So, when is the U.S. gonna start the air strikes in Syria?

Political bickering over wording? A conflict with existing Israeli law? Regardless of the why, Israel not ratifying the convention is not proof that they have such weapons.

What evidence do you have to allege that they have such weapons?

 

IF Israel used chemical weapons on Palestine, they should have been severly dealt with.

 

Get ready to see white phosphorus everywhere...

 

Yeah, I suspect that is the road he is going to go down....

 

They say they are waiting for everybody else in the region to do the same...
...they might sooner or later.

 

Not at all, just wondering how Israel became relevant to the OP question.

 

Calm down, jeez.

 

When cornered the "But the Jews..." argument is usually the knee jerk reaction.

 

Wanna to see the list of those signatory?

Look, It's a good bet they do have chemical weapons just like the US, difference is, we are getting rid of ours. I made a suggestion, If we are going to ask that country's abide by this convention and nearly all of the other country's in that region are signed, why is it so hard for a peaceful nation like Isreal to let the world see they are participating towards getting rid of what they have or show they have none? It might go a long way as a simple gesture towards peace.

Peace mang eace:

 

Just like the U.S., or any other sovereign nation, Israel will do what THEY feel is in their best interest. But what has this to do with the Internal conflict in Syria?

 

Ethical solutions are about coming to a realization which truth the side of common sense and justice are judged humanly. It all so far appears that we have not come to the answer needed for the question of the moral strike or not. There is a truth for the side of the rebels, in name anyway, the free Syrian Army. The problem is that it is a liberal truth of 'free' debate over the religious belonging of the people.

People don't belong religiously to war. In spite of the Al-qaeda's hammering of that issue for the narrow uninformed position of various fundamentalist sects (which probably could not agree with each other on the basic tenants of the Q'uran; I've checked on the internet), religion has to do with self-defence and the way for tolerance and love in a belief system which works in the home and the common concerns of the government of the peoples.

I'd say in Islam people belong religiously first to their religious context of Being the people, and after-all politically to the faith in allowing national interests to be positively resolved for the overcoming of scarcity. Liberals do not understand scarcity for the purpose of the Commonwealth.:biker: