You made an assertion: Europeans have a moral obligation to support Israel. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. I merely have to provide a counter-example: Israel itself is no paragon of morality or human rights, as demostrated by its violations of the Geneva convention, so it hardly follows that one can have a moral obligation to support it. That Arab countries tend to be less moral (though this doesn't hold true for all of them, such as Jordan) is irrelevent to the question. It just means we shouldn't support Arabs either.
Regarding Israel's violations of UN resolutions, I don't give a fig about them either, but it is inconsistent for a defender of Israel to dismiss them. Why? Because apologists for Israel invariably appeal to a UN resolution, and mandates by the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, to establish the legitimacy of Zionism and of Israeli statehood. If you're going to use the UN to establish Israel's legitimacy, then you can't ignore Israel's violations of UN resolutions. Also, if you fail to punish Israel for such violations, then you have no basis for punishing other countries, such as Iraq, for violating them.
But then, suppose you do not appeal to the UN and League of Nations to uphold the legitimacy of Israel. The only other thing you can possibly appeal to is the right of conquest, since that is indeed how Israel came into existence. But then you cannot possibly appeal for support of Israel on moral grounds, and hence you cannot fault countries who fail to support it because such support is not in their self-interest.
I made no such assertion. I only said there is such a thing as right and wrong. You created the rest.
As far as the UN goes, I have no use for the UN. None.