Majid Takht-Ravanchi made the remarks at an open debate in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Monday. “We stress that the Golan is and will remain an integral part of Syria,” the envoy said.
In late March, US President Donald Trump signed a proclamation recognizing Israeli “sovereignty” over the territory, which the Tel Aviv regime occupied in 1967.
President Donald Trump signed the proclamation recognizing Israeli “sovereignty” over the Syrian territory during a ceremony at the White House.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran once again condemns, in the strongest possible terms, these internationally wrongful acts,” he noted about both the move and Washington’s decision to relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Al-Quds in May 2018 after recognizing the occupied holy city as Israel’s “capital.”
“Both acts are against the peremptory norms of international law, let alone council’s resolutions,” he said. “According to international law, the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force, and no such territorial acquisition shall be recognized as legal,” the official added.
Using its veto power as a permanent member of the UNSC, the US has vetoed all the proposals, 44 in total, intending to force Israel to implement the council’s resolutions.
“This council has been both inactive and ineffective because of the unreserved support of the US for Israel,” Takht-Ravanchi said. “Indeed, the continuation of this situation would further erode the credibility of the council and deteriorate its already trust and confidence deficit,” he added.
The international community has been resorting to the UN General Assembly for adoption of anti-Israeli resolutions, where the US does not wield a veto power.
Shortly after the US move concerning Al-Quds, members of the Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution asking on Washington to withdraw its recognition.
Takht-Ravanchi reminded that the council’s “primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security,” and that it “has an explicit legal obligation to counter aggression and occupation.”
“It must, therefore, take the necessary measures to force the occupying power to end the occupation,” he added.