The facts and logic I presented are accurate and valid, but the question of justice is really a subjective issue.
First, being an occupying power is not illegal under international law. In fact, international law prescribes the responsibilities and limitations of occupying powers. However, since Israel does not assert the authority of government over the territories or deny that authority to the PA, it does not technically qualify as a occupying power although in some respects it does occupy the West Bank and control the borders of Gaza. This is quite apart from whether you or I believe Israel's actions with regard to the territories are necessary or just. We can specify, if you like, that I think Israel's actions, for the most part, are necessary and justified by Israel's need to defend the state and people of Israel against attacks by Palestinian militants.
I don't know what you mean by Palestine. Do you mean the territories or do you mean the territories and Israel? And I don't know what agency of the UN you are referring to or asking my opinion of, so I can't respond to that issue.
As to the Golan Heights, under Security Council 242, the parties involved in the 1967 war are to withdraw behind safe and secure borders as a part of a peace treaty, but since Syria still considers itself at war with Israel, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw, and even within the context of peace negotiations, the strategic importance of the Golan plateau makes the issue of what border would be safe and secure for Israel unclear.
As to the legal status of the Golan Heights, under the authority of 242, Israel is the legitimate occupying power until there is a peace treaty between Israel and Syria that redefines the border and under the authority of Israel's Golan Heights Law, Israel is the legitimate government of the Golan Heights. In either case, the issue will only be finally resolved in a final peace treaty between Israel and Syria, and as long as Syria remains allied with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which are committed to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, such a peace treaty is unlikely, so for all practical purposes, the Golan Heights will remain a part of Israel for the foreseeable future.
Trust me, I haven't even begun to touch on the subject of justice. We are still very much talking legal aspects here.
1. Regarding whether Israel is an occupying power or not I'll refer you to the definition:
Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
So you see it is not about what Israel claims, but rather the facts on the ground.
2. I was asking about the UN in general, but if you want to be more specific: how about the General Assembly, Security Counsel, Social and Economic Counsel, Commission on Human Rights.... They all attest that Israel is an occupation force.
3. When I talked about Palestine, I did so in the context of UNSC Resolutions, meaning the West Bank and Gaza, and not historic Palestine (that has a completely different story)
4. As for the Golan, I don't know which UNSC Resolution 242 you are talking about. Here is an exert:
"The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(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;"
http://http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/7d35e1f729df491c85256ee700686136!OpenDocument
So you see the prerequisite for peace is Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan and not annexation, pending the enforcement of new facts on the ground.
5. And I think you are the one mixing political and legal aspects here when you say that Syria should stop supporting Hamas and Hezbullah to have peace with Israel. First let us implement international law and resolutions, and then can talk politics.
6. As long as Israel continues to occupy Arab land (Palestinian and Syrian) it will shall not live in peace, since any people under occupation have right to "regain its rights by all means". And believe me that the Palestinians will continue to apply this right for as long as it takes.
7. Please mind that I have not began to discuss illegal Israeli practices in the occupied territories, and believe me when I say there are volumes on that.
I will get some of the rationales used to justify previous occupations and crimes against humanity. They look very similar to what you are trying to do here.
