Was ISrael's bombing of Syrian targets perfectly legal and acceptable?

[burythehatchet]

I haven't heard much in the way of ... anything.

[reggie the dog]

1. at great risk

to be painted as a racist I will say that I think the governemnt of Isreal had no legal right to violate the airspace of another sovereign state. Dropping bombs makes the incident even more grave. Such action is not going to win the "hearts and minds" of people in the region.

[movonne]

2. I agree with you...

[truebrit71]

3. No.

It was a violation of Syrian airspace and an unprovoked act of aggression. The Syrians would have been perfectly within their rights to blow them to tiny pieces.

[dave420]

4. But then

they'd have been labelled as viciously anti-semitic, and a retalliatory strike would have been called for, causing a massive escalation, which is most likely what Israel wanted.

[truebrit71]

6. Exactly...

..

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. I agree. What I would like to know is whether or not our government was in cahootz,...

,...with the Israeli government on that activity along the lines of attempting to incite Syria into a defensive reaction. I only speculate on this possibility because of an article posted earlier about Cheney considering having Israel bomb Iran in order to force U.S. involvement.

[TomInTib]

8. You mean other than paying for it and providing logistics and weaponry? nt

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. You certainly have a huge point that goes mostly unnoticed, there.

But, then, we do arms dealing all over the place,...even with Pakistan AND India!!!

However, if our government is/has been planning WITH the Israeli government to try and instigate expansion of the M.E. war (hint---via PNAC) thereby conspiring to subvert/violate/evade U.S. law,...now, evidence of THAT would rattle this country to its core. Thing is, the foregoing is precisely what I believe is/has been happening. I wish it would be exposed.

[TomInTib]

10. Yeah, that aspect is not getting any play.

Like when our Military was "surprised" that the Israelis had a weapon with that sort of capability in their arsenal.

Yeah, right.

[burythehatchet]

11. or when we send arms with the promise they won't be used in certain ways

and then, OOPS!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Not according to the UN Charter.

The United Nations Charter says in Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations' Charter, which states in article 2, paragraph 4 that

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

c - The "sovereignty" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction.