>>This is what is known as a straw man argument.
>
>You set up the first straw man, by assuming that resolution against Hezbollah is somehow different from 60 resolutions against Israel. IMO, all resolutions are equal.

I made no such assumptions at all. As a matter of fact, I believe I posted somewhere in this thread that without knowing all the issues involved, I believe it's in Israel's best interest to return to the pre-1967 borders. I have stated that each resolution should be evaluated on its own merits, not that any against Israel are bad and ones against Hezbollah are good.

>Since you insist: all resolutions are a result of negotiations where all negotiators follow their own interest. The end result is a resolution which represents the will of the world in its best available shape. So they are as good as it gets.
>
>Besides, who's to decide whether each "Security Council resolution is a good one, based on sound reasoning"? You and I? We've already shown to each other that our ideas of sound reasoning differ. Since we couldn't possibly agree on that, we have delegated that task to the world's parliament, the UN.

The United Nations is now the world's parliament? That is an interesting perspective. I am fairly certain that whatever "laws" the United Nations passes, I as a citizen of the United States am not subject to them. I am subject to the laws of the United States, however.

>Now if you think that respecting the UNSC resolution is not the way to go, I knew a guy who who wholeheartedly agreed - Miloshevich. There were a bunch of those he chose to ignore.

I think it's safe to say that he chose poorly.