Your 'defense' of the Soviet Union's grab for territory - and it being allowed, post-WWII, to retain its conquests via subterfuge and subversion - by saying that the land was seized during WWII, is on legal ice as thin as that on which the Israelis stand.
A solid case can be made that the Soviets capitalized upon their conquests
after June 1945 (when the UN Charter was signed) in violation of the land-grab provisions of the UN Charter and in violation of their trusteeship of lands liberated from German occupation.
But that would get us too far off-topic; we can have at that, another time.
----------
Yes... all of those examples I gave (Argentina, Vietnam, etc.) were illegal, but only a
couple of them triggered a UN response.
The UN left the rest to fend for themselves; including instance(s) of civil war.
My point is, the UN
enforces that Law very arbitrarily and inconsistently.
----------
"...It's not a 'farcical Prohibition', it's the basic principle of international law. Have you ever heard of the Nuremburg Principles?..."
If a 'prohibition' is enforced sporadically, arbitrarily and inconsistently, then, it's a farce; I don't much care how 'foundational' the principle is, nor what label gets hung on it.
"...There's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's done respecting the inalienable rights of the indigenous population of arabs living in that area for generations..."
There's nothing wrong with that ( the Jews carving-out their own homeland ) so long...?
For all practical purposes, it was impossible for the Jews to carve-out their own homeland without setting aside the land-ownership right of many native Muslim-Arab Palestinians.
The Jews believe they hold a Prior Claim to the Land and they took matters into their own hands in pursuit of that claim.
They pursued that claim on the battlefield and were successful.
The UN accepted this fiat accompli in its recognition of the State of Israel.
All of the post facto side-chatter by the UN about the rights of Palestinians have proven to be just that; side-chatter, background noise that failed to yield what it was intended to.
We are now long-since past that.
You are entirely correct in your analysis of former legal status and violations.
However, victory on the battlefield, failure to intervene decades ago while there was still time, and subsequent events and custom and usage and possession, have all served to negate those old status and violations, sufficient to render them inoperative and un-enforceable.
Translation: they no longer matter enough to excite the imagination of the world or to trigger a UN interventional response to belatedly enforce old status and understandings and sanctions. They no longer matter.
"...I'm sorry, but it's not 'considered' a civil war..."
A solid case can be made that it is exactly that; a war between indigenous population elements; reinforced by outsiders on both sides; a state of affairs in which the outsiders on one side (Israel) decided to remain in-place and to reside within, after their initial victories.
"...It is legally defined as a belligerent 'occupation'..."
Given that the UN is largely a Toothless Old Ladies Debating Society with respect to both Israel and a great many other troubles that disturb the peace, I don't think that the UN's anti-Israel -bias -based classification is causing the Israelis to lose much sleep.
For our purposes here, Israel's turning-over to the Palestinians' own militias and police, of the peacekeeping within both the West Bank and Gaza, serve to largely set aside the UN's classification; in large part, if not entirely.
"...A war is between two opposing army's..."
Or between an Army and an Organized Resistance Movement.
"...In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you have on one side, the most militarized country on the planet and on the other, an entire population of people that are not even allowed to have weapons to defend themselves..."
We have, on one hand, the IDF, and, on the other hand, the Palestinian militias (Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah) - their Oragnized Resistance Movement(s).
"...I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. IHL treats war crimes, as separate entities from all other crimes. They did this deliberately so no one can say, 'I'm just doing what he did! He got away with it, why can't I?' Crimes against humanity, are unacceptable at any time, by any one, for any reason. Period. There is no derrogoration for this..."
You seem to be operating under the impression that the ICC or other authority is going to effectively prosecute Israel for IHL violations. The Israelis themselves are sufficiently adept at wrapping their actions in a cloak of marginal compliance and the US and other Western friends give them sufficient political cover to ensure that such efforts will be ineffective.
"...So you're saying "your side", is against 'consistant treatment'?..."
Nope. I'm saying that the UN and other international bodies have already created a track record of lax and arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement and that the Israelis and their friends merely need to point to that track record in order to derail such efforts against Israel before they gain sufficient traction so as to allow such enforcement against them. Even if you're right, it doesn't really matter. Nothing is going to come of it.
"...You do realize all that talk of a 'chosen' people, is bullshit, don't you?..."
Personally, I've never put much stock in that; thinking, instead, that if there
IS a God, and if that God ever conveyed such an idea (the Jews being a Chosen People), that that Choice was probably merely a Choice to introduce Monotheism to the Peoples of the Mediterranean Basin and Europe, rather than a Choice to make them Masters of the Planet.
"...Everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Including the Pals..."
True. And, insofar as the Israelis are concerned, those Palestinians can live as Equal Children of God, in some place other than the newly-restored Jewish Homeland.
"...Well, they way you're carving out that homeland, is by shitting on the memory of all those who perished during the Holocaust..."
Disagree. Reasoning follows, below.
"...Because IHL, the United Nations, Nuremburg Principles and subsequent Geneva Conventions, have all been written and created to prevent another Holocaust..."
Nonsense. The Jews have suffered thousands of years of persecution at the hands of Christians, Muslims and Pagans, and have been 'protected' by dozens of Treaties and Assurances and Declarations and policies over time, only to be ultimately betrayed.
None of those were created to prevent another Holocaust, but for the preservation of the general peace of the world, with the Jews as collateral beneficiaries here-and-there.
"...So when you violate them, you are compromising their intent and making the lives of all Holocaust victims, to have died in vain."
Only within the realm of self-serving sophistry.
In truth, could we conjure the shades or spirits of the Holocaust Dead, and bring them up to speed on the existence and history of the State of Israel and the Jewish-Muslim conflict, and then ask them whether aggressive pursuit of a Jewish Homeland somehow diminished their memory and their sacrifice, I am guessing that the average Holocaust Shade would say something more akin to:
"
Remember the songs we sang on the way to the gas chambers? 'Next year in Jerusalem'? The only way our lives and sacrifice would be wasted and the only way in which you would insult our memory is by allowing Eretz Yisrael to fall again. Stay on course, Remain strong. We are watching you, we are with you, and we bless you."
But someone with a greater stake in the Jewish/Israeli perspective may be able to do a better job of this than I just did.
IMHO.
