day as this airstrike (1 April 2024). Note how the title doesn't mean WCK conducted the drone strike. Additionally how the article isn't titled something like Israeli drone strike of World Central Kitchen.
I just know leaving the current title will led it to be justification in future contentious titling arguments, where things are not as easy to discern. This is why I suggest going with a simple title that follows previous naming examples.
Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, it is exceptionally rare for embassies to be directly targeted by state actors, so the emphasis here is arguably warranted. I believe the last such event was the United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which does indeed frame it in the same format. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the majority of sources listed. Also, while Consular Sections at embassies are often called consulates, the bombed building was still part of the Iranian Embassy complex. The perpetrator has also been named in multiple sources and itself has not denied involvement. Finally, I'm unconvinced that "airstrike" would be better than bombing. — kashmīrī TALK 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok with bombing as well. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose: being 'concise' does not mean removing pertinent information. Sometimes a title is longer than 6 words but still concise. Orangesclub Crossing out the comment due to ARBECR restrictions in force on this page. (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Should follow the WP:Concise and general pattern. Additionally, the airstrike being carried out by Israel is a claim by Iran, and Wikipedia is not in place of pushing claims by one side without actual verification, there is a lot of misinformation, propaganda, and misleading information in relation to Israel and Iran. The title cannot make such a claim in wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In CNN ref 1 "Four unnamed Israeli officials acknowledged that Israel carried out the attack” and that "the US’ assessment was that Israel had carried out the airstrike.” Therefore, I’d say it’s more than a 'claim' by just Iran that the bombing was carried out by Israel. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This needs to be looked at in the wider context of reporting on the issues in the area and that not all previously accepted reliable journalism is actually reliable. Also the current sources in the article state "claimed by Iran".
    This is not my OR this is other sources stating the unreliable nature of media reporting Vox, Africa News, NPR
    PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose: I agree that the current title could be more concise, but the suggested title may be misleading, not only it does not clearly state the perpetrator, but who the victim is also not abundantly clear. While some iconic events like The Iranian Embassy siege don't need neither the year nor the perpetrators in the title, this event is more similar to this article: February 2024 United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria which clearly states the year, the perpetrator and the targeted areas.
Additionally, addressing some people's claims that Israel may not have been the perpetrator, IDF themselves took the credit for this airstrike [1][2]. LatekVon (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Non-EC user[reply]
  • Oppose: in bombings by individuals or small relatively unknown groups, WP:COMMON, referring to the event in a conversation, would be something like “when the embassy got bombed (by a terrorist group)”, but when it’s a well-known actor like Hamas or Israel, we say “when Israel bombed the Iranian Embassy”. Just as we do for the October 7 attacks. The event’s importance is not that the building “got bombed” but rather that Israel bombed an Iranian Embassy.Keizers (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alternative, the building was part of the Iranian Embassy, not a standalone consulate. — kashmīrī TALK 08:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/propose alternative: "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus" is misleading, as it suggests that Iran performed the airstrike. "2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus" is insufficiently concise and uses the wrong preposition: a better title would be "2024 airstrike on the Iranian Damascus consulate". Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, the current title is pretty clear who did the bombing. I think the proposed one is too ambiguous and you don't know if it was Israel or ISIS or the FSA from just the title alone. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support change , I mean guys there is a really big mistake here in understanding! The building is not the embassy building! It's a building next to the embassy building, I mean just look at the pictures, you can see the fence of the embassy does not include the bombed building but encloses the embassy compound, so the building is just next to it but not part of the embassy. Also consulates are always in different cities to the location of the embassy building! If Italy has an embassy in Cairo it would have a consulate in Alexandria but Italy wouldn't have a consulate in Cairo. So this is a big mistake. Titlt should be: 2024 Israeli strike of Iranian building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. I know the name sounds bad but it's accurate. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to status quo. It's possible there are better titles than "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus", but the most important aspect is whether we refer to it as a consulate or an embassy, as that is the part that could result in us violating WP:NPOV. Reliable sources consistently refer to this as an airstrike on the consulate; searching for "Airstrike Damascus", of the first ten results:
    1. Sky News; "Embassy" - "suspected Israeli airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria."
    2. SBS; "near Iran's Embassy" - "attack near Iran's Embassy in Damascus, assumed to be by Israel"
    3. Al Jazeera; "consulate" - "Israeli fighter jets fired missiles at the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus earlier this week"
    4. CNN; "consulate" - "The airstrike destroyed the consulate building in the capital Damascus" "The consulate building, which includes the ambassador’s residence and is located next to the Iranian Embassy, is considered sovereign Iranian territory. "
    5. AP; "consulate" - "An Israeli airstrike that demolished Iran’s consulate in Syria"
    6. Iran International; "embassy" - "The European Union on Wednesday called for restraint after an airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus killed seven Revolutionary Guards."
    7. ABC; "consulate" - "after a suspected Israeli air strike on Iran's consulate"
