[Sorry for the time lag; my e-life has gotten disordered]
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Brad DeLong wrote:
> 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.
and, after quoting an excerpt of the January 1976 UN Security Council draft resolution written by the PLO, which mentions "Israel":
> 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?
[Full text of resolution in archives under this subject heading posted by Seth Ackerman Sep 17th. Excerpt posted by Brad under same heading Sep 10th.]
I don't think this is true, but I'm willing to be disabused. Afaik, "zionist entity" and "Israel" are mutually exclusive terms, and the former was invented precisely to avoid saying the latter. In fact, so far is it accepted in the Arab world that merely saying the word "Israel" implies recognition by the speaker that it is a state with legitimate needs, that even today Arab intellectuals who utter the word "Israel" overseas find their books banned and their selves excoriated no matter how critical of Israel they might be in the surrounding context. Edward Said says this happens to him all the time and is the main reason his books are still banned in most all Arab countries. He wrote an article on the subject in The Dawn a few years ago that I think I still have in my files if you're interested.
If that's true, then it would seem Chomsky is right -- that the use of the word Israel in this resolution means exactly what it says he means, recognition of Israel as a state with some core of legitimate claims.
Can you cite a document supporting your view that "zionist entity" is not an alternative term for Israel that explicitly withholds recognition from it as a state with legitimate needs, but is rather is an explanation of what makes Israel different from states?
If you can, then I would also be curious how you explain this almost magical taboo quality that the word "Israel" still seems to have. Under your explanation, there would seem to be no danger in uttering it.
Michael