Zionism is racism, an assault on human rights


Material Information

Zionism is racism, an assault on human rights a conference co-sponsored by Bʹnai Bʹrith International, World Jewish Congress, World Zionist Organization
Physical Description:
69 p. : ; 28 cm.
B'nai B'rith International
World Jewish Congress
World Zionist Organization
United States -- Dept. of State
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Zionism   ( lcsh )
Jewish-Arab relations   ( lcsh )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Statement of Responsibility:
hosted by U.S. Department of State, December 10, 1985.
General Note:
On cover: A report and program guide.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 11911685
sobekcm - AA00007148_00001
System ID:

Full Text

,-.-:-'- ::; ; ,, ":. -.-.:,.( :..: ** .',.. ': t ^ .

... .. :. -::" '. .. .. i -.h !. .: t .

'.* V

Pro gram Guid
.... ; -, : .r : ,: :': '

".- '.r.. ...: .

B'nai B'rith International
1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, D.C 20036
"' "; I "'" :"~ ~ i """ ":: "" '"; ""' "" ": : "'-' "" "'l
: ,' ,., ..'..' '; ,,.:: .:":.. : .:. : ., ... .', .. : ... ;:' ....:., <. .. '. ,.
... .. :" :. : .' ., : -'.'.. ; : .". '; : ." ": ," "" ." "

,: .. ,,.- ." ,T ',' .:" ". ': '..,..: .. :. : .'. .. .. ": ,.., ,: : .. .. : ." :. .
: .: : r : : ,. ,,' ." : : ,.: .. : ", :- : ., :, : .. .. : .. ... ..
, : "; ". .' ; : : : : -
,.: .'.,;. .: .'. .' :, : .. : ,.. .. ,. ...: ,",. *' ". : .o ; ,:" ,: ,:,:. .,.,
.. i' :'. : .,', .... ,. .. :,:.: ,." .'. .-,. ." E : ," : : ';: ,: ." : r oi : '. ,' :. .,
; ',.?.'" :" .."': ... .:.. .- ... .. : "~i~i ilt~ i ~ ~C:.. .. :2.",: ,, ..
... ?: .:' :.'. .. .... .- : .. .: ,; ,,.,'. ..... : ; : ..., '... ... .
.. ,- ,., : ";,: '., :. ,. .. .' .; ." ".. ."- ... '.: .

": t; "- ':" :' ; : """ """ ","' "" .
", :., ." ,j : .: . '. .

.. .: :.,." "' "" .,. '. ." '. ." .,
.:, ": .. : ,'' .. ".' 4E .. "'. "." ",, : : ".". : .. .: ,

-! '


i. .
;` .:.... ..
i i
: ..: :!
I': : '!i. I.
;,.... :~::
'' :"' j' ;;i. :; .- ;i
'';' ':'
\:.;.: ; ;: ; i' ..
~ i i:'':
.,. ; : :: ~~ ;: i;
: :
: 1
,~ ~ :
I : '~" ::I?: : ': : .` ;: :' :.` ; j
:.:i.; 'ii.
;' .,
i. i~. I:
;;, .
: : : ..
;: : ; : :'' i .";`';
: ::1.-; '; :
;.!.'I .I
: ::
., .e;4 ; .:
: i
: :
i `. ; :



1 i



is Racism:

An Assault on Human Rights


B'nai B'rith International
World Jewish Congress
World Zionist Organization


U.S. Department of State
December 10, 1985
Washington, D.C.





Over the last nine years Israel and world Jewry have been buffeted by the
ugliness of a campaign attacking Zionism as racism, whose goal is to
delegitimize the first Jewish state in two thousand years.

The campaign, fostered by the United Nations when it passed Resolution 3799,
has fomented openly anti-Semitic assaults, both in the United Nations itself,
and in incidents around the world. The effects have been damaging to the very
fundamental human rights of Jews as a people, who believe that history and
circumstances gives them the right to their own state.

Nevertheless, many of the supporters of the "Zionism Racism" (Z=R) lie, know
little about Jews, Israel, or for that matter, human rights.

In order to provide information about the insidiousness of the Z = R campaign,
three organizations, B'nai B'rith International, World Jewish Congress and
World Zionist Organization, cosponsored a conference, hosted by the United
States Department of State. The date was December 10, 1984, Human Rights Day.
This conference can serve as a guide for your district or country.

1. The object was to reach an audience of Jews and Christians, from various
organizations --- religious, professional, legal, legislative --- to sensitize
them to the nature of the battle against Zionism waged within the United
Nations. We invited opinion-makers who can understand the destructiveness of
this campaign, which diverts attention from the principles of the United
Nations in order to scapegoat Israel, the United States and the values of
Western countries.

2. We invited known spokesmen who could articulate the issues and make
sympathetic presentations. These were Jews and non-Jews, Americans, Israelis
and other nationals. You can find government officials, academics, perhaps
even clergy, to make similar presentations.

3. The conference in Washington was held in conjunction with the United
States government. If a government agency is not sympathetic, perhaps a
university, religious organization or Bar Association might lend itself to the

4. Press should be notified well in advance about the program.

5. Expenses can be held down by charging a conference fee -- or by holding a
session shorter than 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Our cost was free to participants and
included a luncheon.)

6. The conference itself can generate material for additional use to B'nai
B'rith and other organizations.

This material is presented to B'nai B'rith worldwide so that you might
participate in similar conferences in your own countries as a way of reaching
those individuals who can influence governments to oppose the politicization
of worthwhile United Nations efforts.

Organization of a similar conference involves finding appropriate spokesmen
who can also provide insights into the origins of the Z = R campaign, its
impact and the possible ways to fight it.

We have chosen not to remain silent about this issue because we remember that
the Holocaust began not with ovens but with words. What follows are the
speeches from the conference and the resolutions adopted by the participants.

Warren W. Eisenberg, Director
International Council of B'nai B'rith

Zionism Equals Racism: An Assault on Human Rights
By Jeff Rubin, BBI Communications

"We assemble to break the silence. To launch a determined effort to end
the abomination and obscenity of the U.N. resolution (3379) that states
'Zionism equals racism.'" With these words B'nai B'rith International
President Gerald Kraft set the tone for a day-long seminar that examined the
origin and effects of the November 10, 1975 resolution.

The seminar, held in early December atthe U.S. Department of State, was
sponsored by B'nai B'rith International, the World Zionist Organization and
the World Jewish Congress. According to Uzi Narkiss, chairman of the WZO
Information Department, this was the second of five WZO-sponsored conferences
on "Zionism equals racism" to be held before the tenth anniversary of the U.N.
vote in 1985.

Representatives from over 50 Jewish organizations participated in the
seminar while foreign diplomats from the United Kingdom, Greece, Zaire, West
Germany, Austria, France and Haiti attended briefly to demonstrate their
governments' support.

Representing official Washington were Assistant Secretary of State for
Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Elliot Abrams, who hosted the seminar,
and Marshall Breger, special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was clearly
the most eagerly awaited and warmly appreciated speaker of the day. For the
past four years, Kirkpatrick has led an exasperating and almost solitary fight
against anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli resolutions in the United Nations.

"It is difficult to believe the obsessive quality of the campaign against
Israel, where any occasion can be turned into an assault on Israel," she said.
"I felt rather bad for my new Israeli colleague at the United Nations,
Ambassador [Benjamin] Netanyahu, at the thought of the horrors he would
encounter. I felt certain that he did not understand how difficult and how
intense the assault against Israel is."

Kirkpatrick asserted: "The Zionism equals racism resolution is less a
slogan than a program for the delegitimization and disappearance of the State
of Israel. The resolution symbolizes an alliance between the Arab and African
nations in which the Arabs vote with Africa on questions involving South
Africa and the Africans vote with the Arabs on questions involving Israel.
And, of course, the Soviet Union can always be counted upon to join a


All of the speakers agreed that the Soviets played a significant role in
the adoption of the Zionism equals racism resolution. Israeli Ambassador to
the United States Meir Rosenne stated, "In 1975 it was certainly the Arab
states that took the initiative with this resolution. But the Soviet Union is
the source of this evil doctrine."

Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations when the resolution was adopted, charged: "The disastrous showing of
the Soviet Union's clients in the 1967 Six-Day Warl apparently prompted the
Soviets to launch the ambitious propaganda campaign that led ultimately to
November 10, 1975."

Philip Lax, chairman of the International Council of B'nai B'rith, took
Moynihan's comments one step further. Lax noted that in the fall of 1975, the
Soviet government undertook a major campaign to discredit Zionism within the
Soviet Union. When the Zionism equals racism resolution was proposed, he
said, the Soviets not only became a sponsor but served as a prime force behind
its acceptance.

Once the motion was passed and accorded the legitimacy of an official
U.N. document, the Soviets then used it as the basis for a "new and clearly
orchestrated anti-Zionist campaign that exceeded in scope and magnitude even
previous efforts." Lax drew his remarks from a recent article prepared by Dr.
William Korey, B'nai B'rith director of international policy planning.

According to Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, vice president of the World Jewish
Congress, the Soviets still use this resolution to justify repression of
Jewish cultural activities.