    8. The Guardian; "consulate" - "Israeli war planes destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus"
    9. Reuters; "consulate" or "embassy compound" - "at its embassy compound in Damascus", "which destroyed a consular building adjacent to the main embassy complex"
    10. VOA; "consulate" - "that destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria"
  • Six sources use "consulate", two use "embassy" including one whose reliability is unclear, and the other two use other terminology; it would be inappropriate for us to do differently. BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consulate is a name traditionally used for the offices occupied by an embassy's consular section; however, those offices are still a part of the embassy. — kashmīrī TALK 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more complicated than that - but the only thing that is relevant here is that reliable sources consider "consulate" more accurate, and I don't see any bases for us to reject their assessment. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources repeat it one after another; usually after agency reports; that doesn't mean we should blindly copy them when incorrect and when we have plenty of correct sources. — kashmīrī TALK 09:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diplomatic and consular premises: UN [3]
    Consular Section: Kazakhstan MFA [4], South African MFA [5], Iran MFA [6] (they know best what was located there)
    Embassy: The Atlantic Council [7], The Telegraph [8], TRT [9], RFE [10] (also consulate), Bloomberg [11], DW [12] and many others. Your claim that only two sources use "embassy" is plainly incorrect. — kashmīrī TALK 09:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My claim is that of a relatively random sample of ten articles about this incident, only two used "embassy". Without knowing your methodology, we have no way of knowing whether your sources are a representative sample - what was your methodology?
    Further, reviewing your sources, they don't say what you claim they say:
    1. The Atlantic Council - "embassy annex"
    2. The Telegraph - "consular building" and "embassy"
    3. TRT - "embassy", but considered unreliable for this topic at WP:RSP
    4. RFE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per WP:HEADLINES)
    5. Bloomberg - "embassy"
    6. DE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per WP:HEADLINES)
    BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consular mission in a capital is an embassy. An embassy provides consular services, which means it can have a dedicated consular wing/building that can be referred to as a 'consulate', but is still part of the embassy compound. The efforts by some media outlets to label this as a strike on a 'consulate' instead of the embassy is quite clearly an attempt to diminish what is an egregious violation of the Vienna convention on diplomatic missions, and this sidestepping language is a disservice to their readers, as it would be to ours were it replicated here. Calling this a strike on an embassy is just calling a duck a duck; replacing this with 'consulate' is shenanigans. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't express it better. — kashmīrī TALK 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not our place to decide that reliable sources are incorrect; we don't WP:RGW. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This falls into the category of WP:COMMONSENSE. Capitals have embassies; other cities have consulates. That a handful of sources seem to be confused about this is neither here nor there. No need to pander. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that's the rough idea. Granted, sometimes (albeit very rarely) embassies are not located in the capital city, or consular sections are located in another part of the city than the main embassy complex, or there are only honorary consulates but no embassy in the country. But a typical setup, and one in place in the Iran/Syria instance, is the one you described. — kashmīrī TALK 11:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose to provide greater clarity as to who caused the attack. The proposed title is less clear and given the unfortunately short attention spans of many would cause confusion or even misattribution of the attacks. Amyipdev (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Not Extended Confirmed[reply]
Oppose It's almost beyond doubt who and what the perpetrators and targets are respectively. --Masssly (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wouldn't say "almost". It's extremely clear who the perpetrators and targets are. Amyipdev (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose. I was looking for this article, and didn't know its title, so I searched "2024 Israeli" and it showed up. The current title is much more natural than the opening proposal (or NasssaNser's alternate proposal). Concision shouldn't come at the cost of making the article harder to find. Also, I suggest creating a redirect at "2024 Israeli strike on[...]", so that (equally natural) partial query gets autocompleted too. Also agree with kashmiri's reasoning above on "embassy" > "consulate". DFlhb (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Arab world, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the proposed title is potentially misleading, as if Iran has bombed itself. The suggested change of "embassy" to "consulate" is a bit of an obfuscation; the consular building was part of the embassy compound, so the present title is correct. See for example: Debris is cleared away after an Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy compound in Damascus, Syria, on Monday. (Ravid, Barak (1 April 2024). "U.S. tells Iran it "had no involvement" in Israel strike". Axios.) The only worthwhile change would be to remove "2024" as no prior strike on the embassy has occurred. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title is clear and sound. Cfls (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Assuming that current info on the page is correct (i.e. an Israeli airstrike destroyed the Iranian consulate annex building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus) the building was not Iranian embassy. Hence the title is misleading and should be changed as suggested or to something else. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Hello User:Mike Selinker. Thanks for your decision above. Could you please revisit it a bit as it seems to have a few issues. Firstly, it's a consulate and not embassy. Second, there are just allegation that it was done by Israel and we are stating it as a fact in the article's name. Please let me know if I should write it in some other place (and please feel free to move/update/delete my comment) but I'd appreciate your assistance here. Thank you. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

