Israel admits air strike on Syria

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Mia Syria has more capability than you give them credit for. I'll put Egypt and Jordan in the same boat as Israel when they become the world's biggest problem nations too. As for doing OK without us - um, no. I think if we pulled all funding right now, they'd be in trouble. From a military standpoint, of course they'd be OK for a while, we've got them pretty stockpiled, don't we? But long term, they'd be eaten alive. Isn't that what everyone is always saying? They have to have this and that because they are surrounded by enemies?

I give them plenty of credit, But i give israel more credit

No, the problem is what israel would do to surive is not what we want. to happen. It would cause major porblems in the middle east and we'd have probelms with our oil supply. thats the realist reason we support israel, Because if we don't then we have no infleucne and therefore israel will do waht it takes to keep themselves around, and rest assured they are prepared to be abondned, for some reaosn jews just don't trust western governments very much. Probably because of the whole history thing.

Sure, because the amount of land afforded to Israel just wasn't enough. They are having so many problems having enough space for their inhabitants

Yea, damn jews they took a country the size of Rhode Island! so much land!

[Gaius]

Quote by: notworthabean Yea, damn jews they took a country the size of Rhode Island! so much land!

To a family, a few hundred square feet stolen is enough to kill for when they have no other recourse.

Multiply this by 60 years and the entirety of israel being stolen land, attacks against israel are understood the world over.

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Gaius To a family, a few hundred square feet stolen is enough to kill for when they have no other recourse. Multiply this by 60 years and the entirety of israel being stolen land, attacks against israel are understood the world over.

Land was not stolen in that matter. Israel didn't sieze private property unless it was abandoned, and as the govenremnt has taken land for governemnt proects, but nothing unsusual for israel. Its no tlike jews from europe arrived, survedy the real estate walked up to a Palesitanin famialy and drragged them off because they liked the farm land. In fact most of the land in israel (pre 48) was bought from the owners (who usually were not the residents fyi)

[notworthabean]

btw gaius are you Italian?

[Mia]

Quote by: notworthabean Land was not stolen in that matter. Israel didn't sieze private property unless it was abandoned, and as the govenremnt has taken land for governemnt proects, but nothing unsusual for israel. Its no tlike jews from europe arrived, survedy the real estate walked up to a Palesitanin famialy and drragged them off because they liked the farm land. In fact most of the land in israel (pre 48) was bought from the owners (who usually were not the residents fyi)

And I guess none of it was 'abandoned' due to the people facing the choice between that and death?:rolleyes:

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Mia And I guess none of it was 'abandoned' due to the people facing the choice between that and death?:rolleyes:

It was aboandiend becaues there was a war going on and the people fled to the neighrboring arabs areas to avoid being hurt in the cross fire, assuming they could have their land back when the arab armies won. They lost and the land was taken up by israel because well frankly they weren't sympathetic to people who sided with their enemy. Not to mention that post Israel's war of Independence israel took in about as many jews from arab countries as fled israel, so it would only be logical that the arba countries taken in the arabs who had to leave. instead they just kept them in refugee camps feeding their hatred and using them as proxies.

[Chaossaber314]

So getting back on topic away from the legalities of Israel's formation that have little to do with this current incident, is there any word out of Damascus what specifically this "Syrian military construction site" was supposed to become? It's seems odd that I haven't heard one way or another.

[Gaius]

Quote by: notworthabean Land was not stolen in that matter. Israel didn't sieze private property unless it was abandoned, and as the govenremnt has taken land for governemnt proects, but nothing unsusual for israel. Its no tlike jews from europe arrived, survedy the real estate walked up to a Palesitanin famialy and drragged them off because they liked the farm land. In fact most of the land in israel (pre 48) was bought from the owners (who usually were not the residents fyi)

Prove all of this.

They did in fact arrive from europe and russia and violently remove people from their homes or through intimidation.

International Law recognize the RIGHT of people to return to their homes and their land, if the reason they left was ANY KIND of "duress" or "crisis" or even RUMORS of violence or war.

International law does gives refugees these rights, there are no words that says people lose their land if they leave it or abandon it. NONE at all

The millions of palestinians living in refugee camps now, sold their homes and their property to live in tents in neighboring countries?
Palestinians according to you, just feel like putting on suicide belts or lobbing missiles at israelis as a sport?

Please dont let me see you cry when missiles and suicide attacks begin blowing up people in Israel.