"What were the proponents of the resolution seeking to achieve?" asked
Tommy T.B. Koh, Singapore's ambassador to the United States. "They were
seeking to delegitimize the very moral basis on which the State of Israel was
founded. It was part of the campaign to isolate Israel, to pressure her to
change some of her policies and to question her legitimacy. Since Singapore
recognized the State of Israel we therefore felt that it would be wrong for us
to support the resolution." Koh, who served as Singapore's ambassador to the
United Nations for 13 years, cast his country's vote of abstention on the
Zionism equals racism resolution.

But Ambassador Koh believes that the resolution has not achieved the
objective of isolating Israel. "I do not think that the passage of the
Resolution has persuaded the majority of Third World countries to accept the
proposition that Zionism is a form of racism or that Israel is an illegitimate
state. Indeed, the passage of the resolution created a backlash of sympathy
for Israel."

Koh also believes that by supporting the Zionism equals racism
resolution, Third World countries did a disservice to themselves and to the
United Nations. "When the Third World or a part of it abuses power in the
General Assembly and rams through resolutions that are untrue or unprincipled
or inflammatory, they do tremendous damage to the credibility of the
institution. If the world stops regarding the U.N. General Assembly as its
common jury and starts to view it as a forum that distorts the truth, then
small and militarily weak countries have lost the principal forum through
which their voices can be heard."

Still another point on Third World involvement was made by Rabbi Arthur
Hertzberg, who said, "The Third World comes to the world order and says, 'For
all those generations of colonialism and exploitation you owe us something.'
The most coloni lized, the most exploited people in the western world are the
Jews who were brought to Europe 18 or 19 centuries ago as slaves and made to
live in a difiereit polity and to find their way with great difficulty. Those
in the Th:rd World who would denounce Zionism undercall there own moral claim
upon the world for any special consideration."

Rosenne asserted that the resolution has provided Arab states with "a
powerful weapon to all who reject any thought of establishing normal relations
with the State of Israel [and] discouraged any thoughtful, nonviolent
moderates in the more enlightened circles of educators, journalists and other
opinion-molders. Western nations did not grasp the full magnitude of the
system by which each such text is translated and disseminated by the millions
throughout the world. This resolution has found its way into thousands of
universities, libraries, schools, churches and other such institutions. And
in this manner, the distortion of the principles of the U.N. has even been
insinuated into textbooks used in high schools and even primary schools --
poisoning receptive young minds."

Kirkpatrick noted, "Because of the perversion of language and law that is
associated with the campaign against Israel, the General Assembly is unable to
do any of the constructive tasks it might otherwise do. For example, we
cannot act against terrorism, because terrorism is defined in terms of
national liberation movements that are defined as having all rights when they
act against 'illegitimate' regimes such as the State of Israel."


In order to return the United Nations to its founding principles and to
prevent any further outrages against Israel, Western democracies must assert
themselves within the world body, Kirkpatrick contended. "The United Nations
is a political system in which very hardball politics is played by the
Soviets, the Soviet bloc and some Arab states.

"I don't think that we should engage in arm twisting but I do believe
that we should systematically engage in politics in the U.N. in the effort not
only to restore our influence but to restore the body to its own constructive

Kirkpatrick claimed that the United States has made headway toward
cracking'the African-Arab-Soviet block alliance. "We have worked very hard to
persuade nations to vote their own national interest rather than to vote with
a bloc. One way we have done that is to let them know that their own national
interest may be involved: that there may be rewards for constructive behavior
at the United Nations and penalties for despicable behavior. We have shown
that we will remember their behavior and that we care about it."

Kirkpatrick said that Americans can assist in this effort by monitoring
and publicizing events at the United Nations. She praised a brochure
published by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith two years ago which
listed the voting record of the states in the United Nations and showed that

the United States voted with Israel more often than any other country. "The
collection and the dissemination of that kind of information, the utilization
of it in law-making and the communication of it to all the countries with whom
we are associated are the tools of politics and the tools on which we should
rely. B'nai B'rith has done an admirable job in this regard," she said.

Seminar participants voted to adopt a statement denouncing the U.N.
resolution and calling upon international organizations to oppose this
"campaign of slander against Zionism and the Jewish people." Conferees also
approved a sense-of-the-Congress resolution currently introduced in the House
of Representatives which would express America's determination to withhold
support from United Nations organizations which base their activities on the
Zionism equals racism resolution. The measure would also call upon the United
Nations to revoke the anti-Zionist resolution.

Reflecting on her term in the United Nations, Kirkpatrick summed up the
history and future of the Zionism equals racism resolution: "The lie that
Zionism is racism has already spread far and damaged many. That lie will only
be expunged when it is pursued not only with the purpose of demonstrating that
as to the facts it is incorrect -- and it is incorrect as to the facts -- but
to demonstrate that its consequences are deadly for all of us and for the
institutions that should promote peace and improve our society.

"I think that the challenge is enormous. I think that we cannot forget
this vile lie as long as it circulates in the world. I believe that it is the
clear moral responsibility for all of us to refuse to ignore it and to call
attention to just how revolting and obscene it remains."

"Zionism Equals Racism -- An Assault on Human Rights"

December 10, 1984
U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.

Hosted by

Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams

Sponsored by

World Zionist Organization World Jewish Congress B'nai B'rith International

10:00 a.m. 12 Noon

Gerald Kraft.................................President of B'nai B'rith International

General Uzi Narkis.................Chairman, Information Department, W.Z.O. Jerusalem

Elliot Abrams.....Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Ambassador T.B.Koh.........................Ambassador of Singapore to the United States

Professor Arthur Hertzberg ....................Vice President, World Jewish Congress

Philip Lax.............................Chairman, International Council of B'nai B'rith

Questions and Discussion

Lunch will be served from 12 noon to 12:45 p.m.

12:45 p.m. 1:30 p.m.

Frieda S. Lewis......................Chairman, World Jewish Congress, American Section

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan ........................ Senior Senator from New York

Ambassador Meir Rosenne........................Israel's Ambassador to the United States

1:40 p.m. 5:00 p.m.

Bernice S. Tannenbaum...........Chairman, World Zionist Organization, American Section

Professor Marshall Breger........Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison

Questions and Discussion

Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick ....................U.S. Ambassador to the United States


Questions and Discusc',n


Andrei Sakharov called it an "abomination," Leonard Garment an "obscene act,"
and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom you will hear later, said it was a "terrible
lie." These unusually blunt and sharp characterizations of the infamous
"Zionism Equals Racism" resolution of November 10, 1975 still could not
capture the harm and evil which the U.N. action had perpetrated.

The language constitutes a massive assault upon human dignity which explains
the appropriateness of our meeting today -- Human Rights Day -- to evaluate
the impact of the resolution and to consider means for countering it.

Ten years ago, by arbitrary fiat, a sizeable majority -- 72 to 35 with 32
abstentions -- ruled that standard dictionaries and historical evidence were
in error in defining Zionism as a form of national liberation, or of
self-determination. It was redefined as evil -- as racism and racial

It is disturbing that the U.N. could be responsive to thought-manipulation and
speech-distortion. But it is hardly surprising. The bulk of support for the
Resolution came from totalitarian or non-democratic regimes. And it was the
democracies that largely comprised the opposition.

But what is critical from our perspective is less the corruption of meaning as
much as the purposes of the resolution. One was clear enough: The
delegitimization of the State of Israel. If Israel's foundation and
philosophy rested upon evil itself, then the state could to be transformed
first into pariah and then excluded from civilized society..

The resolution became the basis for a flow of endless diatribes against
Israel, both in and out of the U.N., as well as repeated plans for the
suspension of the Jewish state from the world community. By denigrating
Zionism, the Jewish state was ultimately to be dehumanized, a process which
the world ought to have learned from the Nazis. Strikingly, the vote at the
U.N. -- November 10 -- was taken on the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht in
Nazi Germany when the windows of synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses were
smashed. That was part of the dehumanizing process that led to the gas

A second, less overt, purpose would also become apparent -- the legitimization
of anti-Semitism. In the post-war period and after the Holocaust, it was no
longer fashionable to publicly deride the Jew, but if the assault upon him
could be masqueraded as anti-Zionism, a sanction for poisonous propaganda
could be employed.

And, indeed, this is how anti-Semitism in the world body won a new lease on
life, justified by the U.N. itself, a body which ironically had come into
existence to prevent a repetition of the Holocaust. The nature of debate at
the U.N. has plummeted to new lows. Some ambassadors now feel free to give vent
to hate-filled harangues which echo the ratings of Joseph Paul Goebbels.
Last year's session of the General Assembly was especially notorious for the
public airing of vitriolic canards.

But the sanctioning of hatred of Jews extends far beyond the U.N. itself,
governments also use it, most notably the Kremlin, in its propaganda campaign
against Jewry, cloaks its arguments against emigration of Soviet Jews to
Israel in the garb of anti-Zionism. The latest campaign to intimidate Jews
from associating with their religion and their heritage is being conducted
against Hebrew teachers. The Soviet government has recently arrested Hebrew
teachers, one of them, Yuli Edelshtein, is being held on trumped up
drug-connected charges. Another Aleksandr Kholmiansky is being threatened
with arrest, the aim of the Soviets is to crush the spirit of freedom, of
dissidence, of Zionism. And while the resisters use legal tactics the
Soviet government, does not. It uses threats, deceit and hate, what is worse,
numerous non-governmental organizations and movements also trumpet the hate
legitimized by the U.N.

