Hundreds of rabbis accuse Mamdani of fueling antisemitism over 'monsters' comment

[Eko]

244. Because the UN by its own charter can only recommend.

The UN recommended the partition for the states of Israel and Palestine and the Arabs did not agree. The resolution was non-binding on the parties and required both parties to agree.
When I said multiple people it wasn't ones that voted again 181, it was ones who also voted for 181 and said the UN did not have the power to create a state, only recommend.

Statement Made by the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) Before the Security Council on February 1948
The Security Council is authorized to take forceful measures with respect to Palestine to remove a threat to international peace. The Charter of the United Nations does not empower the Security Council to enforce a political settlement whether it is pursuant to a recommendation of the General Assembly or of the Security Council itself.

What this means is this: The Security Council, under the Charter, can take action to prevent aggression against Palestine from outside. The Security Council, by these same powers, can take action to prevent a threat to international peace and security from inside Palestine. But this action must be directed solely to the maintenance of international peace. The Security Council’s action, in other words, is directed to keeping the peace and not to enforcing partition.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d57
A political settlement? That shows the UN was trying to get a political settlement agreed to by both parties.

I left out 12 because they did not have to power in the first place to do what you think they did. Article 1 sections 1 and 2 disprove that.

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

One of the first things Resolution 181 does is say it is just a recommendation.

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp

As far as the Security Council

During further debates at the Security Council over how to proceed, Austin (The US Rep to the UN) observed that it had become “clear that the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation.” At the same time, it was clear that the U.K.’s announced termination of the Mandate on May 15 “would result, in the light of information now available, in chaos, heavy fighting and much loss of life in Palestine.” The U.N. could not permit this, he said, and the Security Council had the responsibility and authority under the Charter to act to prevent such a threat to the peace. The U.S. also proposed establishing a Trusteeship over Palestine to give further opportunity to the Jews and Arabs to reach a mutual agreement. Pending the convening of a special session of the General Assembly to that end, “we believe that the Security Council should instruct the Palestine Commission to suspend its efforts to implement the proposed partition plan.”

More proof it was a recommendation that had to be agreed to by both sides.

The Security Council President, speaking as the representative from China, responded: “The United Nations was created mainly for the maintenance of international peace. It would be tragic indeed if the United Nations, by attempting a political settlement, should be the cause of war. For these reasons, my delegation supports the general principles of the proposal of the United States delegation.”[27] At a further meeting of the Security Council, the Canadian delegate stated that the partition plan “is based on a number of important assumptions”, the first of which was that “it was assumed that the two communities in Palestine would co-operate in putting into effect the solution to the Palestine problem which was recommended by the General Assembly.”[28] The French delegate, while declining to extend either approval for or disapproval of the U.S. proposal, observed that it would allow for any number of alternative solutions from the partition plan, including “a single State with sufficient guarantees for minorities”.[29] The representative from the Jewish Agency for Palestine read a statement categorically rejecting “any plan to set up a trusteeship regime for Palestine”, which “would necessarily entail a denial of the Jewish right to national independence.”[30]

Mindful of the worsening situation in Palestine, and wishing to avoid further debate, the U.S. proposed another draft resolution calling for a truce between Jewish and Arab armed groups that Austin noted “would not prejudice the claims of either group” and which “does not mention trusteeship.”[31] It was adopted as Resolution 43 on April 1.[32] Resolution 44 was also passed the same day requesting “the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 20 of the United Nations Charter, to convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine.”[33] Resolution 46 reiterated the Security Council’s call for the cessation of hostilities in Palestine,[34] and Resolution 48 established a “Truce Commission” to further the goal of implementing its resolutions calling for an end to the violence.[35]

On May 14, the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared the existence of the State of Israel, citing Resolution 181 as constituting “recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State”.[36] As anticipated, war ensued.

unilaterally-used to indicate that something is done by only one person, group, or country involved in a situation, without the agreement of others.
The Security Council was still meeting over it and Israel unilaterally created the state of Israel.The Security Council was still trying to find a solution and one that was proposed was a “a single State with sufficient guarantees for minorities” that Israel rejected entirely. They did not wait for the Security Council to make recommendations to the General Assembly so there was no reason to even add in the part of the Security Council since Israel bypassed it entirely by creating the State of Israel unilaterally.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/
As for you statement that the Security Council did not have to decide this dont forget this, 14 comes after 12 right?

Article 14
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

I have shown you so much proof that the UN could only recommend the plan in their own words. That the Security Council was still meeting and had not come up with a recommendation to the General assembly before Israel created their state. If the UN is what legitimized the creation of the state of Israel why did Israel not wait for them to create said state? The General Assembly sent it to the Security Council and was waiting on their recommendations.
This is what created the state of Israel. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. Not the General Assembly, not the Security Council, not the UN. David Ben-Gurion did.