In Legality section of article, change "citation needed" to:

Diplomatic premises, like homes and schools, are considered "civilian objects" under international law, and they are not permissible as targets unless they are used for a military purpose.[1] Diplomatic buildings are entitled to further protections from attack or other interference by the host country under international customary law, codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations, but in this case these do not apply to Israel. Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an appropriate source. A source specific to this strike would be appropriate; otherwise, this is original research. Zanahary (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Unrefined Gasoline. @Zanahary Here a link about the actual stryke regarding this matter: [13] where International Right Expert affirm that:

“So attacks on diplomatic compounds carry particular weight, both in law and in the popular imagination. But in this case, experts say, Israel can likely argue that its actions did not violate international law’s protections for diplomatic missions. Here’s why.
The embassy complex was not on Israeli soil..

and

“Israel is a third state and is not bound by the law of diplomatic relations with regard to Iran’s Embassy in Syria,” said Aurel Sari, a professor of international law at Exeter University in the United Kingdom.

This make a legal difference if compared with the Iran hostage crisis where Iran was the “receiving State” of the US Embassy in Teheran and violeted the Vienna Convention. Nicola Romani (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the legal experts in the world, of all the think tanks, they've only managed to quote a (Jewish?) associate professor at a second-league UK university[14], additionally one who argues that military necessity overrides the legal requirement of protecting civilians in an armed conflict?[15][16][17] And now a global encyclopaedia is to be built on his opinion? — kashmīrī TALK 09:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out the query as to whether the author of that piece is Jewish or not, which is immaterial, and (offensively insinuating). But the source from the NYTs is patently mediocre, a whitewash job mugged up within a day of the strike, with no broad consulting of legal and political science authorities. The two opinions cited are from a specialist in the defence world (predictable) and the Israeli legal scholar. There is no attempt whatsoever to caste the net broader, though it would have been simple even by that date to show that a good many scholars and authorities of greater notability questioned the legality of what Israel did. The standard view was that Israel bombed an embassy compound in Syria, that embassy compounds are under particular protection and must not be attacked.
The cherrypicked argument by the pro-Israeli scholar was that in so far as the convention deals with the relations between a receiving state (Syria) and a state whose presence is received on its soil (Iran), Israel as a third state is not affected by the convention. (the Ukraine could bomb the Russian embassies in Byelorussia or anywhere else in the world because, the (il)logic runs, the Convention only protects Russian property in such countries from any attack by the receiving states, but not from countries in conflict with Russia)
That view is eccentric to the mainstream. If the Convention is read that way, it would mean that any embassy in any country could be struck by a missile from any third party if the third party regarded that embassy as hostile to its own state. That simply empties the Conventions of the meaning they have always been taken to bear, since it entails the proposition that embassies are not intrinsically inviolable. Which is absurd. Article 22 states that embassies are 'inviolable', no equivocation. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading "Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961", it appears that Article 22 only applies to the receiving state:

The term ‘inviolability’ as defined by Article 22 VCDR means that the premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall, in line with the parallel principle of “omnis coactio abesse a legato debet”, be immune from any compulsory measure by the receiving State. From this it follows that the inviolability of the mission rules out all types of sovereign acts by the receiving State, including, inter alia, service of process.