At stake is not merely verbiage, words have consequences. The sage Abraham
Joshua Heschel has cautioned post-Holocaust society that the Holocaust did not
begin with the gas chambers; it began with defamation.

Too often silence has greeted the bigotry, whether at the U.N. or when voiced by
powerful regimes. Permit me to remind you of the wisdom of Edmund Burke;
"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent."

It is to break the silence that we assemble here today. To launch a
determined effort to end the abomination and obscenity of "Zionism equals
racism," to nail the "terrible lie." At stake is dignity of the Jew as
individual and as a community.

Our symposium, which will run until 4 p.m., is divided into three sections:
The first, chaired by me, deals with the background on the Zionism is Racism
Resolution; the second session, chaired by Freda Lewis, chairman of the
American Section of the World Jewish Congress, deals with the destructiveness
of this resolution; the third session, chaired by Bernice Tannenbaum, chairman
of the American Section of the World Zionist Organization, examines what we
can do to expunge this resolution.

General Uzi Narkis
Chairman, Information Department, World Zionist Organization

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

First, I would like to thank all those who were instrumental in planning this
Study Day. It is, I believe, a most suitable topic for Human Rights Day.

Actually this study day, like the inscription on Liberty Bell, "Proclaim
liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof," also began in
Israel. This is the second in a series of four seminars dealing with the
malicious "Zionism Equals Racism" equation. The first, under auspices of Mr.
Chaim Herzog, the President of Israel, was held at the presidential residence
in Jerusalem.

At that study day, Senator Moynihan and Father Benjamin Nunez, who were the
representatives of the U.S. and of Costa Rica to the U.N. when it adopted its
resolution of ill-will to Israel and to all men of goodwill throughout the
civilized world, explained again what the authors of the resolution really

Exactly 66 years before the Jerusalem conference on combatting anti-Zionism
was convened, the First World War came to an end when the western democracies
defeated totalitarian regimes. It took another 26 years and another world war
for the forces of democracy, humanitarianism and the dignity of man to
establish the United Nations. That organization was meant to pave the road to
a horizon of ever expanding brotherhood and to place an immovable barrier
before totalitarianism and repression, cynicism and war.

How ironic that the aims of the organization which grew out of the horrors of
World War TI -- horrors for the whole world and particular anguish for the
Jews who lost 1/3 of their numbers -- how ironic that the U.N. became the seat
of intolerance.

It was too soon after Hitler decimated Jewry in his gas chambers to be openly
anti-Semitic -- too soon even for the USSR and for the Arab sponsors of the
resolution. So in blatant double-think they decided to proffer another
scapegoat for all the world's ills. Zionism, Israel and the Jewish People
were all lumped into the venomous equation that Zionism ostensibly equals

They had discovered that Israel was the exposed bastion of democracy in the
Middle East and that Zionism, its ideological parent could be attacked with
impunity. What a windfall this discovery was for the anti-democratic forces
at the U.N. For with one well-aimed stone they could down two birds. By
attacking Israel -- which is a progressive society, a true parliamentary
democracy, universalist in outlook, having a culture with a fiercely held
belief in the moral principles of the biblical prophets -- they would also
defame its sister democracies. The truths they would dearly like to undermine
are the truths that your forefathers held to be self-evident: that all men
are created equal and that they are endowed with the rights of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. To the totalitarian communists and to
repressive regimes of those Arab countries who were among the sponsors of the
cynicn] Zionism-Racism resolution, these are not self-evident truths.

The misguided acquiescence of all the nations at the U.N. who do not belong to
the camp of the enemies of Israel and of democracy was a sorry moment for the
U.N. From that ill-starred day at the General Assembly in 1975 other agencies
of the U.N. too, have been deflected from their proper work. Most notable
among these is the sad state of UNESCO. Rather than deal with the mandate
implicit in its name: the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization which was supposed to further world peace by removing social,
religious and racial tensions, it has opted for increasing those very
tensions. It has perverted the intent of its founders through the
introduction of exclusively political denunciations of the State of Israel.
They have brought to the U.N. its blackest hour when countries such as Great
Britain and the U.S. must consider withdrawing from that body.

In the face of the sorry state of the United Nations and of its implications
for the free world I am glad, that we opened our campaign in Jerusalem,
continuing here today in Washington; in March 1985 in Paris, in May in London;
and in July in Buenos Aires. If we shall succeed in convincing the
enlightened nations of the world -- leading moral personalities, indeed world
public -- opinion it shall be a double achievement. First, we will forestall
further damage to the Jewish people and to Zionism, its movement of national
liberation. They didn't really believe their own wicked equation of Zionism
with Racism any more than did the cartoonists of Der Sturmer who affixed
grotesque noses on the faces of "their" Jews. It merely served as a symbol, a
negative feeling.

Second, the benefit of a successful campaign shall not be reaped by Israel
alone. Paradoxically it will also help save the U.N. from its worst enemy:
itself. This campaign might rid the U.N. of the downhill rhetoric of
radicalism and might also stop the deterioration of the organization into the
circus of the moral vacumm of the absurd. Let this campaign free the United
Nations to once again take up the enlightened agenda its founders intended:
proclaim liberty, pursue justice, support, democracy, underwrite peace.

The Resolution and its Consequences

Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams

I am honored and delighted to be with you here today to discuss the impact of
the infamous United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. I can
think of no better occasion on which to hold a conference on this issue than
on Human Rights Day. Thirty-six years ago today, on December 10, 1948, the
General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Declaration, Americans believed, would embody the consensus of the
international community on behalf of human rights and individual liberty. And
the U.N., we hoped, would be the instrument through which the observance of
human rights would be endorsed by the international community.

If these early dreams and expectations seem seriously compromised today, if
the prestige of the U.N. is seriously eroded, part of the reason has to do
with the concentrated assault which the U.N. has waged against Zionism and
against Israel. When the U.N. was founded, the American Jewish community was
one of its staunchest supporters. Indeed, it seemed to many Jews at the time
that the creation of the United Nations, like the creation of the State of
Israel, was a kind of "answer" to the Holocaust, a guarantee that such horrors
would never be repeated -- not to Jews, not to Christians, not to anyone.

What actually happened, of course, is that the United Nations, far from
preventing the re-emergence of anti-Semitism, has actually helped to
legitimize it. It's easy to understand how this all came about. The U.N. is
dominated by a bloc of over 90 states unknown as the Non-Aligned Movement, or
NAM. This is the famous -- or rather the infamous -- "Automatic Majority" one
hears so much about. The P.L.O., though not a state, is a member of the NAM,
and plays a central role in formulating its Middle East policy. Since the NAM
dominates the U.N. by virtue of its numbers, it was only to be expected that
the U.N. would eventually endorse the P.L.O.'s view of Israel and Zionism.
This obscene event actually came to pass on November 10, 1975, when the
General Assembly adopted a resolution defining Zionism as a "Form of racism
and racial discrimination."

Looking back on that event today, it is instructive to recall the debate which
ensued at the time over the resolution's significance. On the one hand, there
were observers like the great human rights activist and Nobel Peace prize
laureate, Andrei Sakharov, who warned that the U.N. had given anti-Semitism
the appearance of international sanction. On the other hand, there were those
who felt that the Jewish community should not "overreact" to the anti-Zionism
resolution. After all, they argued, the U.N. is an unreal "talkshop" in any
case, and the anti-Zionism resolution is no more than a few words on a scrap
of paper. How can such things matter in the real world?

Today, however, we know that words do matter, that ideas do count. And we also
know that the anti-Zionist resolution was a watershed event in modern Jewish
history. As the British historian Paul Johnson recently put it: "It was true
that the [anti-Zionist] vote was merely on paper. But the real danger of the
U.N. was that paper majorities tended to grow into real policies: The corrupt
arithmetic of the General Assembly, ';here in the seventies votes could be
bought by arms or even by personal bribes delegates, tended to become
imperceptibly the convention~] wiscoi of society."

Tommy T. B. Koh
Singapore Ambassador to U.S.

The U.N. Resolution Equating Zionism with Racism -
Its Imnact on the Third World and the U.N.

Although nine years have passed since the adoption by the U.N. General
Assembly of a resolution equating Zionism with Racism, I still remember the
circumstances surrounding its adoption vividly. The issue first surfaced in
Mexico at the Incernational Conference on Women in the summer of 1975. It was
then raised at the U.N. General Assembly in the fall of the same year. I must
confess that at that point I knew very little about Zionism. I therefore,
decided to read some of the literature on Zionism. I read the writings of
Theodor Herzl and other Zionist leaders. After reading them, I felt that the
Zionist movement was similar to the National Liberation Movements of the Third
World. It was therefore factually incorrect to describe Zionism as a form of
racial Discrimination.

What were the proponents of the resolution seeking to achieve? They were
seeking to de-legitimize the very moral basis on which the State of Israel was
founded.' It was part of the campaign to isolate Israel, to pressurize her to
change some of her policies and to question the legitimacy of the State of
Israel. Since Signapore recognized the State of Israel we therefore felt that
it would be wrong for us to support the resolution.

