Israel’s Fraudulent Casus Belli

Are UN Sanctions in order here? Israel uses the “peace process” as a casus belli to continue the war on Palestine, and nobody notices??? In the run up to the Goldstone draft Resolution and immediately afterward, Israel took the following position;

“Israel has threatened to pull out of Middle East peace talks if Britain and other European nations fail to back the country in a key vote at the United Nations”

and

“A furious Israel said it would not continue with the peace plan if the UN Human Rights Council endorses a controversial report condemning the Jewish state for war crimes during the Gaza offensive in January.”

Two statements which I personally found quite a stunning move. Given that this is quite possibly the first time in history that a country has used “a threat of peace” as a reason for a “continued war of aggression.” But then we ARE talking about Israel here, the master twister of words. Moreover, I wondered if anyone else would pick up on exactly what Israel was implying with those statements and threats. Israel, in essence, is creating a false Casus Belli for a war on Palestine. Israel is actually using “peace” as a reason to not make peace! So after checking my sanity, I decided to check wiki, and found this:

In the post World War Two era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except

1) as a means of defending themselves against aggression, or
2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation.

Gaza is flattened; there are no tanks, no weapons of mass destruction, no planes with white phosphorous and no drones to deliver DIME missiles. And the UN clearly has not given Israel permission to continue it’s aggression against a people living in a fishbowl under a compete siege. Additionally there is this:

The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries which embark on wars of aggression. In effect, this means that countries in the modern era must have a plausible casus belli for initiating military action, or risk UN sanctions or intervention.

So just where is the intervention then? Israel must have a “plausible casus belli” for initiating continued military actions, or risk UN sanctions or intervention. I would ask the UN if holding a “peace process” captive and using it as a reason for a continued war falls under the heading of accepted practice, according to the above UN rules.