"Which International Law?"
The Geneva Conventions to which Israel is a signatory. It forbids many things which Israel is guilty of, some of which includes:
1) The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
* The illegal settlements in the West Bank
2) Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions makes that even more specific, however out of the signatories to the Geneva Conventions there are a few rogue nations who have not signed or ratified Protocol II, including: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, United States.
* Palestinians who have carried out attacks against Israel/Israelis can be certain that their homes would be demolished.
* The whole population of the Gaza Strip is being punished by Israel's blockade which prohibits the free movement of people and goods.
3) Prohibits the taking of hostages
* Palestinians detained without charge is state sponsored hostage taking
"If that were true then Israel would already have been taken to an international court by the massive number of apologist lawfare activists."
I'm glad you asked. To bring a case to the World Court (International Court of Justice), you need:
1) both parties need to be a UN member state
Surely that can't be the reason why the US (and to a lesser extent it's poodles in the EU), and Israel are vehemently opposed to Abbas' bids for more recognition in the UN?
2) for most practical purposes both parties would have to consent.
I don't think Israel would consent anytime soon.
Furthermore any judgement would require the losing party to "voluntary" enforce, else the Security Council would, in theory, be obliged to step in. But with one guaranteed veto (USA) and two near certain vetoes (UK, France) the chances of forcing Israel to comply, in the event a verdict should go against them, is zero.
As for the International Criminal Court, although the Palestinian National Authority has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the court, ICC itself is not able to determine whether the PNA qualifies as a state for the purpose of the ICC. In any case this avenue of justice has been closed to the Palestinians because although Israel signed up to the ICC it has not ratified it and has since declared that it will not ratify it and hence no longer party to the ICC. Two other rogue countries which have signed but not ratified and declared they will not ratify and hence no longer party to the ICC is the USA and Sudan, so Israel is in good company.
"if they convince/bribe enough countries to vote with them then it gets passed. Big whoop."
And you think the friends of Israel are not doing their utmost to turn the votes in favour of Israel? If richest and most powerful nations of the world (US, EU and sundry others) cannot bully enough of the small and poor nations to vote in favour of Israel, what does that tell you?
The US is forever threatening to withhold funding from the UN if it doesn't get their way.
"The dozens of resolutions passed against Israel by the Muslim-dominated Non-Alligned group (almost all despotic dictatorships with shocking civil rights abuses) sullies the name of the UN."
What sullies the name of the UN Security Council is mandatory use of their veto by the US, and to a lesser extent the UK and France, on any resolution which is, in any way, critical of Israel.
As a democracy Israel should know that however a vote turns out the losers should accept the result gracefully. The UN isn't perfect by any means but it's the only thing in town. The fact Israel has not renounced its membership must mean that it believes it's better to be in than out.
It is thanks to these "despotic dictatorships" in the Middle East that Israel is able to enjoy relative peace. And that's why the US keeps propping up these despots (the cheap oil doesn't hurt either). Let's see what happens in Egypt now that they've overthrown their "despotic dictatorship". And if the Wahhabis overthrow their despotic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia there would be even bloodshed in the middle east.
"But it is also a predictable whine from the pro-Fakeistinians, easily debunkable."
Any report, vote, ruling, finding which is unfavourable to Israel is always dismissed with contempt by Israel as "biased". How predictable.
"In practical terms it means nothing, it does not have any legal backing, and no enforceable powers. The ONLY resolutions out of the UN that do are those from the Security Council."
Even an idiot knows that that's not going to happen so long as the US has a veto. That's why as a general consensus of *world* opinion GA Resolutions are for more representative. Western media have for too long corrupted the meaning of "international", which to them means "some of North America, most of Western Europe, sometimes Japan, and sometimes a little of Australasia.
"For international law to apply, there would have to be a country that Israel was infringing upon. Seeing as the greedy Arabs turned down the UN Partition Plan in 1947, which would have the Palestinian Arab state, there is no such state, therefore the territory is not covered by the international laws you want to apply."
No country, not even the US poodle, has recognised Israel's annexation of Gaza and the West Bank. The international laws with regards to the treatment of people as set out in the Geneva Conventions certainly do apply. As for a Palestinian state, since the PLO's declaration of independence, 131 countries out of the 193 in the UN have recognised the State of Palestine. Unsurprisingly, it is mainly the "international" community, aka the old colonial powers, that have not yet extended recognition.
Anyway, UN Security Council Resolution 465 states:
'that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East'
Seems quite clear to me. And a Security Council Resolution no less, passed unanimously to boot - although "the Carter administration later explained that it had intended to abstain and that its “yes” vote was due to a “breakdown in communication” between the White House and the U.S. mission to the UN." - hilarious!
"This is the reason for the Fakeistinians' attempts to get themselves declared a state in the UN. Just so you may finally get it, there is no such state as Palestine, there never has been,"
They already are a state, and have recognition from the majority of UN members. However they are a state without a land, because Israel is occupying it. What they are trying achieve in the UN is to ideally become a member state (which is not the same as "get themselves declared a state in the UN"), but as you quite rightly point out ...
"and without the UN Security Council's agreement"
their application for full membership will not pass the bully boy vetoes of the US/UK/France and hence they are going for a more limited "non-member state" status.