On April 1, the Israelis bombed a building next to the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, killing eleven, including seven senior members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, among them two generals in addition to General Mohamad Reza Zahedi, who was the leader of the Quds Force for Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. No civilians were killed in the attack.
The Iranians have raised holy hell, promising that they will pay the Zionists back, in spades, and also, in a tone of aggrieved innocence, they have been claiming that the site the Israelis hit was a “consulate,” and thus its targeting was a violation of international law. More on this “consulate” and Israel’s attack can be found here: “The airstrike in Damascus appears to have been legal under international law,” Elder of Ziyon, April 3, 2024:
On Monday, Israel apparently bombed an Iranian “consular building” that was part of the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus. Seven members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were killed, chief among them General Mohamad Reza Zahedi, who was the leader of the Quds Force for Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. Two other senior generals were also among the 11 who were killed.
No civilians were killed.
Was this attack legal under international law?
The New York Times interviewed several law experts, and it appears that this did not violate international law, although it is highly unusual and violated longstanding practice.
Most of the literature on diplomatic immunity discusses immunity from the hosting state against embassy personnel who are diplomats. If they commit even the most heinous crimes, they cannot be prosecuted by the hosting country; they can only be declared persona non grata and deported back. Even the murderers of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul could not be prosecuted by Turkish authorities.
But does a third party have any responsibility to respect the inviolability of an embassy or consulate, especially when that third party has no relations with the either the hosting country of the consulate nation?
“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.
In practice, there is a strong taboo in international relations against attacking embassies, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University in the United Kingdom. But that custom is broader than what international law actually prohibits, he said.
“Symbolically, for Iran, destroying its embassy or consulate, it’s just seen as a bigger blow,” he said, than “if you killed the generals in a trench somewhere.” But, he added, “the difference is not legal. The difference is really one of symbolism, of perception.”…
The optics are different than they would have been if these senior generals had been killed on a battlefield. Hitting them inside a building that they assumed would be off-limits to an IDF attack heightens Iran’s sense of vulnerability. The Israelis did not accept the cover story that the building was being used as a consulate. Everyone inside the building — 11 people — were military, three of them high-ranking. No civilian consul was inside that so-called “consulate” building.
The NYT quotes legal expert Yuval Shany saying that an embassy has no greater protection than any other civilian object like a school, and if it is used for military purposes against Israel then it becomes legal to attack it….
Was the building the IDF struck in Damascus “used for military purposes”? Hmm, let’s see. Among those killed was the head of Al-Quds in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, Major General Mohamad Zahedi. Two others were generals in Al-Quds. The remaining eight victims were all military men. Not a single civilian was in the building. What more is needed to prove that the building was “being used for military purposes”? In the same way, the two hundred Hamas fighters killed, and the 500 captured, at Al-Shifa Hospital, as well as the enormous amounts of hidden weapons found inside the complex, proved that the hospital was “being used for military purposes” and so was a legitimate target.
The building that Israel struck was no longer — if it ever had been, which the IDF doubts — a true consulate, conducting routine consulate affairs such as issuing travel visas and passports. Traditionally, embassies are placed in the capitals of the hosting country, and consulates placed not in the capital, but in major cities elsewhere. This “consulate” next to the embassy was a military headquarters, where senior Iranian officers, including two generals, and the head of Al Quds in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine met with the representatives of terror groups. On this occasion, when the IDF struck, the Iranians had been meeting with senior officials of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The building that the IDF hit should be judged by its use and not by the name it goes under. Not a single civilian consular official was found. Judging by the eleven people who were in the building at the time of the strike, and died, three of whom were generals, and the eight others highly-placed officers both of the Al-Quds Force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, it was used only as a military headquarters for Iran’s Al-Quds Force. In attacking a military target, belonging to a country that has promised to destroy the Jewish state, Israel is well within its rights.
somehistory says
What’s the saying, “All’s fair in love and war”? iran, through it’s threats of annihilation, funding, training and support of hamas, hezbollah, houthis….and maybe a dozen other terror groups…has essentially declared war on Israel.
The dead were likely in a meeting to discuss war strategy against Israel.
OLD GUY says
Should have dropped a couple dozen bunker buster bombs in the neighborhood. I would be certain that there were hundreds of support staff nearby, should have taken them out also.
Bull Herman says
Aw shucks one more would have made a 12 pack…
The Unholy Koran talks about killing infedels wherever found.
So then, they died by their own rules.
Win-win.
It’s about time.
Anybody in the WH listening?
Greg says
April fools!