Has the resolution achieved its objective in the Third World? I do not think
that the passage of the Resolution by the U.N. has persuaded the majority of
the countries of the Third World to accept the proposition that Zionism is a
form of racism or that Israel is an illegitimate state.

Indeed, the passage of the resolution created a backlash of sympathy for
Israel. Some of the supporters of the resolution later regretted their
decision. I recall, for example, that President Echevaria of Mexico actually
went to Israel to apologize for his delegation's vote for the resolution at
the U.N.

What approaches might best be followed to counter the effects of the
resolution in the Third World? I would suggest three approaches. First, the
government of Israel should attempt to disseminate information in the Third
World about Zionism. In 1975, I found that most of my friends at the U.N.,
including those who had voted for the resolution, knew little or nothing about
Zionism and had never read the writings of Zionist leaders such as Herzl.
Second, the government of Israel and its allies in the West, should continue
to persuade its friends in the Third World to refrain from supporting
resolutions, declarations and other documents at various international forums
in which the proposition Zionism is a form of Racism can be found. Third, the
best thing Israel can do to counter the effect of the resolution is to
scrupulously practice racial equality at home. If the Arab minority within
Israel were treated on terns of absolute equality with other Israeli citizens,
this would be the best refutation of the charge that Zionism is racist.

Precisely because the impact of the anti-Zionist resolution has been gradual
and imperceptible, its evil effects are often difficult to trace with any
degree of certainty. Yet there are also cases where it is less difficult to
demonstrate how the Zionism-as-Racism resolution has affected public opinion.
I would like briefly to discuss one such example this afternoon.

I'm sure that all of you were as appalled as I was by the distorted manner in
which much of the American media reported the war in Lebanon. Yet is seems to
me that perhaps the most extraordinary episode of this entire affair was the
way in which much of the German press covered the war. As a German observer,
Frank Offenbach, put it in a recent issue of Encounter magazine (April, '83),
the kind of vocabulary used to describe Israeli actions in Lebanon, "Has not
been seen in the German press since the end of World War II -- and indeed the
terminology was intended to suggest the comparison with the Nazi destruction
of the Jews. Their reports were full of 'The Final Solution'
(Endlosung)...'Murder of a People' (Volkermord)...'War of Annihilation'
(Vernichtungskrieg)...'Holocaust'...'Genocide'..."etc. Endlosung, Volkermord,
Vernichtungskrieg: These words have a terrible history attached to them.
That they should be used by German journalists to describe Israeli policies is
a staggering development."

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that coverage of the Lebanon
War was worse in Germany than anywhere else; I don't think it was, it probably
was not. What I am saying is that the German press -- the liberal,
progressive German press -- would never have dared to equate Israel with the
Nazis had the ground for such a comparison not been carefully prepared years
ago by the United Nations when it equated Zionism with Racism. The corrupt
arithmetic of the General Assembly had indeed become the "conventional wisdom"
of international society -- or at least of that part of international society
which likes to think of itself as "enlightened" and "progressive." I believe,
therefore, that I am justified in concluding that the impact of the Zionism as
racism resolution has been enormous, and that, by serving to legitimize
anti-Semitism, it continues to pose a major threat to the survival of Israel
and the Jewish people.

Yet precisely because it is so vulgar, so obscene, such a perversion of
language itself, the equation of Zionism with racism may also have an
unintended, salutary effect. Its very perversity reminds us that we have real
enemies in the world, that their enmity is not the result of some peculiar
misunderstanding which can easily be rectified, but is an unyielding fact of
life, to be faced and dealt with accordingly. For the United States, for
Israel, for the other democracies, and for the Jewish people, the world is
indeed a dangerous place.

I am delighted that you are holding this conference here today. For in doing
so, you have demonstrated that you understand that in addition to military
threats, in addition to economic threats, in addition to strategic threats, we
must also learn to cope with ideological threats. Indeed, marshalling the
intellectual and political resources to cope with all these challenges is the
great moral imperative of our time.

What has been the effect of the resolution on the United Nations? I think the
most damaging effect of the resolution has been on the United Nations. One of
the utilities of the U.N. is that it is a forum in which the small and
militarily weak countries can have a voice. Its resolutions and decisions can
have an impact on world public opinion so long as the U.N. is viewed by the
international community as expressing the decent opinion of mankind. For
these reasons, the U.N. is, therefore, extremely important to the countries of
the Third World. But, when the Third World or a part of it abuses its power
in the General Assembly and rams through resolutions which are untrue or
unprincipled or inflammatory, they do tremendous damage to the credibility of
the institution. If the world stops regarding the U.N. General Assembly as
its common jury and starts to view it as a forum which distorts the truth,
then the small and militarily weak countries would have lost the principal
forum through which their voices can be heard.

Professor Arthur Hertzberg
Vice President, World Jewish Congress

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Since I am a believer I don't think there
are any accidents. I am very delighted to be following Ambassador Koh,
because the things I am going to be saying this morning are very much in the
spirit, Mr. Ambassador, of what you have said. I deeply regret, by the way,
that my old friend and sparring partner, Secretary Abrams is not in the room
because we've been playing "Two For the Seesaw", for quite a while and we are
going to play it again this morning.

Secretary Abrams spoke in the spirit of that side of our democratic policy,
both American and world Jewish -- and we American Jews live at the
intersection of the two -- which views the world outside the democratic camp
in all of its nastiness and cries out in Manichean fashion that this is headed
by an empire of evil.

There is another side to our American perception as we know from the very
White House to which the Secretary has repaired. That other side of the
American perception and -- as I shall soon develop -- of our Jewish
perception, follows after the feeling of Ambassador Koh, which is that with
that empire of evil, no matter how evil it may be, one has to live on the same
planet. With those characters in the Arab world who delight in calling
Zionism racism, we will ultimately have to find some ways of making peace,
which means building the bridge. With the Third World in particular, that
automatic majority in that tragic talking shop of the U.N. General Assembly,
we are going to have to find some way, as Ambassador Koh said, so very
eloquently and very elegantly, we are going to have to find some way of making
them understand that they are off on the wrong track.

And therefore I am not going to preach to the converted, to the Democratic
camp, American, Jewish, worldwide Jewish community here assembled, I am going
to preach a bit to the unconverted. Our motivations in Zionism, our internal
Jewish motivations in Zionism come from deep in our religion, they come from
the deepest wellsprings of our being. But when you talk with an Arab who was
born in Jaffa and who is now living in Beirut or Paris, the only thing that
you can say to him that makes any sense is the notion that Zionism is
essentially a form of affirmative action. Zionism in the world is a claim of
a displaced and homeless people after twenty centuries of exile for the right
to some little bit of normalcy and therefore for some unequal redress in the
20th Century, for the wrongs of many centuries before.

This is our moral claim upon the world order. That is -- as you said so
well, so beautifully, Mr. Ambassador -- that is precisely what the moral claim
of the Third World upon us, upon the rest of the world is today. It is why
these many billions upon billions with which the banking structure is
overlaid, with which the third world is being supported and without even a
thank you. Because the Third World comes to the world order and says for all
of the generations of colonialism and exploitation, I use the famous code
words, 'You owe us something, you owe us something.'

The most coionialized, the most exploited people in the western world were the
Jews who were brought there 18 or 19 centuries ogo as slaves and made to live
in some different polity and to find their way with great difficulty.
Therefore those in the Third World who would denounce Zionism undercall their
own moral claim upon the world for any special consideration. Those in the
Third World who would call us colonialists and say, 'What right have they to
one-time redress,' must ask the question, 'By what right does the Third World
behave, or parts of it, as it does.'

Let me make two other observations. First, an observation about the Soviet
Union. The World Jewish Congress is supremely aware that there are Jews not
only within the western democracies, there are Jews in Hungary and Rumania and
a handful in Poland, and a very large community in the Soviet Union, all of
whom are part of the world Jewish polity. And what we want for them is not an
overturn of the regime, we don't dream of that, we don't imagine it. We know
that that isn't going to be, we know it as Americans, we certainly know it as
Jews. What we are looking for is the day when unlike what has been going on
on Soviet television in the last month, my colleagues at Columbia and the
Harriman Institute tell me that for the last month on the evening news there
have been bitter attacks on Zionism. The only thing that they haven't used is
the phrase, "racism." This is an internal struggle between hard liners and
moderates, a battle which is not unknown to other societies.

Now let us remind the Soviet Union, let me remind it, if I may, from this
platform, on behalf of at least some very serious opinion in the world Jewish
community, that we remember that in World War II the Soviet Union saved the
lives of hundreds of thousands of Jews, who were refugees within it. We
remember very well Mr. Gromyko's speech in the United Nations when the
Partition Resolution which created the State of Israel was voted. We remember
very well that part of Soviet legality in theory is the right of nationalities
and the right to national identities and national cultures within the Soviet
Union. We call upon the Soviet Union, that opinion for which I speak here, to
remember its better nature, and to remember that in the long run if we must
live in the same world with "it," it must live in the same world with us.