"Diplomatic Law : Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations" says something similar:

Inviolability in modern international law is a status accorded to premises, persons, or property physically present in the territory of a sovereign State but not subject to its jurisdiction in the ordinary way. The sovereign State — under the Vienna Convention the receiving State — is under a duty to abstain from exercising any sovereign rights, in particular law enforcement rights, in respect of inviolable premises, persons, or property. The receiving State is also under a positive duty to protect inviolable premises, persons, or property from physical invasion or interference with their functioning and from impairment of their dignity.

Less focused works, such as "Diplomatic Asylum", do the same.
I don't believe this is absurd. The protections under the Vienna Convention function because there is a recourse for the receiving state for the misuse of the premises by the sending state; the revocation of the permit of use. A third state does not have this recourse, and under your interpretation would have no recourse. To take your hypothetical to its logical extreme, your interpretation would forbid Ukraine from striking a munitions factory that Russia opened in its embassy in Belarus for the purpose of supplying their forces in Ukraine, and would forbid Ukraine from striking a Russian military headquarters in Belgorod if Russia and North Korea both claimed that the Russian military headquarters were the North Korean embassy.
I've also added a second source which says the same thing as the New York Times article. BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every embassy in the world has military attachés. Here's Israel's in its Washington Embassy. You know that, the world knows that. Answer the points below about your very strong POV pushing which uses wikivoice to assert essentially an Israeli POV. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of a military attaché isn't sufficient to establish that a site is being used for military purposes. In addition, I feel you missed the point of my comment, which was that reliable sources appear to support the position that inviolability only applies to the receiving state, and not to third states. BilledMammal (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Besides, the concept of inviolability of diplomatic premises (and personnel) has been an integral part of customary international law for millennia as far as I know, even if the Vienna Convention only codifies the obligations of the receiving state.
Worth noting that the Convention deliberately does not offer exceptions from inviolability for the host state.[18] — kashmīrī TALK 16:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what user talk pages are for. Unrelated to improving this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kashmiri, what?? Zanahary (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What what? Yes, the author writes: [A]n attack is not disproportionate where the attacker anticipates civilian harm and deliberately proceeds with the attack in the expectation or knowledge that the anticipated civilian harm will materialise, provided that this harm is not excessive. [...] The bottom line is, contrary to what the Special Rapporteur suggests, that LOAC [Law of Armed Conflict] does not preclude causing civilian harm intentionally and as a first order effect in the context of an attack directed against a military objective, provided that such harm is not excessive in relation to the military advantage expected and all feasible measures are taken to avoid or in any event minimize it. Going by this logic, a mere expectation of military advantage would suffice to make targeting civilians lawful, which I hope all agree would be highly questionable (because the attacker will always argue that any chance of eliminating enemy combatants is a sufficient reason to target civilians, and that it, the attacker, has of course taken "all precautions" but unfortunately...). In all this legal nitpicking the author seem to forget the larger picture; the intent; the why the Geneva Conventions came to exist in the first place – which was to protect all those remaining hors de combat precisely against such attacks. Anyhow, this is not the place to argue with the author. Just enough that I don't believe this lone view would give justice to the rather complex matter of the applicability of various provisions of international law to the Damascus attack. — kashmīrī TALK 17:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, I am talking about your raising that the author might be Jewish. What is up with that? Zanahary (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you shed any light @Kashmiri? Zanahary (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I shouldn't make such explicit suggestions, but I always wonder how media select "experts" to comment on their articles. — kashmīrī TALK 14:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you bring up that she may be Jewish? Please be clear. Zanahary (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source falsification

However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.[2]

The source states:

There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal; a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces called the annexe that was destroyed a “military building [...] disguised as a civilian building”. Iran may try to claim, falsely, that the same is true of Israeli embassies, and that attacks on them would be similarly justified.(Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable? The Economist 9 April 2024)

  1. ^ "Definition of Civilian Objects". ICRC Database. n.d. Archived from the original on April 16, 2024. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
  2. ^ "Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable?". The Economist. Retrieved 18 April 2024.

