Actually the UN response (or lack of thereof) to the situation in darfur (or to the situation in South Lebanon during the last 6 years) is relevant to both sides if you were to expect the UN to solve this puzzle, it's irrelevant to Z10 but that's not good enough reason to dismiss it as a strawman, is it?
And only minutes ago, you were arguing that a superior force is just an antagonist, something that nobody in their right mind would succomb to.
Ned Lamont: At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israelâs security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united. ... All Americans want the kidnapped soldiers to be returned and this cycle of violence to end, based on the principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which calls for Hezbollah militias to be disbanded and disarmed, with the government of Lebanon taking full control of all of its territory. It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself. http://nedlamont.com/issues/627/situation-in-the-middle-east
What THEY do impacts the rest of the world, but being fully self centered and myopic, they can't see beyond their own situation. (the THEY includes both sides of the conflict)
So why haven't the rest of the world stopped Hezbollah attacks as they promised 6 years ago they would?
Because Israel would not subordinate themselves to the process of peace in the middle east. No matter what anyone says, you will NEVER blame Israel, never. To do so would be an admission of the stinky shit.
Excuse me, withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000 is not peaceful enough for you? Israel has been in compliance with the international law and UN resolutions for 6 years, Lebanon has not and the rest of the world (and the UN) did not live up to their pledge to secure the border and disband/disarm Hezbollah.