It is particularly -- and I am going to use a very undiplomatic word -- it is
particularly swinish, for Zionism is racism is to be hurled by forces which
know very well, that in the forefront in the battle against apartheid there
has been the world Jewish community. When the Decade Against Racism was
announced, the World Jewish Congress in its' 75 plenum in Jerusalem passed a
very strong resolution against all forms of discrimination, based upon race,
creed and any other kind of separatist identity.

Sitting here in Washington back in February of '83 we repeated that
resolution. We repeated that resolution only more strongly. And it is of
course true that the United Nations exists or was created, as Secretary Abrams
said, to make an end of Nazism, to turn an historic corner. It needs to be
recalled to its truest purpose.

Now, from the point of view of these reflections our outcry on this Human
Rights Day, is an outcry to those who would abuse human rights, by choosing up
sides, and by trying to create a world in which there are no bridges of
moderation and of civility. We cannot survive -- whoever the "we" may be, not
great powers, not small powers, not great powers on our side, not great powers
on the other side, not small powers on either side -- we cannot survive if we
divide the world into two enemy camps bristling with bombs and bristling with
the nastiest possible kinds of slogans.

The only thing that can possibly end this canard of Zionism is racism, is the
patience which will bring understanding into the other side, to make it
understand that by hurling this charge it is undercalling its own civility,
its own decency, its own right of existence. And so, let the Third World take
heed, its claim upon the world is no less or no more good than that of
Zionism, let the Russians take heed, d'entente whatever name you may call it
-- by, d'entente includes the end of rhetoric and the beginning again of
decency, within their borders and in their relationship to the rest of the

Let the racists the true racists in the world, those who really detest
human rights -- take heed that the Jewish community, world Jewry, is united
in one feeling. We are not deflected or deterred by calumnies hurled at us
from our irrevocable commitment to human equality, everywhere in the world.

Philip Lax
Chairman, International Council of B'nai B'rith

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in his book about the U.N., has documented the
extraordinary role of the USSR in the adoption of the "Zionism equals racism"
resolution by the General Assembly. His focus was on external considerations
-- the delegitimization of the State of Israel.

But what was undoubtedly of equal and perhaps greater importance in Soviet
motivations were internal considerations. Close analysis of Soviet propaganda
in newspapers, journals and books during 1975 and afterwards illuminates these
considerations. Probably nowhere else has the U.N. resolution received the
massive attention and endorsement as it has in the USSR.

While not generally known, the fall of 1974 marked a new stage in the Soviet
anti-Semitic propaganda drive, masquerading as anti-Zionism. The Central
Committee of the Communist Party prepared a secret directive entitled "Plan of
Measures to Strenghten Anti-Zionism Propaganda and Improve Patriotic and
National Education of the Workers and Youth." The 7-point "plan" which was
sent to every Party district committee specifically called for
"intensification of the struggle against the anti-Soviet activity of Zionism"
and ordered that a special group of lecturers from the atheist-promotion
society, "Znanie" (or "Knowledge") be selected "to give lectures on Zionist
themes" everywhere in the USSR.

What was missing from the new campaign was the kind of moral sanction that
could provide an ideological legitimacy to the campaign which had clear
anti-Semitic overtones. There was discouragingly little on the subject of
Zionism in the sacred writings of Bolshevism's founding fathers, including
V.I. Lenin, to offer a justification for the media drive. Indeed, the
inherent bigotry, as some sensitive foreign Communists noted, did violence to
classical Marxism and especially to Lenin. It was for this reason that the
Kremlin could and did seize upon the U.N. "Zionism equals racism" resolution
when the resolution was initially mooted at the General Assembly in the fall
of 1975, and the Soviet Union became its great champion. That resolution
could offer a rationalization for virulent anti-Zionism that was international
in character and that sprung from the single most prominent global

As a result of the secret Central Committee directive, 1975 saw an outpouring
of vicious anti-Semitism, almost unparalleled in the Soviet Union. Viciously
bigoted writings by Vladimir Begun, Dimitri Zhukov, Trafim Kichko, Yevgenii
Yevseev, and Urio Ivanov -- the most infamous and notorious of Soviet
anti-Semites -- suddenly appeared. Their articles, ready by millions, echoed
the themes of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, particularly that the
Zionists, prompted by the Judaic "Chosen People" concept, seek to dominate
world society.

It was precisely at the moment when the Soviet mass media campaign against
Zionism was mounting that the United Nations adopted on November 10, 1975 the
resolution equating Zionism with racism. The reaction in the U.S.S.R., not
surprisingly, was enthusiastic. What the U.S.S.R. had been incessantly
preaching had now acquired an international sanction. Indeed, Soviet
delegates at the U.N. were vigorously lobbying for the resolution of which Cuba,
its proxy, was a prime mover and of which the Soviet Union was itself a
sponsor. As if by signal, the Soviet press launched a monumental effort both
to land the U.N. resolution and to intrepret its meaning and significance. The
new and clearly orchestrated anti-Zionist campaign now exceeded in scope and
magnitude even previous efforts.

Pravda hailed the U.N. resolution as "authoritative." Komsomolskaia Pravda
called it "a very important document." Moscow Pravda explained that "the
world forum of the peoples of our planet has nailed Zionism to the pillory of
history" and this demonstrated that "the great majority of the peoples of the
world...resolutely demand the eradication of that [Zionism] from our planet."

The leading farm journal of the USSR referred to the U.N. action as an
"authoritative condemnation" that carried "great political significance."
Izvestiia and Pravda Ukrainy produced long articles with the headlines,
borrowed from the resolution's language," Zionism -- A Forum of Racism." Some
articles were especially poisonous, such as one in Komsomolskaia Pravda which
took the occasion to warmly endorse anti-Semitic statements of Henry Ford.
The principal ideological journal of the Party, Kommunist closed the year 1975
with an elaborate commentary on the U.N. resolution and Zionism.

From 1975 until the present, the U.N. resolution on "Zionism equals racism"
became the point of departure for Soviet books dealing with Zionism, which
incidentally were also replete with anti-Jewish hate-mongering. Several score
of such volumes have been published. Most significant was the volume written
by a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, Lydia Modzhorian, a specialist
on international jurisprudence. Her book was appropriately entitled Zionism
as a Form of Racial Discrimination, the precise language of the U.N. resolution
itself. The Modzhorian book became a standard Soviet work on the subject of
Zionism. The U.N. resolution was shown as providing the legitimization of the
struggle against Zionism conducted in the USSR and elsewhere.

It was exactly fifty years ago, that a presiding judge in a historic Swiss
trial'dealing with the authenticity of Protocols of the Elders of Zion offered
some pertinent comments. "I hope that one day there will come a time when no
one will any longer comprehend how in the year 1935 almost a dozen fully
sensible and reasonable men could for fourteen days torment their brains
before a court of Berne over the authenticity ... of these so-called Protocols
... [which] are nothing but ridiculous nonsense." That an international
institution and a major society can subscribe to similar "ridiculous nonsense"
that Zionism is racism is equally distressing. As we enter into the tenth
year of a resolution which has sustained and reinforced anti-Semitism, no more
so than in the USSR, it is appropriate to raise the question of how much
longer will civilization be burdened by such bigotry.

Significantly, some progress has been recorded. A previous U.N. sponsored
"Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination" had later included
specific programmatic references to the "Zionism equals racism" resolution of
1975. As a consequence, the United States and various West European countries

refused to participate in the "Decade's" activities. And African countries
have become increasingly concerned that the "Zionism equals racism" resolution
acts as an obstacle to the struggle against apartheid and racial

The U.N. General Assembly Third Committee, several weeks ago, adopted by
consensus an Ethiopian draft resolution on a Second U.N. Decade to Combat Racism
and Racial Discrimination which carries no reference to "Zionism equals
racism." Strikingly, the USSR, together with its allies and radical Third
World delegations, made intense efforts to incorporate the reference. The
Kremlin, clearly, regards the 1975 resolution as critical to its current
ideological interests and concerns. A rebuff to its determination is to some
extent encouraging. But a decisive step can come only with the rollback of
the malicious and incendiary resolution itself. That must remain the goal of
those committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Frieda S. Lewis
Chairman, World Jewish Congress, American Section

It is my distinct honor, on behalf of the World Jewish Congress, to chair this
session and introduce its two distinguished speakers.

In joining the sponsorship of today's symposium, the World Jewish Congress,
representing the Jewish communities of sixty-eight countries, is underlining
the central proposition that the equation of Zionism with racism was a slander
against the Jewish people as a whole.

The World Jewish Congress has more than just a passing interest about what
happens at the United Nations. As a longstanding non-governmental organi-
zation with consultative status at the U.N., we continue to support the
principles and purposes of the U.N. Charter. Nevertheless, the founding
president of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Nahum Goldmann, summed up our
feelings in his formal response nearly ten years ago to the adoption of the
infamous resolution. He said, "This resolution is a travesty of historical
facts and a defamation of the national liberation movement of a people which,
for two millennia, was deprived of a national existence and the right of
self-determination and was subjected to most cruel persecution.

"This resolution does more harm to the prestige of the United Nations than it
does to Zionism. It also distorts the meaning of racism and racial dis-
crimination; by simply equating it with anything that some nations disapprove
of, the concept of racism is debased and the fight against the evil of racial
discrimination, in which Jews and Zionists traditionally played an important
role, will inevitably be weakened."

