Stephen Shenfield: Until recent times, for instance, religious anti-Semitism was much more common than the racist variety.
The same can be said for religious anti-Zionism, such as the religious views expressed in Reform Judaism's old Pittsburg Platform. The right of Jews living in other countries to hold and express contrarian anti-Zionist views were part of the justification for the safeguarding clause contained in both the British Mandate and the US Palestine Mandate Convention.
There are similar legislative safeguards and a very long line of Supreme Court precedents today in the USA that can be employed against ham-handed attempts to label religiously-motivated forms of Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and even Humanist anti-Zionism as prohibited forms of racial discrimination or "anti-Semitism". Ken Marcus, who heads the Trump administration's Campus Anti-Zionism equals Anti-Semitism campaign admitted that fact in the footnotes of his seminal work on the subject: Kenneth L. Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 837 (2007), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol15/iss3/4
Likewise, the "free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment and the Federal and State "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) statutes protect the right of businesses to boycott Israel on the bases of their various firmly held anti-Zionist religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court has long since ruled that consumers and businesses have a constitutionally protected right to take part in "political" boycotts. See for example the ACLU article "The First Amendment Protects the Right To Boycott Israel". https://goo.gl/h1dB8c
Mondonut: First of all Diplomatic Missions are not exclusively defined as Embassies, all consular offices have the same status. Nothing in the Treaties you cite supports your self serving definition.
No, "consular officers" and "consular posts" in "Palestine" were never considered "diplomatic agents" or "diplomatic missions" to "Israel" by the UN or anyone else. If they were, then President Truman would deserve the credit for recognizing "Jerusalem, Israel".
FYI, I employed the meanings assigned to the terms and expressions in Article 1 of the respective Vienna treaties. Prior to 2018 the US State Department only operated a Consulate-General in Jerusalem, headed by the US Consul-General. The Consul-Generals were not appointed by the US Ambassador to Israel and were not part of the US diplomatic mission to Israel. The US Embassy in Israel was always located in Tel Aviv. That was done precisely because Jerusalem, in a dejure sense, was considered to be a part of 'Palestine,' which hadn't been incorporated in any of the successor states. The US government stopped using "Jerusalem, Palestine" on Consular credentials, letterhead, birth certificates, and passports in the late 1960s because the Israeli government refused to accept any such documents. But it still employed the expression and nation of origin in our domestic immigration statutes, records, and reports.
The Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations defines and employs the terms "diplomatic mission," "chief of mission," and etc. The treaty defines diplomatic functions and explains that diplomatic missions may also perform consular functions.
The Treaty on Consular Relations defines the terms "consular post," "consular district," "consular officer," and "head of consular post." The treaty defines consular functions and explains that permission to establish diplomatic relations ordinarily constitutes permission to establish consular posts, unless otherwise stated.
It explains that diplomatic missions can perform consular functions, but stipulates that suspension of diplomatic relations does not ipso facto constitute suspension of consular relations. For that and many other reasons, "Consular premises, "Consular officers" and "Consular staff" are not ipso facto considered to be "diplomatic agents" or "diplomatic missions".
MondonutNice words, but none of them address the Palestinians’ inventive and ridiculous interpretation of the Vienna Treaties, which in no way prohibit the US from placing its embassy where it chooses.
The Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations explicitly reflects customary rules which require that the premises of embassies must be located "on the territory of the receiving state" [Article 21]. It also stipulates that states cannot enter into special agreements that would allow the premises to be used "in any manner incompatible with a general rule of international law" [Article 41(3)].
This particular embassy is situated in territory that was annexed in violation of a peremptory norm of international law. In accordance with Article 53 and 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties any dispute regarding the private agreement between Israel and the USA that violates Article 53 of the Law of Treaties and the customary rules reflected in the Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations is subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Article 103 of the UN Charter states that: "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."
Article 25 of the UN Charter States that: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
Neither of those articles allow for any privately agreed upon exceptions. According to the terms of Article 106 of the UN Charter they cannot be amended without the consent of at least two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
UNSC resolution 478 cited a peremptory norm of customary international law which holds that no territory acquired through the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. The Security Council affirmed that the enactment of the Basic Law Jerusalem was a violation of international law, determined that the basic law was null and void, and stated that the Security Council:
"5. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:
(a) All Member States to accept this decision;
(b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;"
Mondonut:And as to UNSC 478, which the US emphatically declared non-binding:
Secretary Muskie ...
FYI, the opinion of our Secretary of State has never been considered final under US domestic law, i.e. "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." According to customary international law as expressed in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty (like the UN Charter) must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. Article 53 of the Law of Treaties states that any treaty which conflicts with a peremptory norm of international law is void at the time of its conclusion.
In the ICJ Wall case both the General Assembly and the Court cited the legal relevance and legal consequences of a number of Security Council resolutions, including resolution 478. The Court decided that Israel was under a legal obligation to implement all of the relevant Security Council resolutions in good faith. It also noted that UN member states were under Charter and 4th Geneva Convention treaty obligations not to recognize the illegal situation that had been created by Israel.