UNSC Resolution 478 (in 1980 against Israel) under which all countries shifted Embassies from Jerusa

[veg]

Erdogan pointed out the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 (in 1980), which is binding upon all member states, and which calls for shifting embassies out of Jerusalem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted on 20 August 1980, is one of seven UNSC resolutions condemning Israel's attempted annexation of East Jerusalem. In particular, UNSC res 478 notes Israel's non-compliance with UNSC res 476[1] and condemned Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "complete and united" capital, as a violation of international law. The resolution states that the Council will not recognize this law, and calls on member states to accept the decision of the council. This resolution also calls upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.

The resolution was passed with 14 votes to none against, with the United States abstaining.

....

The subsequent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice expressed the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation in and around East Jerusalem.[10]

Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan or Herzliya following the adoption of Resolution 478. Following the withdrawals of Costa Rica and El Salvador in August 2006, no country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem.

 

[Imad.Khan]

Doesn't matter what UNSC says, Israel and US will do whatever they want. UN is now a worthless body and has not been able to prevent any wars as it was mandated to do.

 

[veg]

Doesn't matter what UNSC says, Israel and US will do whatever they want. UN is now a worthless body and has not been able to prevent any wars as it was mandated to do.

UN should be strengthened, and not discarded.
Despite many short comings, UN brought much good for the world.

Without UN, the world once again start living under "Might is Right", and actually this is the aim of all the Extremists who have power, like Trump and Netanyahu and Modi.

 

[Imad.Khan]

UN should be strengthened, and not discarded.
Despite many short comings, UN brought much good for the world.

Without UN, the world once again start living under "Might is Right", and actually this is the aim of all the Extremists who have power, like Trump and Netanyahu and Modi.

tell me one occasion where UN was able to stop any wars or when was it able to stop US from attacking any of the countless countries it has attacked or was able to stop the genocide by Israel?

 

[veg]

tell me one occasion where UN was able to stop any wars or when was it able to stop US from attacking any of the countless countries it has attacked or was able to stop the genocide by Israel?

Once again, world under UN may not be perfect, but still 1000 times better than "Might is Right" of the past.

Without UN Israel got the power to do the genocide of Palestinians as the Jews of Madina were killed, or as the Nazis killed the Jews.

It was only the UN which stopped the US to bomb the civilian population in Afghanistan and Iraq, otherwise US would have killed all the men there and taken women and children as slave captives for S#ex services.

For the first time in history, Europe became entirely peaceful for half century without any war.

The number of wars in whole world reduced to perhaps 20 times less than of past.

Discarding UN will brought extreme misery upon the weaker states in the world.

Just watch how Israel and US trying to discard the UN today, while they are stronger and want to have the "might is right" formula for them in this century.

 

[Solomon2]

Erdogan pointed out the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 (in 1980), which is binding upon all member states, and which calls for shifting embassies out of Jerusalem.

While the U.S. did not veto UNSCR 478, its representative made it clear that the U.S. does not consider its portions dealing with diplomatic missions as having legal validity.

Nor do many other U.N. members. For while embassies may be located in Tel Aviv there are numerous countries with diplomatic consulates in Jerusalem. Adherence to 478 would ban those, too.

The subsequent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice expressed the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation in and around East Jerusalem.

Unh-unh. The 2004 statement from the ICJ was not a legal ruling but an advisory opinion because its instructions from the U.N. were to consider both international law AND U.N. resolutions outside of international law in its opinion-making. Therefore, it is a theoretical instrument that doesn't make a true declaration of what is legal and what is not; marketing it as such is merely mischief.

 

[veg]

marketing it as such is merely mischief.

Making world aware of recommendation of UN and all the countries (except for US and Israel) is not mischief, but hiding it is a real mischief.

Real mischief is when Israel claims itself to be democracy, but then usurp the Palestinian lands against the International Law (which is not recommendation but binding ... but who cares while it has been done by the Democratic State of Israel with US backing).

And the poor Palestinians are not even allowed to buy a land in those illegal settlements.

According to the UN law, even for security reasons, you could only make the Army check posts, but UN Charter never allows any illegal settlements ... but all is forgiven while Zionists are god chosen.

So you cry for recommendation of UN to be mischief, but when Israel destroys the binding resolutions, then all is Kosher for you. What a shame.

 

[jewishm]

Making world aware of recommendation of UN and all the countries (except for US and Israel) is not mischief, but hiding it is a real mischief.

Real mischief is when Israel claims itself to be democracy, but then usurp the Palestinian lands against the International Law (which is not recommendation but binding ... but who cares while it has been done by the Democratic State of Israel with US backing).

And the poor Palestinians are not even allowed to buy a land in those illegal settlements.

According to the UN law, even for security reasons, you could only make the Army check posts, but UN Charter never allows any illegal settlements ... but all is forgiven while Zionists are god chosen.

So you cry for recommendation of UN to be mischief, but when Israel destroys the binding resolutions, then all is Kosher for you. What a shame.

the palestinans dont want to live there and of course not to buy land .

 

[Solomon2]

Making world aware of recommendation of UN and all the countries (except for US and Israel) is not mischief, but hiding it is a real mischief.

Throwing around the "illegal" label without merit is mischief.

