U.N. Resolutions Poor Gauge of Morality in Palestine Debate

To the editors:

In his column of May 4, 1998, Aamir Abdul Rehman correctly concludes that framing the Israeli-Palestinian struggle in nationalist terms will produce no results. Both the assumptions and goals of any two nationalist philosophies inherently contradict each other; hence any discussion of international relations must be framed in an internationally accepted framework, possibly a moral one.

However, Rehman poorly chooses United Nations resolutions as a basis for his morality. Through the early 1990s, the United Nations and many of subordinate bodies were frequently a mouthpiece for the policy of the Soviet Union, spoken through its numerous client states in the Third World. Hence, the resolutions passed during that time period, while perhaps reflective of the realpolitik of the Cold War, certainly represent no morality except that of the immoral Soviet state.

While I am more than willing to discuss the Middle East peace process in moral terms, no intelligent observer would choose the morality of a state that violated the human rights of its own citizens. It is this morality that justifies the murder of civilian Israelis, an act which anyone who believes in the sanctity of human life must condemn. HAROLD E. LUBER '99   May 4, 1998