The comment of another individual, that of the United States ambassador to the
U.N. at that time, put it even more succinctly: "A great evil has been
loosened upon the world." When Senator Moynihan spoke those words he spoke
for all of us. It clearly would have been impossible to have held this
symposium without hearing from then Ambassador, now Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan. As the senior Senator from New York, his re-election in 1982 marked
the largest majority in a mid-term race in the history of the Senate. The
dimensions of his political and diplomatic career are staggering when one
considers he is the only person in American history to have served in four
successive administrations. He was United States Ambassador to India from
1973-1975 and the permanent representative to the United Nations from
1975-1976. He is a scholar, the author of numerous works and a tenacious
fighter in the cause of human rights.

Just as the participation of Senator Moynihan was deemed essential to the
proceedings of today, so too with our next speaker.

In introducing the Ambassador of Israel to the United States, I have the
double honor of presenting a distinguished guest and a good friend. His
honors and distinctions are numerous.

Beyond his long and distinguished diplomatic career, he is recognized as an
international legal scholar of the first rank, having received his doctorate
in international law at the Sorbonne. Ambassador Rosenne has been in govern-
ment service since 1953 and as Legal Advisor to the Israel Foreign Ministry,
he participated in all the negotiations leading to the Israel-Egypt peace
treaty in 1979. Dr. Rosenne became his country's Ambassador to France in 1979
and served in that capacity until last year when he was appointed Israel's
ambassador to the United States.

It is therefore my pleasure to invite His Excellency Meir Rosenne to address
us today.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)

Four weeks ago, on November 11, 1984, there was convened in Jerusalem upon the
initiative of the President of Israel, at his residence, a study day on
"Refuting the Zionism-Racism Equation." The event was sponsored jointly by
the World Zionist Organization and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and was scheduled to coincide with the ninth anniversary of the adoption by
the United Nations General Assembly of Resolution 3379 (XXX).

President Herzog, of course, had been Israel's permanent representative to the
United Nations at the time of the Zionism resolution, and had spoken with
great force on the occasion of its passage. He invited two of us who had been
there with him, myself and Ambassador Benjamin Nunez of Costa Rica to come to
Jerusalem for this occasion, the first of its kind, and to present papers. It
was an honor to be invited, and each of us accepted with a sense that at long
last this issue would be paid the attention it requires.

To the best of my knowledge this was the first such formal gathering convened
in nine years to discuss an epochal event in the history of the State of
Israel and in the history of the United Nations -- histories which, not
coincidentally, are almost coterminous.

There has been scattered writings on the subject previously and as the years
passed we seemed to learn more of the genesis of that epochal 1975 event bit
by bit. Bernard Lewis had published an important article in Foreign Affairs,
in 1976, in which he traced the roots of the Zionism-Racism charge to the
Soviet practice of seeking to discredit ethnic assertiveness in the vast
Russian empire that is the U.S.S.R.

("In the technical vocabulary of Soviet vituperation," Lewis wrote, "The term
Racist is applied to nationalist movements linking the non-slavic peoples of
the union with their kin elsewhere...and its extension to Zionism...a kind of
Pan-Judaism, with a focus in Israel -- is a development of its use against
pan-Turkism and Pan-Iranism.")

Charles Fairbanks and others have recorded the introduction of the term
"Zionist" as a euphemism for Jew into official Soviet anti-Semitism, in the
early 1950's.

I have given any number of speeches on the subject, and have devoted portions
of three books to it: A Dangerous Place (1978) of which an Israeli edition in
Hebrew has been published, Counting Our Blessings (1980) and Loyalties (1984).

In the course of all this we have gotten a pretty good grip on the Soviet
origins of the event.

The disastrous showing of the Soviet Union's clients in the 1967 Six-Day War
apparently prompted the Soviets to launch the ambitious propaganda campaign
that led ultimately to September 10, 1975. I wrote in Loyalties:

Three events occurred. Israel overwhelmed its combined Arab
neighbors, most of whom were armed by and clients of the Soviet
Union. Second, the United States for the first time came to thp aid
of Israel in a military crisis.

ehncL; rth, the Middle East was a setting in which Soviet Arms would
face ,ou.-rican arms. Finally, the Israeli victory....as Bernard
Lewjs has written, 'Generated enormous enthusiasm among Soviet
Jews.' Zionism had proven itself in battle.

Having failed to destroy Israel in combat, and because -- and this is
important -- Israel could now rely on the aid of the United States, the
Soviet Union took another course, and set out to undermine the legitimacy of
the Israeli State. Moscow presumably calculated that Western governments
would find it difficult to marshall popular support in the future for a
country widely perceived as illegitimate.

Yet at no time -- until the study day in Jerusalem last month -- has
sustained, informed attention been devoted to the subject by persons with
command of the various fields involved. Thus, for example, Dr. Mikhail
Agursky, a fellow of the Soviet and East European Research Center at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, offered one thought that part of the story
may be no more and no less complicated than an effort by the chief Soviet
ideologue, Mikhail Suslow, (who died in 1982) to discredit Foreign Minister
Andrei Gromyko, the senior official most closely linked to early Soviet
overtures to Israel.

Agursky suggests:

"Attempts of the Soviet anti-Zionism literature to cast doubts on
the Soviet recognition of Israel in 1947-38...is an indirect attack
against Gromyko as the person who was involved in this decision."

Certainly, the campaign had the kind of formal beginning that we
associate with Suslow. I describe this in Loyalties:

"On February 18,19, 1971, a two-part article appeared in Pravda, and
was promptly published as an English language pamphlet, by Novosti
Press Agency of Moscow, titled "Anti-Sovietism -- Profession of
Zionists" ... the 34-year-old author of the article was Vladimir
Viktorovich Bolshakov, then (or shortly thereafter) Deputy Secretary
of Pravda's Editorial Board in charge of the newspaper's
International Department.

...He asserted in the official newspaper of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union that Jews, far from being victims of the Nazis, had
been their collaborators. 'Zionist agents active during the last
war in Western and Eastern Europe and in the occupied part of the
Soviet Union, collaborated with the Nazis. Many cases are known
where Gestapo men recruited overseers in death camps and special
'police' from among Zionists who 'kept order' in Jewish ghettos.
'The tragedy of Babi Yar' wrote a number of Soviet Citizens of
Jewish origin, who live in the Ukraine, in a letter to Pravda, 'Will
forever be a reminder not only of the monstrous barbarity of the
Na -,s but also of the indelible disgrace of their accomplices and
followers the Zionists.'

I offer the hope that because of its importance as a political event this will
become a respected area of scholarly inquiry, in Israel and the United States
a~i lse.F:r" in the democratic world. It is too important an event to be

left uninvestigated. For from the question of origins flows answers about
consequences. It is now clear I think it fair to say, that there have been

Paul Johnson writes in Modern Times, his narrative history of the 20th

It is true that the vote was merely on paper. But the real danger
of the U.N. was that paper majorities tended to grow into real
policies: the corrupt arithmetic of the Assembly...tended to become
imperceptibly the conventional wisdom of international society.

As Ambassador Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick said, in an interview published December 2
in the Washington Post.

The analogies drawn between Nazis and Israelis are practically a
daily affair at the United Nations, it happens all the time --
accusations against Israel of genocide, contempt for the notion that
there is a rule of law in Israel, or that there is honor in Israel
or that there is any kind of legitimacy about Israel. There is a
readiness to believe anything about Israel, no matter how outra-

On November 28, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, said
Rajaie-Khorassani, said at the U.S. that "The final solution of the problem of
the Middle East" would be to replace Israel with a Palestinian State. And, as
Ambassador Benjamin Netenyahu noted, according to the Times of the following
day, "No one in the hall batted an eyelash."

It is a measure of how far we -- and the world -- have come in nine years.

Consider another measure: On the key vote in the General Assembly on November
10, 1975 (it came on a Belgian motion to adjourn before voting on Resolution
3379) the vote for our side was 55, to 67 on the other. Africans, Asians,
Latin Americans and Europeans alike voted with us. If but seven had switched,
the resolution would have been blocked. How often since then have the U.S.
and Israel been able to muster more than a handful of votes on an issue of
comparable importance. The resolution has had consequences.

Another thought: part of the effectiveness of the Soviet campaign is the
unease the charge has created among those against whom it is directed. It
discourages careful examination of origins and purposes of the assault because
it is so obscene, so untrue, too painful to contemplate. But there again:

Looking back to November 10, 1975, it is fair to say that we were aware how
much the nature of international political discourse would be changed by
Resolution 3379. I spoke to the General Assembly immediately following the

The terrible lie that has been told here will have terrible
consequences... there will be new forces, some of them arising now,
new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with
the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned

here today. Today we have drained the word racism of its meaning.
Tomorrow, terms like "national self-determination" and "national
honor" will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of
conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made
-- as they have already begun to be made -- it is the small nations
of the world whose integrity will suffer...on what grounds will
others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of
human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended,
is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own?

If there had been a wider appreciation of this at the time, then perhaps less
damage would have been done. But that is behind us now, What is left to us
is the future. And the question of how we will choose to enter it.

