I believe the U.N. is 'unrepresentative swill', to quote a minor Australian political figure whose name escapes me. Look at its record as an Israel-bashing club.
Right or wrong, biased or unbiased, representative or not matters little to my argument, the UN embodies a certain moral authority, and can act on events reasonably independently, so its collective opinion matters, regardless. There are also some conflicts that will only be resolved with such multinational institutions in play. I am arguing that using the military for "criminal" justice is wrong, defining the intifada as a "war" serves both sides equally well, as both sides see that all's fair in war (to varying degrees) while crime needs due process. Nothing is going to stop any peace being another opportunity to arm for the next intifada except good will gestures. These will only happen if there is a big natural disaster which involves the whole area. I see no hope for Israel and its surrounds until a big tidal wave washes over the whole area, basically. Aceh has real hope; Israel's is a false hope that the other side will just capitulate (if you're going to call it a war), just because it is "wrong".