This looks to me like a palmary case of source falsification. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(2) We had:-

The US State Department states that "An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents".

The source for this was

U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, as well as foreign countries’ embassies and consulates in the United States, have a special status. While the host government is responsible for the security of U.S. diplomats and the area around an embassy, the embassy itself belongs to the country it represents. Representatives of the host country cannot enter an embassy without permission. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. is a U.S. Embassy? US State Department

This was removed by Billed Mammal as WP:Synth.

I.e. a direct verbatim citation from the source is expunged as the combination of two separate sources (synthesis), which is impossible here.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (1), you've bolded the wrong part of the Economist quote:

There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal; a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces called the annexe that was destroyed a “military building [...] disguised as a civilian building”. Iran may try to claim, falsely, that the same is true of Israeli embassies, and that attacks on them would be similarly justified.

The New York Times, the second source there, says the same thing:

But while those rules of diplomatic relations are a bedrock principle of international law, they actually have little force in the case of the Damascus bombing, experts say, because they only refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” — in this case, Syria — and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.

I believe the two sources are more than sufficient to support the line However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.
Regarding (2), it's WP:SYNTH because it implies a conclusion not stated by the source, that the US has stated that this is considered an attack on Iran. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 2 you are wrong. It does not imply a conclusion, but states a principle. That principle was in, precisely, the very source you introduced, the Economist, which stated:

America’s State Department considers an attack on one of its embassies to be an attack on America itself.

So, having read the Economist, fully aware that it paraphrases what the State Department article states, you removed the State Department version. So that is a deliberate expunging of a statement you cannot but know existed in the source you yourself use, on the spurious grounds that it implies something. Factual statement do not imply conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does both. It states a principle, and because of the context ("Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus") also implies a conclusion.
The Economist article doesn't imply that conclusion; the statements about the airstrike and the US embassies are in different contexts. BilledMammal (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is waffle. You cannot show where in either source we can find support to assert the combination as a fact (wikivoice) that '(a) these obligations do not apply to third parties, (bh) such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria].' That is an Israeli/pro-Israeli POV. not a fact, easily shown to be a POV by any number of other sources eg.

Of the two recent incidents, the Iranian embassy bombing is the more serious, as it involved the loss of life and resulted in warnings of retaliatory attacks.

Yet, Western countries, leaders of which often voice concern over upholding the so-called “rules-based order,” have been reluctant to condemn the act. It was notable that the three liberal democracies on the U.N. Security Council – the United States, the United Kingdom and France – all refused to condemn the strike on Iran’s embassy when the issue came up before them. Israel, while not officially acknowledging responsibility, argued that the Iranian ambassador’s residence was not really a diplomatic venue but “a military building … disguised as a civilian building.” As such, to Israel it was a perfectly legitimate target. But by this logic, nearly all embassies would be seen as fair game. Almost by definition, the vast majority of embassies – particularly of the larger countries – are populated with significant numbers of military and intelligence personnel. To suggest that for that reason embassies should lose their diplomatic immunity and become legitimate targets for armed attacks would bring the whole edifice of the Vienna Convention crashing down. And with it would come the structure on which worldwide formal diplomatic interactions are based.' Jorge Heine Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest otherwise − and that sets a dangerous diplomatic precedent The Conversation 9 April 2024

