Even though Syria has never signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, it has not stopped the United States from using Syria’s existing chemical weapons and the Assad regime’s use of those chemical weapons against it’s civilian population as an excuse to intervene with military strikes. Israel, who has signed the treaty to ban the use of chemical weapons (but has not ratified it) has similarly used chemical weapons against a civilian population, although not on it’s own people, but the Palestinian residents of the Gaza strip. Even though many innocent civilians were killed, Israel has yet to be criticized for it’s use of chemical weapons but has been even defended by it’s ally, The United States. It can be argued there is a certain fault with this logic.
The argument presented by the writer of the article is:
All nation-states must abide by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Israel is a nation-state.
/Israel must abide by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
This argument is completely valid based on its form, and in the opinions of many, *should* be sound in terms of content (this is where ethics come in). However because most political arguments never have a straight answer and are often subjective and opinion based, it can not be sound.