Just spotted this rather good summary (posted by Jackie D of au current) of the reality of the UN resolutions on Israel. It's worth quoting in full:

The resolutions which Israel is often accused of violating -- 242, passed after the 1967 Six Day War, and 338, passed after the Yom Kippur/October War in 1973 -- fall under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, which deals with ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes.’ The Iraq resolutions fall under Chapter 7 and deal with ‘Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression’.

The distinction is definitely and obviously not a matter of semantics, as a reading of them will show. It’s also worth noting that the UN Charter does not allow for such resolutions passed under Chapter 6 to be backed by coercive measures, whether or not these involve the use of armed force. The UN Charter does, however, permit the use of coercive measures, even those involving the use of armed force (Article 42), to back resolutions passed under Chapter 7.

Also, and most importantly of all, resolutions 242 and 338 that Israel is accused of defying do not regard Israel alone, but instead all the parties to the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. The main parties to the War include Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but also saw forces of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Libya and others involved in the fighting and supplying of forces. All the countries that were party to those wars are required to comply, and no nation is called on to act unilaterally. Agreements are to be reached between parties.

Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula under the timetable agreed to in the 1979 Peace signed with Egypt. In that agreement, Israel handed back over 75% of all land conquered in the 1967 war. Israel and Egypt both complied. In 1994 Jordan and Israel made peace with all territorial disputes settled. Israel and Jordan have complied.

The amusing element of these resolutions is that the only key player in the wars that hasn't complied with the resolution is Syria. The matter of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) is obviously more difficult. When Israel conquered that territory it was under the control of Jordan, but only Great Britain and Pakistan ever recognised the Jordanian annexation. There is not now, nor has there been for 55 years any country recognised on this piece of real estate. It wasn't until 1988 that King Hussein of Jordan ceded his claim on the Disputed Territories to the PLO. A final settlement has not been reached and neither Israel nor the PLO is in breach of these resolutions.

Further, a large part of why Israel isn't going to concern itself very much with the UN resolutions regarding itself is that the UN has rarely managed to treat Israel with any fairness or decency. The UN passed a general resolution stating that Zionism equates racism. The areas where the UN has taken control surrounding Israel are the most likely areas for attacks against Israeli civilians to be based from. In all of the wars of aggression launched against Israel, the UN and the rest of the world has spectacularly failed to aid or succor Israel. Can you blame Israel if after the Yom Kippur war, when Israel was nearly destroyed and the UN did nothing, Israel doesn't care much about what the UN has to say regarding Israel's post-war actions?

The idea that there is no 'heat' on Israel is quite laughable. The only side that doesn't face any heat is Syria, a nation that has supported and instigated a lot of the instability in the Israel/Arab conflict over the last 20 years. The UN has voted on this issue dozens of times, reaffirming a desire to see a final settlement. And, through either selective memory or sheer ignorance, many people have chosen to forget the world condemnation and limited sanctions on Israel by certain states in early to mid 2002.

...Israel is one of the most powerful and best trained armed forces in the world. Even the United States would have difficulty in besting them in an armed conflict. And diplomacy, and by extension war, is the art of the possible (all apologies to Andrew Lloyd Webber...the Tory bastard). I'd hate to think that one would really make the argument that simply because it is not possible to defeat every oppressor that we should not defeat the ones that we can."