A Civilian
There is a fundamental difference between the Israeli situation and the Iraqi situation regarding both countries' failure to abide by them.
The resolution refering to Israel's occupation of the post 1967 lands was made under article 6 of the UN charter, which does not provide for the use of force against a nation which does not comply. The resolutions regarding Iraqi disarmament were made under article 7 of the UN charter, which does provide for the use of force against non-compliant nations.
With respect to UN resolutions, the two situations are apples and oranges.
With respect to the Iraqi situation and the case for war, as you yourself stated, resolution 1441 said:
"The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites in Iraq, including presidential sites"
And, as you admitted, Iraq has not wholly complied. I am sure that we can agree that almost complying is not actually complying, and non-compliance is a violation of Iraq's obligations, and that 1441 states that "Iraq would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations."
The inerpretation of the words "serious consequences" is pretty much moot, as everyone at the time that 1441 was written was aware that war is what was being discussed. This is why those two words were what were holding up the ratification of resolution 1441.
In short, the UN told Iraq to do something or they would face war. Iraq did not do that thing. Should the UN back down?
Ta muchly
PTT