The Crimes of Empire?

[Max B. Sawicky]

. . . In fact, Arab states (along with the Palestine Liberation
Organization) have repeatedly done so since January 1976, when they joined
the rest of the world in backing a U.N. Security Council resolution calling
for a political settlement based on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied
territories with "appropriate arrangements ... to guarantee ... the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states
in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized
borders"...

I had thought that the Arab states and the PLO made it clear back in
1976 that, in their eyes, Israel was not a "state". "States" have
rights to live in peace within secure and recognized borders.
"Zionist entities" do not.

Am I misremembering the history, or is Chomsky lying to us?
Brad DeLong

*********************

Support for a resolution that names the State of Israel
(which I presume the above mentioned does) at least indicates
a willingness to recognize the Jewish state.  It could be in
bad faith, but I see no further
obligation on the part of Israel's enemies absent formal
agreements between the disputing parties.  Why concede
something before getting anything in return?  That seems
tantamount to saying, Israel agrees the territories don't
belong to it, therefore they are obliged to just give
them up with no commitments from the other side.

We're in a similar dilemma with Iraq.  Saddam is being
urged to accede to UN resolutions at the same time
the U.S. pointedly asserts its unwillingness to be
constrained by UN policy.  Saddam's unwholesome
qualities aside, who in his right mind would agree
to play in a game like that?

mbs