Israel sold weapons to Argentina at height of Falklands War

[Thumpalumpacus]

Interesting. Under international law, arming an active combatant is considered an act of war.

No state of war had been declared.

Nor did I assert that. Check this out:

An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/act-of-war/

If the action is from one country and against another, war need not have been declared.

You could also look up the United Nations Friendly Relations Declaration:

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention
and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or
against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

No doubt you'll have a little more pedantry nitpicking this or that phrase, word, or term, but if so, you can go to New York and take it up with the UN. As matters stand, supplying arms to a nation's enemy in time of active belligerence, whether or not a state of war has been declared, is illegal.

[Anomalocaris]

The value of those emphasized words are perhaps unique in that those words are observed ONLY in the breach, where as most other words also aspiring to be pure hot air can only claim to have been observed merely MORE in the breach than in the observance.

The literal interpretation would have the US committing forbidden acts of war on daily if not hourly basis against each of perhaps half of the world's nations.

[abaris]

The literal interpretation would have the US committing forbidden acts of war on daily if not hourly basis against each of perhaps half of the world's nations.

Yes, and that was the original idea. Not to accuse the US, of course, but remember when the UN was founded and the history that led up to it's founding. Hitler only declared one war formally. The one against the USA. So the idea was to outlaw these acts of aggression. And Americans have been instrumental in doing that. For one Justice Jackson in his opening speech at Nuremberg, and secondly in founding the UN at San Francisco while the war was still raging.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The literal interpretation would have the US committing forbidden acts of war on daily if not hourly basis against each of perhaps half of the world's nations.

Of course. And so we do, though not to that exaggerated extent.