I remember when Amnesty International lambasted either Switzerland or Finland for jailing someone who refused to serve in the military (and who could have chosen noncombat duties), while giving Pol Pot’s Cambodia good marks.

(warning, graphic link)

Over and over again the obvious is breathlessly recited as if it had some significance. Yes indeed, the UN is chock full of Israel-haters. Don’t they think we know that?
 

No other nation comes even close to such a long record of condemnations at the UN.

That was in 1967, when all the Western nations concerned, including the US, still believed that Israel’s enemies could be diplomatically reasoned with. It represents the passive, go-along-to-get-along failed Western foreign policy that ultimately produced 9/11, 3/11, the Madrid bombings, etc. We now know that the nature of the constant violence directed against Israel requires a less naive attitude, a perfect example being the current situation – Israel withdraws from the Palestinian ‘state’ and it is used as a platform to direct terrorist activities against Israel – Israel withdraws from Lebanon and it’s much the same. Withdrawal to bring peace doesn’t seem to work. That vote was a naé¯ve mistake by the US.

Resolution 242 has other provisions that the anti-Israeli crowd ignores: Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force … and affirms further the necessity for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones …

Israel’s enemies have always ignored those provisions and continue to ignore them. None of the provisions are worth a tinker’s damn unless all are complied with.
 

Obviously the main point of disagreement is this idea that Israel is “illegally occupying” Gaza. The anti-Israel crowd also declares this illegal status for the Golan Heights and will doubtlessly make the same declarations if Israel is successful in establishing any kind of buffer zone along the Lebanese border. Any reasonable security precautions by Israel, such as establishing security checkpoints or controlling strategic areas for defense from constant aggression and violence are always labeled “illegal” by the anti-Israel crowd. The Syrian army lobbed artillery into Israel for years from the Golan Heights before Israel put an end to the shelling by capturing it during the Six Days War.
 

The point is, this happened in Gaza — which Israel is illegally occupying in the first place. You’re right that a country has a right to wage war when attacked. But in this case, it is Israel which has no right to be in Gaza.

Yes, I know you are going to say that this happened after Israel had “withdrawn” from Gaza. But the “withdrawal” was in name only — Israel continued to control all entry and exit into Gaza, what money could flow in and out of Gaza, etc. It was still de facto occupation, therefore.

If Israel really and truly withdraws from the Occupied Territories, and if the Palestinians still persist in “resisting” Israel by armed means, then and only then would the moral-posturing on the part of Israel have any validity.