[...]
> (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;
> 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?
You're bending over backwards to find an anti-Israel reading. No, the document doesn't specifically define Israel - or anyone else - as a state in the region. But anyone reading the document would realize that Israel is, indeed, a state in the region. Nor is it possible to defer to the UN's framework, as this document does, without implicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist.
Nor does this document ever refer to Israel as the "zionist entity."
I admit this document could have gone further, but to read it as denying Israel's right to exist is ridiculous. (Is there a similar document produced by Israel in 1976 which endorses the UN's two-state framework?)
Barry