In one of the papers prepared for the Jerusalem conference on November 22, Dr.
Ehud Sprinzak sums things up about right, to my mind:

Anti-Zionism is here to stay,..but all these unchanging
and persistent factors do not add up to inevitable

The operational conclusion from the deterministic nature of anti-Zionism is
that is future development depends to a great extent on what we do or do not

What we must do is to tell the truth about the lie. We must tell it loudly
and clearly and often, and insist upon it, abroad and at home.

A final thought: would there have been a Jerusalem conference last month, and
a Washington conference today, on refuting the Zionist-Racism Equation, if
Chaim Herzog had not been elected President of Israel last spring?

Anti-Zionism is surely here to stay.
Inevitably, however, President Herzog,
and myself, and the handful of others who have been so absorbed in this
subject, are not here to stay. A final question is who will follow us?

Dr. Meir Rosenne
Ambassador of Israel

I would like to begin by recalling an experience from my professional career
dating back exactly 20 years. It is directly relevant to our discussions

Among my duties at the time was to serve as Israel's observer in New York at
various United Nations deliberations on human rights. In the context of human
rights, our chief concern then was the plight of Soviet Jewry -- which, I must
insist, remains a high priority for us.

One of the U.N. organs -- the Subcommission on the Prevention of
Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities -- after weeks of bitter
debate and negotiation -- drafted a "Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination."

That forgotten episode ironically had a serious impact on the subsequent
evolution of world opinion and international law regarding Israel and Zionism.

This is how it happened.

Early in its discussions, the Subcommission quickly agreed to adopt a special
Article condemning apartheid as a form of racism. Soon a consensus developed
to specify other such forms of racism as Nazism and neo-Nazism.

Because the Holocaust was still fresh in the minds of Human Rights advocates
-- and also because of an appalling worldwide epidemic of anti-Semitic
incidents in the early 1960s -- the American representative.during the debate
in the Human Rights Commission, proposed the explicit condemnation of
anti-Semitism in this draft U.N. Convention.

The Soviet representative, staunchly supported by the other East European
experts, countered this move by submitting an amendment that would have added
the word "Zionism" to the list of forms of racialism to be condemned.

This gave rise to a bitter discussion that culminated in a compromise, to wit:
Reference to all specific forms of racism (except apartheid) were to be
dropped from the draft.

The very same exercise was repeated later that year in the Third Committee
(the Social Committee) of the U.N. General Assembly.

With this clever tactic, the U.S.S.R. for the first time injected its own
ideology and propaganda on Zionism and Judaism onto a world stage. In this,
Moscow won a double victory:

(1) It prevented the explicit definition of anti-Semitism as a form of racism
-- and thus succeeded in downgrading the moral, political and symbolic weight
that a condemnation of Jew-hatred would have carried throughout the world.

(2) It established the precedent for linking Zionism with Nazism which led to
the overwhelming adoption by the U.N. General Assembly, eleven years later, of
the resolution that equated Zionism with racism.

It is essential to remember this history and to keep the record straight: In
1975 it was certainly the Arab states that took the initiative with this
resolution. But it is the Soviet Union that is the source of this evil

Let me stress that criticism of the United Nations in this matter is virtually
beside the point. The fault lies not with the U.N., but with the Western
states that did not react properly, that failed to combat the Soviet campaign
with determination and vigor, that failed to respond appropriately and
effectively to the pistol-packing Yasser Arafat who took the rostrum of the
U.N. General Assembly. The absence of an immediate and effective action of
the democratic states members of the U.N. -- led our enemies to believe that
they could vilify Israel and the Jewish people with impunity.

There has never been, on the part of the West, a consistent struggle for the
true implementation of the principles and objectives of the U.N. Charter.
What we have witnessed, instead, has been, in effect, the acquiescence of the
West in the distortion of the Charter and its objectives of justice, peace and
human rights, passivity in the face of the total transformation of the
intentions of the founding fathers of the U.N. Through its own lack of will,
the west victimized itself.

And so what has happened since then is that the entire apparatus of the U.N.
was permitted to become the basis for a system of discrimination in the
implementation of all the legal instruments of the U.N. It happened very
simply: the apparatus began to deal exclusively with violations of human
rights -- real or imaginary -- that could be exploited against the Western

And, in contrast with the monolithic discipline of the voting pattern of the
Soviet bloc, the West never participated in these debates in unison. On the
contrary, the Western front was divided -- and thus from an early state this
lack of unity played into the hands of monstrous totalitarian regimes.

As a result, no international measures were taken against international
terrorism and political assassinations. And never were the terrorist acts of
the PLO and other extremist Arab-Muslim gangs, condemned by the U.N.

There are even texts today adopted by various U.N. organs where the enemies of
Israel and the Jewish people find implicit acceptance of terrorism as a
legitimate weapon. One can find -- for instance -- in the protocols to the
Geneva Conventions, stipulations which grant prisoner-of-war status to

These texts were quite often elaborated and adopted by consensus. Votes were
avoided in order to create a false atmosphere of international understanding.
But in fact all those votes became consistently detrimental to the protection
of the values for which democrats fought and died in World War II.

As for the "Zionism-Racism" Resolution, I think we simply did not realize at
the time what was truly at stake. Knowing that these resolutions are not
legally binding, like all General Assembly resolutions, many countries did not
react to it.

What we did not grasp was the full magnitude of the system by which each such
text is translated and disseminated in the millions throughout the world, so
that this Resolution has found its way into thousands of universities,
libraries, schools, churches and other such institutions. And in this manner,
the distortion of the principles of the U.N. has even been insinuated into
textbooks used in high schools and even primary schools -- poisoning the minds
of receptive young people.

New generations the world over are being educated on the basis of such texts.

At libraries in French and Belgian universities which I visited during my term
of duty as Israel's ambassador to France, I even came across textbooks on
international law which include these vicious U.N. resolutions -- and also
treatises on international relations where all these texts constitute required

Can one thus blame, for example, a youth from any African country who is
studying law for being convinced that Zionism is racism? That is what he was

It behooves us on this day of stock-taking to recognize that we have all been
guilty of an egregious act of omission.

It is virtually impossible to exaggerate the terrible proportions of the
continuing damage being done by this infamous Resolution. And we must begin
an educational and political campaign to counter its effects. The first step
in such an enterprise would be to undertake an evaluation of its effects in
three areas of the world:

1. In the Third World Countries. There, United Nations texts are frequently
considered tantamount to actual legislation emanating from a virtual world
governmental authority -- with all the prestige and status accorded to that

We who are privy to the way in which U.N. principles and processes have been
distorted and exploited are aware that such resolutions lack all seriousness.
But we dare not assume that ill-informed citizens of Third World countries,
frequently misled by propaganda, will be equally aware of the true value and
moral status of all such U.N. decisions.

2. In the Arab states. This Resolution provided a powerful weapon to all
those who reject any thought of establishing normal relations with the State
of Israel. By the same token, this resolution can only have discouraged any
thoughtful, non-violent moderates in the more enlightened circles of
educators, journalists and other opinion-molders.

3. In all countries occupied by Nazi Germany, not least in the East European
countries where anti-Semitism has been endemic and prevalent for generations,
this Resolution -- and I weigh every word carefully -- has enabled
anti-Semites of both the right and the left to justify their hatred of the
Jewish people. I do not exclude the responsibility of this resolution in the
creation of a climate of pogrom which led terrorists to believe that you may
kill Jews in synagogues, babies in temples, with impunity.
-- If we want to remain faithful to our own teachings, to the heroes of
Jewish resistance over the centuries, to the sacrifices made by all those
generations of Jews who did not have the privilege of seeing a Jewish flag of
an independent Jewish State.

-- If we want to be true successors to those who, even in anti-Semitic
environments, did not hesitate to proclaim proudly and fearlessly, "I am a
Zionist" -- we must undertake certain urgent actions.

It is time to begin a great international educational campaign against this
criminal and obscene denigration of the Jewish people. That is what it
amounts to. Anti-Zionism is quintessential anti-Semitism, because (1) it
denies the essence of the historic character of the Jewish people and (2) in
making this denial, it rejects the natural right of this most ancient of
peoples to perpetuate its existence.

We must attempt, in addition, to convene preferably in Jerusalem -- a
conference of states that would initiate a campaign whose ultimate objective
would be to erase this Resolution from the records of the U.N.

In my humble opinion, the only way to deal with this problem is the way the
United States has dealt with problems it faces in some international
organizations. We should not rest until the resolution is withdrawn.

The convening of such a conference will surely not be an easy task, and there
is no guarantee of success. And I know many experts that will issue position
papers explaining why this should not be done -- why no action should be taken
-- or insisting that by undertaking such a major effort we would only be
reviving a dead evil.

This is simply not true. It is wishful thinking. The evil is very much
alive;, it has been repeatedly adopted in many international fora, and has come
to assume the status of respect and of legal and moral inviolability.

We dare not allow this degraded state of affairs to persist.

Moreover, we owe this action to future generations. Let us not have to blush
when our grandchildren will ask:

"Where were you when your people were downgraded, villified and discriminated
against -- and what did you do to overcome the evil?"

Bernice S. Tannenbaum
Chairman, World Zionist Organization, American Section

All morning you have been listening to references to this resolution. But, as
the representative of Zionism in the United States, I want to ure my time to
tell you what Zionism really is.