You want to play games with the lives of israelis thats fine, but dont make up stuff as you go, at least understand why they are being killed.

[Gaius]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 So getting back on topic away from the legalities of Israel's formation that have little to do with this current incident, is there any word out of Damascus what specifically this "Syrian military construction site" was supposed to become? It's seems odd that I haven't heard one way or another.

They said it was an abandoned military building.

If israel couldnt even stop missiles from continuing to rain on its cities, i doubt they destroyed anything worthwhile.
Also Syria would be whining about a loss of any kind

[Gaius]

Quote by: notworthabean btw gaius are you Italian?

Off topic, spam.

Also im not interesting in getting to know you, not in the least.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Gaius They said it was an abandoned military building. If israel couldnt even stop missiles from continuing to rain on its cities, i doubt they destroyed anything worthwhile. Also Syria would be whining about a loss of any kind

You have a link?

[Gaius]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 You have a link?

I had to get a chinese link to avoid any whining from the likes of you.
Youd think being wrong all this time about almost everything would soften your head about the US and Israel in paticular.

Syria says Israel bombs territory

unless you got a problem with the reds who are trying to take away your bodily fluids?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Gaius I had to get a chinese link to avoid any whining from the likes of you.

You could have provided any link that proved your point. For a troll that hasn't been here very long you seem to think you know me.

Youd think being wrong all this time about almost everything would soften your head about the US and Israel in paticular.

I don't believe I've ever spoken specifically about my opinion on Israel and the US. Try again.

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Gaius Off topic, spam. Also im not interesting in getting to know you, not in the least.

Not really just being freindly, but at least now I know what kind of guy you are.

Prove all of this.

actually it was you who made the claim (that land was stolen), so it is up to you to support it.

They did in fact arrive from europe and russia and violently remove people from their homes or through intimidation.

No, because intiially (ie for th 50 or so years of zionism before israel was a state) Jews couldn't do that. neither the turks nor the brits were going risk upsetting the arabs for the jews, yes all the land owned by jews pre-48 was legally bought. Often times they did remove arabs from the land, but it was land they had long tenant farmed rather then owned. the Jews owned it and therefore could do what they liked,

International Law recognize the RIGHT of people to return to their homes and their land, if the reason they left was ANY KIND of "duress" or "crisis" or even RUMORS of violence or war.

Internaional law recognizes A lot of things, that doesn't mean jack shit.

International law does gives refugees these rights, there are no words that says people lose their land if they leave it or abandon it. NONE at all

Yes there is, its called "common sense". If tommorrow canada invades the US and I flee to canada. I can't come back and be like "uhh i want my house back..." Especailly when my neighbro stayed.

The millions of palestinians living in refugee camps now, sold their homes and their property to live in tents in neighboring countries? Palestinians according to you, just feel like putting on suicide belts or lobbing missiles at israelis as a sport?

No, The refugees are mostly the result of people who left thinking they would follow the victours arab armies and take over the land the jews had bougth without buying it. Forgive me for my lack of empathy.

Please dont let me see you cry when missiles and suicide attacks begin blowing up people in Israel.

Then don't let me see you whine when Arabs die in counter attacks

You want to play games with the lives of israelis thats fine, but dont make up stuff as you go, at least understand why they are being killed.

I do understand, the real question is do you.

and as choas bar said this is OT

Chaosbar: I was reading an article about it earlier (a professor handed it out in class jstor I think) and it was disucsisng the possiblities. My theory is a mix of 2 the paper suggestd

1) Taking out a muntions depot that was going to be transfered to hezbollah. All those missles that were hurting tanks go bye bye Caesar.

2) To show the Syrians/Iranians that their fancy air defense systems they paid russia a fortune for aren't as good as they think.

[Gaius]

Quote by: notworthabean Not really just being freindly, but at least now I know what kind of guy you are.

Not a freind of bigots, religious right wing whack jobs, neocons, racists, islamophobes or zionists.

actually it was you who made the claim (that land was stolen), so it is up to you to support it.

Millions of refugees in the occupied west bank, lebanon and jordan, many of which still have deeds to their house and lands in israel

No, because intiially (ie for th 50 or so years of zionism before israel was a state) Jews couldn't do that. neither the turks nor the brits were going risk upsetting the arabs for the jews, yes all the land owned by jews pre-48 was legally bought. Often times they did remove arabs from the land, but it was land they had long tenant farmed rather then owned. the Jews owned it and therefore could do what they liked,

Support this hogwash. Upset the arabs? i thought the arabs didnt own anything? why would they get upset over losing something that isnt theres? Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot and ending the argument early.

