The Crimes of Empire?

Bradford DeLong jbdelong at uclink.berkeley.edu
Tue Sep 10 19:58:13 PDT 2002



>. . . 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.

Nope. It does not. You've been hornswoggled again.

Here is the draft resolution:

_________________

The Security Council,

Having considered the item entitled "The Middle East problem including the Palestinian question", in accordance with its resolution 381 (1975) of 30 November 1975,

Having heard the representatives of parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian people,

Convinced that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East,

Expressing its concern over the continuing deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, and deeply deploring Israel's persistence in its occupation of Arab territories and its refusal to implement the relevant United Nations resolution,

Reaffirming the principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territories by the threat or use of force,

Reaffirming further the necessity of the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region based on full respect for the Charter of the United Nations as well as for its resolutions concerning the problem of the Middle East including the question of Palestine,

1. Affirms:

(a) That the Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise its inalienable national right of self-determination, including the right to establish an independent state in Palestine in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) The right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their property;

(c) That Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967;

(d) The appropriate arrangements should be established to guarantee, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries;

2. Decides that the provisions contained in paragraph 1 should be taken fully into account in all international efforts and conferences organized within the framework of the United Nations for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to take all the necessary steps as soon as possible for the implementation of the provisions of this resolution and to report to the Security Council on the progress achieved;

4. Decides to convene within a period of six months to consider the report by the Secretary-General regarding the implementation of this resolution, and in order to pursue its responsibilities regarding such implementation.

_____________________

I'm afraid the draft resolution does not define "Israel" in clause 1c as one of the "states" included in clause 1d whose rights are to be respected and guaranteed. Indeed, that is the whole *point* of calling it the "zionist entity"--so that it does not fall under clause 1d--isn't it?


>Why concede
>something before getting anything in return?

Ah. But you have just abandoned Chomsky's claim that the Palestinians had already gone the extra mile in 1976. Given that that was the point he is trying to make, I am now happy.


>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

Anyone who isn't a total fool. Acceding to UN resolutions is a way for Saddam Hussein to gain allies, or semi-allies, to constrain the Bush administration. Failing to accede to UN resolutions will get the rest of the world to wash their hands of the situation....



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list