...UN Charter never allows any illegal settlements ... but all is forgiven while Zionists are god chosen.

The Jews are entitled to political rights in the area of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which under Article 80 of its Charter the U.N. can't legally modify without consent of the Zionists.

...when Israel destroys the binding resolutions, then all is Kosher for you. What a shame.

A "binding resolution" has no legal force if it exceeds the function of the body passing it. That is what happened with UNSCR 478 and why it is so questionable.

(As a rough guide: any time the Security Council passes a resolution containing the word "illegal" it is suspect since the SC is not a law-making or law-judging body. That doesn't mean the SC is always wrong, just that you can't take the SC's word for it.)

 

[undercover JIX]

UN is waste of time and a way to bully small countries and Muslims

 

[Solomon2]

UN is waste of time and a way to bully small countries and Muslims

The U.N. doesn't "bully" Muslims as much as serve as an instrument to pull Muslims into the joint European-Arab plan to transform the millennia-long Islam-Christianity conflict into an exclusively Muslim-Zionist one. That's why, at the U.N., European members were O.K. with resolutions denying Jerusalem's Christian heritage: they figure that as long as they are successful at setting the Zionists and Muslims at odds Europe will benefit from cheap labor, exports, financial services, etc. that it otherwise would not due to a Zionist-led industrialization of the region.

Pierre van Paassen described this is what the Brits were plotting in a book written in 1943. (The French jumped onto the bandwagon after the 1967 war embarrassed De Gaulle.) The extreme antisemitism Muslims feel is thus a deliberate product of neocolonialism, a continuing plan by Europeans to keep their former colonies ideologically and economically under-thumb after colonial occupation has formally ended.

 

[undercover JIX]

All well and good until USA opposes or decides to go again any UN resolution.

 

[veg]

Throwing around the "illegal" label without merit is mischief.

It's merit has been proven by the UN and all the member countries, except for Israel. Therefore, denying them to be illegal is mischief.

The Jews are entitled to political rights in the area of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which under Article 80 of its Charter the U.N. can't legally modify without consent of the Zionists.

Sorry, this is only the Zionist opinion. While UN and SC all are unanimous that they are illegal settlements. Therefore UN asked (in your words recommended) the member states to condemn the Israeli illegal settlement, and not to deny the Israeli 1980 Law of Jerusalem completely.

A "binding resolution" has no legal force if it exceeds the function of the body passing it. That is what happened with UNSCR 478 and why it is so questionable.

According to UN it is binding when it says: "(a) All Member States to accept this decision;"

Therefore, it is binding, but if Israel with help of US plays conspiracies and let US Veto any practical step against Israel, then it is another matter. It is than the illegal play of "might is right".

Anyhow, if Israel were really a true democracy, then irrelative of this resolution binding or not, is utter utter shameful and makes it apartheid state beyond any doubts.

 

[Solomon2]

It's merit has been proven by the UN and all the member countries, except for Israel. Therefore, denying them to be illegal is mischief...Sorry, this is only the Zionist opinion. While UN and SC all are unanimous that they are illegal settlements.

You're batting zero here. Majority opinion means squat, or else five people could beat up on one and blame their victim for the robbery he suffered.

According to UN it is binding when it says: "(a) All Member States to accept this decision;"

When it's a security issue, not when it's a matter that's explicitly outside the SC remit. As a bureaucratic matter the U.N. says they expect all CVII issues binding, regardless, but that's not a legal judgment, either.

Anyhow, if Israel were really a true democracy, then irrelative of this resolution binding or not, is utter utter shameful and makes it apartheid state beyond any doubts.

Just an unsupported parting shot to cover your weak arguments here.

 

[veg]

The U.N. doesn't "bully" Muslims as much as serve as an instrument to pull Muslims into the joint European-Arab plan to transform the millennia-long Islam-Christianity conflict into an exclusively Muslim-Zionist one. That's why, at the U.N., European members were O.K. with resolutions denying Jerusalem's Christian heritage: they figure that as long as they are successful at setting the Zionists and Muslims at odds Europe will benefit from cheap labor, exports, financial services, etc. that it otherwise would not due to a Zionist-led industrialization of the region.

Pierre van Paassen described this is what the Brits were plotting in a book written in 1943. (The French jumped onto the bandwagon after the 1967 war embarrassed De Gaulle.) The extreme antisemitism Muslims feel is thus a deliberate product of neocolonialism, a continuing plan by Europeans to keep their former colonies ideologically and economically under-thumb after colonial occupation has formally ended.

Sorry your conspiracy theory has no value.

It was not Britain who asked the Zionists to migrate to Israel, but it were the Zionist themselves who did it.

It was not Britain who asked the Zionists to deny the Uganda offer, but it were the Zionist themselves.

It was not the Britain who asked the Zionists to start making the illegal settlements and occupy the Jerusalem, but it were the Zionists themselves who did all these illegal activities in name of Israel being democracy and god gave this land to them.

Therefore, Britain did no conspiracy of Zionist-Muslim conflict, but for sure these are the Zionists who are trying their best to change it into Muslim-Christian conflict by any possible way.

You're batting zero here. Majority opinion means squat, or else five people could beat up on one and blame their victim for the robbery he suffered.

This is the way that the illegal state of Israel was created in 1948.