Internaional law recognizes A lot of things, that doesn't mean jack shit.

Not a fan of international law either? what a suprise, so i wont be hearing anything from you when missiles start raining down on israeli population centers which violate international law?

international law like the UN is one of the only things that binds all countries together in anything resembling something that humans should be a part of. Im glad as a neocon you think this is a waste of time. it makes sure everyone can see why neocons are dying off.

Yes there is, its called "common sense". If tommorrow canada invades the US and I flee to canada. I can't come back and be like "uhh i want my house back..." Especailly when my neighbro stayed.

Exactly, you have a right to go back to your country, you were under threat of death, and you left.

If it was the case that all a country had to do to get land was simply invade, everyone would do it. and before and during WW2, they did !

After ww2 the UN and international law made it clear you could NEVER EVER gain land by force, threat, intimidation or even RUMORS of violence. The UN removed the reward of gaining land through force.
all european countries during wars before and during ww2 had the mentality you have no which is "invade and get land!"

Now that the world doesnt recognize land grabs, there have been much less of that going around.

No, The refugees are mostly the result of people who left thinking they would follow the victours arab armies and take over the land the jews had bougth without buying it. Forgive me for my lack of empathy.

Again no, if this is the case, then any country can invade any country it wants and simply claim the people of the country it invaded, left only to get a chance at taking land that wasnt theres.

Makes no damn sense, but hey, what do you need common sense for, when youre a neocon

Then don't let me see you whine when Arabs die in counter attacks

Im not too concerned, there doin a fine job against the americans, the israelis wont do much better.

Chaosbar: I was reading an article about it earlier (a professor handed it out in class jstor I think) and it was disucsisng the possiblities. My theory is a mix of 2 the paper suggestd 1) Taking out a muntions depot that was going to be transfered to hezbollah. All those missles that were hurting tanks go bye bye Caesar. 2) To show the Syrians/Iranians that their fancy air defense systems they paid russia a fortune for aren't as good as they think.

[/quote]

What tin foil hat community college professor was passing this out?

Or was this a christian psuedo college?

[notworthabean]

Not a freind of bigots, religious right wing whack jobs, neocons, racists, islamophobes or zionists.

Intereasting-see I have this thing where my friends politcal views aren't that important to me. Some are pro life intervaristy types, some are writers/editors for hippy college magazines It really isn't that improtant.

Millions of refugees in the occupied west bank, lebanon and jordan, many of which still have deeds to their house and lands in israel

You mean claim to have deeds. I just made an offical looking paper that says I own your house, gonna give it to me?

Support this hogwash. Upset the arabs? i thought the arabs didnt own anything? why would they get upset over losing something that isnt theres? Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot and ending the argument early.

You don't have to own something to matter. The Turks, and later the british, valued stability highly, they weren't going to let a bunch of european jews run around dragging arabs off land (whether its theirs or they are tenant farmers is moot for this argument). For some reason I feel like this would cause instablity.

Plus the people the jews were buying land from were arabs, just arabs in Syria.

Not a fan of international law either? what a suprise, so i wont be hearing anything from you when missiles start raining down on israeli population centers which violate international law?

No, you'll just hear israeli planes over head dropping bombs on whateer city is launching them.

international law like the UN is one of the only things that binds all countries together in anything resembling something that humans should be a part of. Im glad as a neocon you think this is a waste of time. it makes sure everyone can see why neocons are dying off.

No, what binds humans together is common bonds, like shared cultures/religions or experinces. The only people the UN and international law unify is ineffective bureaucrats. The basic international laws (ie common sense) apply, but only in the sense that its standard courtesy of sorts. Lacking any central government international law is useful only as a propaganda tool.

Exactly, you have a right to go back to your country, you were under threat of death, and you left. If it was the case that all a country had to do to get land was simply invade, everyone would do it. and before and during WW2, they did ! After ww2 the UN and international law made it clear you could NEVER EVER gain land by force, threat, intimidation or even RUMORS of violence. The UN removed the reward of gaining land through force. all european countries during wars before and during ww2 had the mentality you have no which is "invade and get land!" Now that the world doesnt recognize land grabs, there have been much less of that going around.

sure they do, tibet was a land grab by china and no on said jack shit and thats just off the top of my head. The Un didn't remove jack shit, as I've said before the only time the UN matters is if it does something one of the great powers supports, and then it only matters in so much as that great power matters. if its Russia supporting something In south america than it doesn't have much bearing if it was the US in south america.

