@BenRossTransit @Alon The Times article omits the rather obvious point that, regardless of host country, diplomatic facilities are usually considered territory of the country that maintains it, so under a colorable interpretation of international law, Israel has attacked the territory of Iran. Here's a piece where an expert making that point. https://archive.is/VnPTu

@BenRossTransit @Alon Obviously China and Algeria and stuff say it was a violation of international law and norms. We can discount that as biased. https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15650.doc.htm Still, I suspect they'd find experts to make a case, and I bet The Times could have too.

@BenRossTransit @Alon And, the European Union condemned, with a European Commission spokesman noting: "The principle of the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel must be respected in all cases and in all circumstances in accordance with international law." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-condemns-attack-irans-embassy-damascus-urges-restraint-2024-04-03/

@BenRossTransit @Alon If The Times had wanted to practice both sides journalism, it would not have had a hard time finding credentialed people willing to take the other side of the case. It made an editorial choice not to, to treat it in the piece as a settled matter. I'm sorry you didn't love the headline and subhead, but The Times has been very generous to Israel here.