Doug,

>
>We (the US) do not always 'follow' international law. I suppose Mike that this is an issue whether or not nations should be soverign or not. I think they have this right.

Well isn't that convenient. To the extent that a country participates in the development of some specific international law, all the while, of course signalling their intent to adopt/comply with that law, then they should damned well follow that law once they adopt it.
The sovereignty issue comes in before adopting the law. Part of adopting it is to agree that, for the specific cases covered by that law, the adopting country will comply, thus possibly relinquishing their (sole) "sovereignty" in that specific area.
You can't just pick and choose when you will or will not enforce/apply laws to which you have assented.


>
SNIP
>
>As a matter of fact, immediately after the Isralies became a nation they were invaded by the Arabs who wanted to eradicate them. It's been that way for them for over 50 years now.

As I understand things, before there was an Isreal there were people in the region fighting for a country to be called Israel. These people were called "terrorists" in their day and later called founders or freedom fighters.
By the way, it was international law that "created" Israel.
I agree that eradication seems to have ALWAYS been the goal of most Arabic countries and that it still looks very much that way today.