No, what does the UN care about money?  It is not theirs and there is an endless supply (Luxury Liners in Haiti)

That's why we have to close the border completely and absolutely.

Let them seek medical care elsewhere (Egypt, Jordan, Cyprus) and let them import whatever they want with all the money they constantly receive from all the world.

I know. But the trick here is, I simply want the money. Israel will get hit by rockets anyway.

Each invasion into Israel should also cost the UN.

I think Istrael too has evaded quite a few binding UN resolutions.

Which ones?

And have they been general ("Both sides are asked to...") or special ("Israel is asked to...")?

What about the repeated calls for ceasefire during Israels/s war with Lebanon.

They were not "binding UN resolutions".

Plus, if there were directed at Israel rather than Hizbullah (who started the war) I wouldn't call them "general".

So perhaps you want to know why Hizbullah did not heed repeated calls for ceasfire in its war with Israel?

If someone is under attack and defends himself, asking him to stop is tantamount to legitimising the attack. If the UN is in that business, the UN shouldn't be listened to.

So I ask you again, which binding UN resolution has Israel violated? And was that resolution specifically made up for Israel or was it a resolution based on written international law that applies to everyone?

You are right. Surely there are UN resolutions which have been vetoed by the US. I may be wrong but there is one on the return of Bekkah Valley and Golan Hieghts. But as I have said my own reading on the specific issue of UN genaral and UNSC resolutions may be alittle shaky.

The Beqaa valley is in Lebanon, near Beirut (?). What resolution regarding that valley has Israel violated?

As for the Golan Heights, I am not aware of a UN resolution specific to it. There is resolution 242 which demands this:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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.

Israel's response was this:

My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution.

So I guess we are waiting for (ii), termination of all claims or states of belligerency. The Arabs have not done that yet. Note that Israel offered land in exchange for peace in 1968 and the Arabs rejected it. Are you seriously blaming Israel for the Arab failure to accept their part in the resolution?

But there are two other important points about this resolution.

Since Jerusalem was supposed to be under UN control for ten years and was then supposed to be subject to a vote among its population to join either Israel or the Arab state (at a time when Jerusalem had a Jewish majority), a withdrawal from Jerusalem wouldn't give anyone else rights to Jerusalem. Instead the vote would have to be done, at a time when Jerusalem had an even greater Jewish majority.

Gaza and the non-Jerusalem parts of the West-Bank could have been given back to Egypt and Jordan, but they didn't want them when they made peace with Israel.

The Golan Heights can theoretically go back to Syria once Syria ends the state of belligerency.

The remaining one point is this:

Syria and Jordan attacked Israel. When Germany attacked Poland and Russia, Poland and Russia got to keep German lands won in that war. I don't know when the UN changed "international law" to make that illegal but it certainly didn't even apply when North-Vietnam attacked and finally annexed South-Vietnam.

And does anybody seriously believe that if the Arabs had won any of the wars the UN would have bothered with the supposed law that says that one must not annex land in a war?

So apart from this resolution 424 which is apparently not based on international law as it applies to any other country and which Israel was willing to comply with but the Arabs were not, which resolution did Israel defy?

This actually is a moot point because we are talking about PA and not Lebanon.

I'll post what I posted before: 

The envoy of the Quartet, Mr Tony Blair, has noow suggested exactly what we have argued here. Let a select list of items into Gaza and withdraw the blockade. Israel having realised that world opinion is against it, for the moment swill be brought on board.

No matter what the HAMAS is or is not, Israel has its own security has to engage with it. Non-engagemetn is not a serious or viable option.

That doesn't make sense. Letting a select list of items into Gaza is a blockade.

That's what Israel is doing at the moment.

Avoidance of dual use materials and strictly food, medicines and nothing that can be used in an offensive manner. That is what it means. Gaza is not a soverign entitly and therefore Israel uses its right of self defence to enforce the blockade.

Yes.

But my point is that you cannot "let a select list of items into Gaza" AND "withdraw the blockade", because "letting a select list of items into Gaza" IS the blockade.

What I find extremely worrying is that the world cares so much about Gazans not getting weapons but coudn't care less about Darfurians not getting food. The first is a crime Israel must be condemned for, the second is perfectly OK and the UN and Europe would never lecture the Arab League over it.

It's a class system for humanity. There are class-A people and class-B people. Non-Jewish and non-Kurdish white people are class A, Kurds, Jews and black Africans are class B.

Guess Whatr. You may be right. The world does not care for Darfur because it is away from the prying eyes of the Media.

Are you putting the cart before the horse?  How does the world know about any crises?  Well, some say Governments or the UN speak about them, but most governments (dictatorships aside) and the UN have no message vehicle!  They all rely on the media.  Does the media rely solely on governments and the UN for their information?  Some would say yes.  But that is not true either.  At least in theory.  The media often digs out the story to tell, and then the governments and the UN pick up the mantra (as well as the public).

So you are using circular logic with your response.  It is NOT away from the prying eyes of the media.  The question remains why is the media ignoring it.  And Leauki has touched on the answer.  It goes beyond that to a truth about extreme hatred and bigotry by the left.  But the rebuttal to your response is that the media is not doing their job regardless of the reason.  In a word, they are incompetent.