FD's favourite way of avoiding this fact is to say that the UN resolutions are 'non-binding'.
But let's examine this claim.
Wiki's entry is:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law null and void and required that it be rescinded forthwith while affirming that it was a violation of international law. This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The law declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital.
The vote on the resolution, which took place on August 20, 1980, was passed 14-0, with the United States abstaining.
Israel categorically rejected the resolution ...
The decisions were adopted by the Security Council acting on behalf of the members under Article 24. Although they were not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, they are nonetheless binding on all of the members. The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs says: "The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16)."[2]
Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv 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, although Paraguay and Bolivia have theirs in nearby Jerusalem suburb Mevasseret Zion. 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.
The note for the 'binding' part says:
The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Article 24, Supplement No 6 (1979 - 1984), volume 3 indicates the Council was acting on behalf of the members when it formally declared illegal legislative and administrative measures invalid in resolution 478. See Note 2 on Page 1 and page 19
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/ar ... rt24_e.pdf
(The link downloads the document, and sure enough it backs up the point made in the text).
The ICC further clarified the point in its ruling that Israel is breaking the law:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
The ruling was categoric, but in this case it is correct to say the ruling was not 'binding'. An explanation of this is found here:
Under the UN Charter and the ICJ Statute, advisory opinions rendered by the Court are non-binding. [21] This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative views on important issues of international law and in arriving at them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states. An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
http://www.asil.org/insigh121.cfm
(From The American Society for International Law article on the ruling)
So, under international law - Israel is acting illegally in East Jerusalem. No ifs or buts.
And, just for completeness, here's a reference for the specific international law that Israel is violating:
According to Art. 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, protected persons in an occupied territory shall not be deprived of the benefits of the Convention "by any annexation . of the occupied territory." UN Security Council resolutions 478 (1980) and 497 (1981) declared that Israel's actions aimed at the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are "null and void and should not be recognized by states."
Just the facts - no need to attack anyone personally, you'll note
Cheers,
Shafique
