This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | A news item involving Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 April 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 21 April 2024. The result of the move review was Overturn to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. |
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)
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:
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)
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
So what? We already know the consulate isn't performing the attack, because that would be a "consular airstrike".Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone.
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
“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..
“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.
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.
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.
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.
This is what user talk pages are for. Unrelated to improving this article. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk)
23:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)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)
This looks to me like a palmary case of source falsification. Nishidani ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(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)
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.
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.
However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.
America’s State Department considers an attack on one of its embassies to be an attack on America itself.
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
do not apply to third partiesis a reasonable paraphrasing of
only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attackand
refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.
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)
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)
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.
Galamore ( talk) 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I think the title confuses the reader, and should be changed. 46.121.27.53 ( talk) 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus.jpg -- MatthiasGutfeldt ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) Toadette Edit! 14:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
"Israel told the U.S. that if a retaliatory attack by Iran would prompt a robust response from Israel".
200.12.168.26 (
talk)
20:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | A news item involving Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 April 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 21 April 2024. The result of the move review was Overturn to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. |
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)
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:
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)
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
So what? We already know the consulate isn't performing the attack, because that would be a "consular airstrike".Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone.
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:ARBECR – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
“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..
“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.
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.
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.
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.
This is what user talk pages are for. Unrelated to improving this article. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk)
23:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)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)
This looks to me like a palmary case of source falsification. Nishidani ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(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)
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.
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.
However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.
America’s State Department considers an attack on one of its embassies to be an attack on America itself.
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
do not apply to third partiesis a reasonable paraphrasing of
only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attackand
refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.
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)
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)
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.
Galamore ( talk) 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I think the title confuses the reader, and should be changed. 46.121.27.53 ( talk) 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus.jpg -- MatthiasGutfeldt ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) Toadette Edit! 14:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
"Israel told the U.S. that if a retaliatory attack by Iran would prompt a robust response from Israel".
200.12.168.26 (
talk)
20:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)