I disagree. That question is all but meaningless. I see no evidence that any portion of the international community gives a rat's ass about "acts of war". Many people try to cover this up by pointing fingers at some chosen target and showing about how they flout the old European rules for how countries should relate to each other, but since nobody follows them finding some entity that did would just prove that entity to be a chump. It does make it easy to point fingers and try to distract you with a song and dance about how evil some individual party is, since everyone has a list of violations of the old European laws/concepts a mile long now. Some parts of the international community like to talk about it when it is convenient but disappear instantly when it becomes the slightest bit inconvenient.
("So you're saying the actions of $SOME_DISFAVORED_ENTITY are just OK with you, then?" No, I'm saying the dimensions I measure ethical behavior on have little to do with the phantom international law system. It only works when most or all participants agree to be bound by it, something that has not been true within my lifetime. I have not given you enough info in this post to guess what my judgments are.)
They are not "old European rules". The US used to be a leader in establishing treaties like the Geneva Conventions, Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, etc.
It is a more recent phenomena in the US that is paranoid about UN governance and refuses to sign onto things like the ICC and the Mine Ban Treaty, and tends to want to ignore international law in favor of a might means right approach. Things have gotten much worse for the respect of international law after Bush's aggressive stance after 9/11.
Still, these are valid treaties that most countries have signed.
For the US and Israel to be banging the drums of war over Iran's supposed violation of the NNPT while at the same time committing illegal acts of industrial sabbotage is huge irony.
Yes, thank you for providing another example of how easy it is to point at one group of entities in an effort to frantically handwave away the problems of another.
I see no great evidence that the international community of today sets great stock by treaties, either, at least not much past about five minutes after the signing ceremony ends. "Paranoia" about the UN is an effect of this underlying problem, not the cause. Nor am I even remotely convinced that "Bush did it!"; flouting of UN convention and treaties goes back a lot farther than that and it takes a very narrow view of history to somehow lay it at the feet of any one party, or even "the West" in general.
> For the US and Israel to be banging the drums of war over Iran's supposed violation of the NNPT while at the same time committing illegal acts of industrial sabbotage is huge irony.
To me that doesn't seem ironic at all, and in fact morally (if not necessarily legally) consistent. They're trying to prevent nuclear militarization in Iran, and in this case doing so in a non-violent manner, specifically avoiding further "banging the drums of war."
("So you're saying the actions of $SOME_DISFAVORED_ENTITY are just OK with you, then?" No, I'm saying the dimensions I measure ethical behavior on have little to do with the phantom international law system. It only works when most or all participants agree to be bound by it, something that has not been true within my lifetime. I have not given you enough info in this post to guess what my judgments are.)