Again no, if this is the case, then any country can invade any country it wants and simply claim the people of the country it invaded, left only to get a chance at taking land that wasnt theres. Makes no damn sense, but hey, what do you need common sense for, when youre a neocon

except israel was not the agressor in this case, Israel was given land to be independent the arab countires around it disliked this idea and invaded. So no israel didn't start the war, it jsut ended it.

Im not too concerned, there doin a fine job against the americans, the israelis wont do much better.

where are they doing a fine job against anyone? I garuntee you if you stack up the anti-American groups in iraq's causlties with american casualties, the mount of anti-american's dead wil make the american dead seem pathetically tiny. Same with Israel, I am sure if you calculated israeli damage to lebanon vs hezbollah damage to israel hezbollah comes off much worse. Same with causlaties.

face it, the arab armies suck the only victories they can get are political ones.

What tin foil hat community college professor was passing this out? Or was this a christian psuedo college?

The artilce the professor handed out was much longer with like 6/7 possiblities, but i just said the two i remembered that sounded most plausabile. also to answer you question neither.

and as a side note I'm a RY conservitive jew, so no I am not some religious nutball.

[Gaius]

Quote by: notworthabean Intereasting-see I have this thing where my friends politcal views aren't that important to me. Some are pro life intervaristy types, some are writers/editors for hippy college magazines It really isn't that improtant.

They probably dont consider you a freind, have you made your views clear to them?

You mean claim to have deeds. I just made an offical looking paper that says I own your house, gonna give it to me?

People in refugee camps have made fake deeds?
and if the paper is dated or found in official state records?
Im sure youll find a way it can be dismissed anyway right?

You don't have to own something to matter. The Turks, and later the british, valued stability highly, they weren't going to let a bunch of european jews run around dragging arabs off land (whether its theirs or they are tenant farmers is moot for this argument). For some reason I feel like this would cause instablity.

Uh huh, more support for arabs owning the land. good going

Plus the people the jews were buying land from were arabs, just arabs in Syria.

Still no support here, show me where they were buying land, I really like to see how they bought what is current day israel, this will be a good laugh

No, you'll just hear israeli planes over head dropping bombs on whateer city is launching them.

Israel was barely able to kill civilians for 30 days before it started feeling the international pressure. Not to mention they were flying so high they could barely fire. This will be even worse over syrian air space

No, what binds humans together is common bonds, like shared cultures/religions or experinces. The only people the UN and international law unify is ineffective bureaucrats. The basic international laws (ie common sense) apply, but only in the sense that its standard courtesy of sorts. Lacking any central government international law is useful only as a propaganda tool.

Humans cannot be bound by culture or religion, that much is clear, and even experience is difficult. How is a teeny bopper from the US whose main concern is watching the latest episode of my super sweet 16, going to have a similar experience with a palestinian teenager who doesnt have a television.

International law is a propaganda tool? Are you aware what the hell international law is? You want "international law" to have a central government. Ok, and this government would do what? Enforce the law? Why would you want that? Israel would be leveled if international law had a police force.

sure they do, tibet was a land grab by china and no on said jack shit and thats just off the top of my head. The Un didn't remove jack shit, as I've said before the only time the UN matters is if it does something one of the great powers supports, and then it only matters in so much as that great power matters. if its Russia supporting something In south america than it doesn't have much bearing if it was the US in south america.

As i said, land grabs arent in style as they were before and during WW2.
Also no one is too concerned about tibet because the situation there pales in comparison to invasion that happened before (palestine). Also the tibetians arent resisting in any way shape or form.

Also the israeli palestinian conflict involves more people, more factions and more states. also the problems arrising from the israeli invasion are many more times worse than the chinese invasion of tibet, occupation, oppression, state terrorism, etc

except israel was not the agressor in this case, Israel was given land to be independent the arab countires around it disliked this idea and invaded. So no israel didn't start the war, it jsut ended it.

Uh huh, Israel was given arab land and the arabs said no. So Israel took the land anyway? mmhmm and youre telling me youre not understanding this?

It ended it the war, yes, so we must be in over time than?

where are they doing a fine job against anyone? I garuntee you if you stack up the anti-American groups in iraq's causlties with american casualties, the mount of anti-american's dead wil make the american dead seem pathetically tiny. Same with Israel, I am sure if you calculated israeli damage to lebanon vs hezbollah damage to israel hezbollah comes off much worse. Same with causlaties.

Sounds like vietnam, howd that go btw?

face it, the arab armies suck the only victories they can get are political ones.

Sounds like the vietnamese GG

Good thing that hezbollah army isnt arab, or it would ruin your argument, oh and the iraqi insurgents, good thing they arent arab, bogging down a superpower and all, DERRR

and as a side note I'm a RY conservitive jew, so no I am not some religious nutball.

RY conservitive jew, ROFLLLLLLL


if you mean Right Wing, then ill have to say ive never met a RW conservative jew who WASNT a religious nutball. and now that i met you, i still havent

[notworthabean]

They probably dont consider you a freind, have you made your views clear to them?

They know my opinions, our friendship is based other places then politics, usually around a common hobby or intereast (video games, drinking and other normal college passtimes)

People in refugee camps have made fake deeds? and if the paper is dated or found in official state records? Im sure youll find a way it can be dismissed anyway right?

I have no idea, I have never investigated their deeds. But i think at this point this is a matter of politics not private property.

Uh huh, more support for arabs owning the land. good going

Not if you can read.

Still no support here, show me where they were buying land, I really like to see how they bought what is current day israel, this will be a good laugh

Now don't put words in my mouth, i never said they bought what was present day Israel. what I said was land owned by jews pre-1948 was obtained legally via purchase from the owner of the land. Obviously sense then their has been the government aquisition of abanodned land in the war of 1948 as well as government appropraited of land for the normal uses of government.

Israel was barely able to kill civilians for 30 days before it started feeling the international pressure. Not to mention they were flying so high they could barely fire. This will be even worse over syrian air space

Israel was able to kill many hezbollah assholes before the internatioanl pressure (not any military force) forced israel to stop.

Humans cannot be bound by culture or religion, that much is clear, and even experience is difficult. How is a teeny bopper from the US whose main concern is watching the latest episode of my super sweet 16, going to have a similar experience with a palestinian teenager who doesnt have a television.

That was my point,humans are bound into factional groups, not as a whole. The only way humans will ever unite is if whatever messiah people always takl about comes or if aliens invade earth ah la enders game. I dunno which I think is more likley

International law is a propaganda tool? Are you aware what the hell international law is? You want "international law" to have a central government. Ok, and this government would do what? Enforce the law? Why would you want that? Israel would be leveled if international law had a police force.

Yes I am, International law, at its present point, is largely just an excuse for idiots in the UN to abuse whatever country they happen to dislike to please pressure groups. The international law of pre WWI (and evne some post WWI stuff) is fairly reasonable, ie signatories guaranteed that in wars with other signatories they will treat soldiers fairly and will minimize civilian causalities, not raping and plundering etc. but

a) these only applied to signatories

b) they were, in the term of the pirate from Pirates of the Carribean "more Guidelines then laws"

The modern int'l law is unreasonabel and poorly applied.

That siad if there was a fair and honorable int'l force then Israel would not have a problem. The problem is that force doesn't exist, and won't in the near future.

As i said, land grabs arent in style as they were before and during WW2. Also no one is too concerned about tibet because the situation there pales in comparison to invasion that happened before (palestine). Also the tibetians arent resisting in any way shape or form.

1) oh these things go in and out of style do they? Whats in now? prada?gucci?

2) Really? so the systmetic destrcution and displacment of a nation of people (who far outnumber the arabs in israel) with an ancient nation with a history of self governance "pales in comparison" wow you really are blinded

3) So in order to count the tibetans need to strap bombs on their chest? as for not resissting, tell the Dali lama that.

Also the israeli palestinian conflict involves more people, more factions and more states. also the problems arrising from the israeli invasion are many more times worse than the chinese invasion of tibet, occupation, oppression, state terrorism, etc

No, the Chinese invasion of tibet is far worse in terms of opression actually. But You are right in that most of Tibets neighbors won't do much to help. I guess India, when it was facing a flood of tibetan refugees, should have put thme on the border with china, fed them propoganda against china and trained them to blow thesmelves up.

Uh huh, Israel was given arab land and the arabs said no. So Israel took the land anyway? mmhmm and youre telling me youre not understanding this? It ended it the war, yes, so we must be in over time than?

Israel was given goverance over a country yes, it had nothing to do with the exchange of private land ownership, that only happened AFTER the war began.

Sounds like vietnam, howd that go btw?

Could have gone better if LBJ hadn't sucked at running a war. Vietnam was a political rather then military loss as well.

Good thing that hezbollah army isnt arab, or it would ruin your argument, oh and the iraqi insurgents, good thing they arent arab, bogging down a superpower and all, DERRR

Well Hezbollah is Iranian (therefore) persian trained, and the iraqi terorirsts are being turned on by the people they claim to represnt. It seems like all over Iraq the tribal leaders turn on the insurgents. Hmm maybe theres hope after all.

also remember-if the US wanted it could crush the terrorists brutally-they choose not to to look good, not because they can't.

RY conservitive jew, ROFLLLLLLL if you mean Right Wing, then ill have to say ive never met a RW conservative jew who WASNT a religious nutball. and now that i met you, i still havent

RY=Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippuer, it means I go to temple mostly on those days. (ie like 3 times a year). I go the occasional saturday when I have the chance. And "conservtive" In judiasm has nothing to do with politics. There are 3 main sects of Judiasam, Orthodox (the people who take torah the most seriously) conservatives (who believe in moderation/modernization of torah law but still believe it to be important) and reformed (who have very loose and modern interperatatiosn of the law).

Anyway no one who knows me would accuse me of being a religous nutball.

[Gaius]

Quote by: notworthabean They know my opinions, our friendship is based other places then politics, usually around a common hobby or intereast (video games, drinking and other normal college passtimes)

Nah i think the ones who are closer to the opposite of your views would be those you dont know IRL. The idea of being a "freind" with someone whose view of other humans varies from "bomb now" to "bomb later" bothers most people.

I have no idea, I have never investigated their deeds. But i think at this point this is a matter of politics not private property.

Concession accepted

Not if you can read.

You said arabs would be angry, why angry unless they were losing something they owned? case closed

Now don't put words in my mouth, i never said they bought what was present day Israel. what I said was land owned by jews pre-1948 was obtained legally via purchase from the owner of the land. Obviously sense then their has been the government aquisition of abanodned land in the war of 1948 as well as government appropraited of land for the normal uses of government.

youre saying they bought most of the land of present day israel? most of the land in 1948 ? fine, prove it, show me

Israel was able to kill many hezbollah assholes before the internatioanl pressure (not any military force) forced israel to stop.

They killed a few hundred hezbollah, people that are killed fighting the enemy are praised, so hezbollah wouldnt under count the number of its fighters killed.
Israel killed more lebanese civilians than hezbollah, while hezbollah killed more israeli soilders than civilians, begging the question of who the terrorists are.

Again, Israel by the end of the month wanted the war over in any case.
Weve seen the israeli soilders, many of whom were reserves whining and crying about comrades that bled to death because the leadership didnt want to risk any more tanks being destroyed, they literally watched comrades injured bleed to death just a few yards away all because israel didnt want to risk millions of dollars in armor to save a soilder.

That was my point,humans are bound into factional groups, not as a whole. The only way humans will ever unite is if whatever messiah people always takl about comes or if aliens invade earth ah la enders game. I dunno which I think is more likley

Those are the only two ways you see man kind as uniting? Youre a worse whack job than i thought

Yes I am, International law, at its present point, is largely just an excuse for idiots in the UN to abuse whatever country they happen to dislike to please pressure groups. The international law of pre WWI (and evne some post WWI stuff) is fairly reasonable, ie signatories guaranteed that in wars with other signatories they will treat soldiers fairly and will minimize civilian causalities, not raping and plundering etc. but

Do you understand that WW2 broke up despite rules in place in after WW1 ? We live in a better world as a result of the UN and international law. What apartied states like israel continually violate international law and UN resolutions, it makes the world a more dangerous place.

"Well Israel doesnt obey UN or international laws, why should we?"

a) these only applied to signatories b) they were, in the term of the pirate from Pirates of the Carribean "more Guidelines then laws" The modern int'l law is unreasonabel and poorly applied. That siad if there was a fair and honorable int'l force then Israel would not have a problem. The problem is that force doesn't ex