You are taken pro-Israeli defenses of the attack as factual, in short, and eliminating from the article evidence that suggests the contrary. Source distortion, in short.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think do not apply to third parties is a reasonable paraphrasing of only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack and refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.
However, to address your concerns I've aligned the wording more closely with the sources; the meaning is unchanged, but it should be clearer now that the article is saying the same thing as the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven't addressed my concerns at all, but sidestepped them. You engaged in a WP:Synth abuse (while decrying the same in a sentence that is not a synthesis) by uniting two separate opinions from the NYTs and the Economist to assert in wiki's voice that an opinion is a fact. There is no remedy for that kind of sequential distortion other than a revert to the text before you edited it.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources say the same thing - I can't see why you believe it's WP:SYNTH. In addition, neither of them are opinion articles. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're conflating two issues,
  1. whether international laws relating to consular protections apply to third-party states
  2. whether consular buildings can become legitimate targets based on military use
I thought we were discussing (1), but your quote from The Conversation seems to be about (2)?
I'm also not clear on what you mean by source falsification or distortion. That sounds like a claim that the text doesn't faithfully match the source? But you didn't really explain why, and later you seem to argue that the source itself is biased. Overall I'm unclear on what your argument is. XDanielx (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the State Department quote, it's not cut-and-dry, but I do think it goes against WP:SYNTH, which says "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".
The question becomes whether our use of the quote implies a conclusion about the legality of the strike (or the US' position thereon). I would say it does, based on the context in which it's included. At the very least, we're implying that there's some kind of applicability to the topic at hand, which the source doesn't do.
One could argue that the conclusion is so obvious that it's a trivial case of OR, but I don't think it is. For one thing, the quote says "embassy", raising questions about whether it applies to this building. The quote also seems like informal web content, not attributed to any particular official or spokesperson, and not dated, so it's not entirely obvious whether it closely reflects an official position of the current administration.
Has the US taken any explicit position on the legality of this particular strike? If so, that would seem much more appropriate to include here. XDanielx (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Opened move review. See discussion at WP:RMTR, where there is a consensus that a new RM before we resolve the question of what the status quo with only muddy the waters, and that a move review is more appropriate - I will open that shortly. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Galamore (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus – The usage of consulate is more WP:PRECISE, and better follows various sources that use the same or similar phrasing.

  • NPR: "Iran said Monday that Israel killed two of its generals and several others in an airstrike on the Iranian consulate in the Syrian capital Damascus"[1]
  • AP News: "Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate in Syria killed 2 generals and 5 other officers, Iran says"[2]
  • The Guardian: "Why Israel’s attack on Iranian consulate in Syria was a gamechanger"[3]
  • CNN: "Iran vows revenge as it accuses Israel of deadly airstrike on Syria consulate in deepening Middle East crisis." [4]
  • BBC: "Iran's Revolutionary Guards say seven officers have been killed in an Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate building in Syria's capital, Damascus."[5]
  • Jerusalem Post: "Bloomberg reported Israel's attack on Iran's consulate in Syria, killing Revolutionary Guards' command, prompting Iran to suspect Syria's involvement in previous assassinations."[6]
  • Al Jazeera: "How will Iran respond to Israel’s attack on its Damascus consulate?"[7]

Galamore (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Iranian officials accuse Israel of a deadly attack on Iran's consulate in Syria".
  2. ^ "Israeli strike on Iran's consulate in Syria killed 2 generals and 5 other officers, Iran says".
  3. ^ "Why Israel's attack on Iranian consulate in Syria was a gamechanger".
  4. ^ "Iran vows revenge as it accuses Israel of deadly airstrike on Syria consulate in deepening Middle East crisis".
  5. ^ "Iran accuses Israel of killing generals in Syria strike".
  6. ^ "Entire IRGC command wing in Syria was eliminated in strike, Bloomberg reveals".
  7. ^ "How will Iran respond to Israel's attack on its Damascus consulate?".
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the title is bombing of Iranian embassy and not consulate?

I think the title confuses the reader, and should be changed. 46.121.27.53 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was not a consulate. — kashmīrī TALK 22:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False, the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own [19][20]. The current title is wrong and misleading moreover failing to comply with WP:PRECISE. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consulate = formally, the consular section of an embassy irrespective of its location; more commonly, consulate = consular office away from the main embassy.[21] Here, the attack was on the diplomatic complex housing the embassy with all its sections. — kashmīrī TALK 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review under way

So, BilledMammal, unhappy with the outcome of the recent move discussion, has requested a move review here:

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_April#Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus

Interested editors are welcome to comment. — kashmīrī TALK 00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archive

This page is being archived. Surely there should be a link from this page to the archive, but I can't find it. Nurg (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed with Template:Talk header. SilverLocust 💬 05:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Auto-archiving period was too short IMO – 5 days. Given the lengthy discussions editors have here, ones that span multiple sections, I've unarchived the two most recent threads and increased the auto-archive period to 1 month. — kashmīrī TALK 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion request

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus.jpg --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 May 2024

Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus – The current title could be interpreted as either an airstrike by Iran or on Iran; the proposed title makes the topic clearer. It is also widely reported and WP:DUE to include the fact that Israel launched the airstrike. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Iranian_consulate_in_Damascus&oldid=1223170279"