What in truth is this Zionism so bitterly reviled by so many member states of
the United Nations?

The answers begin in the infancy of the Jewish people which was spent in exile
in the Egyptian house of bondage. The first Zionists were those who were
imbued with the will fcr freedom and redemption that erupted into one of the
great movements in humanity's progress -- the Exodus. Centuries later their
descendants became Zionists in exile who wept by the shores of Babylon for
their lost homeland. And thereafter, during thousands of years of dispersion,
Jews prayed daily:

"Blow the great trumpet for our freedom and raise the banner for the
ingathering of our exiles and gather us together from the four corners of the
earth and may our eyes behold the return to Zion in mercy."

Their hearts were rooted in their distant homeland. Zionism was the constant
expression of our people in the Diaspora in prayer, in song, in literature of
their yearning, love and veneration for Zion -- Eretz Israel.

Zionism was conceived in the age-old travail of an exiled and persecuted
people longing for its homeland. It was publicly delivered at Basel as the
vision of Theodor Ferzl. Tn that city this Zionist connection which bound all
Jews together was transformed into the political reality of a national
liberation movement.

As Herzl declared: "Zionism seeks to secure for the Jewish people a publicly
recognized, legally secured, home in Palestine." On August 29, 1897, Herzl
proclaimed: "Let everyone find out what Zionism really is...a moral, lawful,
humanitarian movement directed toward the long-yearned-for goal of our

The Zionist movement did not have as its primary motive the establishment of a
state as compensation for past inequities and horrors. Zionism was more than
a recompense for the Holocaust to assuage the moral guilt of the world for its
failure to prevent genocide or to make any serious effort to save those Jews
who could be rescued. True, the renewal of Jewish statehood after centuries
of exile and persecution culmriating in the hazi tragedy was an ethical
affirmation by the world( to redress an age-old inequity.

Put in addition, there was the overriding purpose of a return to the ancient
homeland to renew our culture, to control in our own democracy our own fate as
a people and to create a cultural and national renaissance. There was the
desire to return -- to rebuild the eroded land by Jew:l: toil and creativity.
Tndeed, Zion4ism is province itself in Israel's 37 year flood of creative
expressionn tc be one o.- 1:,story's great renaissance movements. It is
I.-pressed I;' tie fledgliii, state's institution:- of government, law, social

justice, human welfare and land redemption, the quality of the outpouring of
fine and performing art, and the nation's ingathering of our people from the
earth's four corners. It sprang from a unique combination of practical
idealism and the principles of our Prophets which have given this world so
much of this spiritual stature in civilization.

The truth is Zionism is the very antithesis of what the U.N. canard purports
it to be. It is, in fact, engaged in the vigorous process of creating a
society which despite pitfalls, obstacles and imperfections, endeavors to
implement democracy's and Judaism's political, social and cultural ideals for
the people of Israel. It is the modern expression of the ancient cry of the
Prophets for rightousness and the rights and dignity of man -- for social
justice and liberty for all. The documented historic fact is that Zionism has
been that rarity among national liberation movements, a cause dedicated to the
pursuit of universal social justice that is as essential to its aim as its
national goal.

Surrounded by enemies sworn to her extinction, the people and State of Israel
nevertheless adhere to Zionism's egalitarian vision and the rights of man
despite four wars for survival. Israel is a landspot of democracy in a vast
Arab expanse of autocracy. Its Arab citizens enjoy equal rights, Knesset
representation, the benefits of upward social and economic mobility, increased
longevity and a remarkably high birthrate. This is the truth which tyrannies
decry falsely in their United Nations votes and with voices choked with oil.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1975 characterization still holds: "The
enemies of Zionism are the enemies of democracy!"

Today we witness the sad abasement of the United Nations warped into a
caricature of the Parliament of Man, where truth is stood on its head and the
high hopes of humanity are betrayed.

A Zionist knows that his movement is at one with his people and with his
personal affirmation of his Jewish identity. He comprehends his need for
Israel, for his own moral and psychological wholeness, and that Israel
requires his support and strength for its self-enhancement, security, survival
and the achievement of its historic destiny.

Zionists are enlisted for the duration to preserve the independence of the
earth of Israel for the Jewish people. So we face the future as full
participants in the liberation war for Israel and all humanity. In the words
of Herzl in Altneuland:

"We are in duty bound to increase Beauty and Wisdom upon the earth (of Israel)
unto our last breath. For the earth is ourselves. Out of her we come, unto
here we return. Ecclesiastes said it, and we today have nothing to add to his
words: 'But the earth shall endure forever'."

Let those -- Jew or Christian -- who endorse these principles -- speak up and
loudly proclaim their identification and support.

Professor Marshall Breger
Special Assistant to the President

In asking what can be done to counter the Zionism is Racism campaign I
think we must first know that we are facing a multi-faceted challenge for
anti-Israeli and it is not only anti-Semitic, but it is Anti-American and
anti-Western as well. Because it is a broad cased attack on fundamental
principles and values cherished by us all, we necessarily respond to it on
many levels and I would like to take a moment to discuss this.

First, Anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism. Now regardless of what it said by
the Anti-Zionist forces, their attacks are cast in the form and the content of
traditional anti-Semitism. This Soviet propaganda are particularly adept at
this as the State Department 17th Annual Review of Soviet and Eastern European
Compliance with the Helsinki Act noted anti-Semitic rhetoric is on the
increase in the Soviet Union, recent Soviet posters show, "images of Hitler
together with Israeli officials who in turn are often depicted poisoning Arab
drinking water." Now as we all know this charge of poisoning wells is a
classic anti-Semitic motif, in Europe recalling the canardes not only of the
Middle Ages but through the mid-19th Century. So we find that the very motifs
of anti-Zionism are indeed the motifs of anti-Semitism.

Another rhetorical mechanism that's used is projection, it is an old
anti-Semitic ploy to accuse the Jews of the very atrocities that the rest of
the world has committed against them so again we see at the recent General
Assembly degate on the situation in the Middle East speakers compared not be
treatment of the Jews, to again I quote, "Israel sadism to Arab" and they said
that not the "ovens" have become Israeli ovens, so again the traditional motif
of anti-Semitism projection is again used in the anti-Zionism campaign.

In addition to the Zionism is Racism campaign utilizes criticisms of Jews
traceable I think to early Marxist thought. It condemns Zionism as
particularist, bourgeois, in quotes even reactionary a goal of those who
haughtily describe themselves as the chosed people rather than a universalist
movement of national liberation. Socialist anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism go
back or anti-Semitism goes back to Marxist characterization of Judaism and
on the Jewish question and anti-Zionism goes back to Karl Kalcy? classic
Marxist work, Are The Jews A Race both authors flatly denies the Jews
Qua-Jews the right to a national consciousness and characterized them in some
respect as the embodiament of the capitalist spirit, again the shylock motif.
Thus they provide here an intellectual rationale for anti-Zionism an
additional fuel for anti-Semitism. And this Marxist "analysis" finds vent I.
think in much of the third world propaganda directed against Israel today.

On a second level the Zionism is Racism campaign is also anti-western and
anti-American. Western values and American interests are explicitly opposed
when Israel is condemned for being a "agent" of western imperialism. For this
is only their way of saying Israel is to be castigated for being an ally of
the United States. More subtle but no less important is the fact that attack

on Israel in international bodies are often used as an indirect means of
attacking the United States, not only our challenges to Israel meant to
embarrass and isolate the United States but the very fact that irrational
truth distorting allegations are made against Israel denegrates basic American

We as a nation are committed to truth and reason in international
discourse, but when the very language of international diplomacy becomes
corrupted with lies and hypocracy our ability to protect our interest and even
to engage in international discourse itself is adversely affected.

In the face of all this what can be done and what is being done. The
situation which I believe presents the most tractible and yet most urgent
problem is the frequent use of the Zionism is Racism litany by many among the
press and in the "intelligentsia". Even by those who would be first I think
to reject its content. Now this became apparent during the 1982 media
coverage of Lebanon and is apparent in the intellectual debate since waged
over the war.

We read how the Israelis conducted a "blitzkrieg" in Lebanon, how Beirut
remained one of the Warsaw ghetto, how Israel's expansionist imperialism
threatened a "holocaust" in the Middle East and the "genocide" of the
Palestinians. These crisp analogies, bon mot, perhaps appeared in the most
respectable American and European journals and of course headlines sell papers
whether or not they have any relationship to reality, but I think we have a
right to ask that whatever criticism one wants to make over Israeli conduct in
various activities is it not self-evident how far removed from genocide was
Israel raids and incursions in invasion of Lebanon or how incongruous is the
comparison the massacre of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, with the withdrawal
of armed Palestinian gorillas, under the auspices of multi-national forces.

The underlying message being transmitted is that yesterday's victims are
today's aggressors, that any sympathy or guilt one felt for the Jews after the
holocaust is an historical anacronism, but Echo Sprinzock has written well, I
think that the great danger is not the rational claim that Zionists are
Racists, will gain widespread acceptance but rather that is to say it is not
the content you have to worry about, but the form, that a new stereotype will
be reacted. When such a sterotype begins to penetrate a culture, its
literature, poetry journalism, energy day speech, it is.difficult if not
impossible to extirpate and as Chana Rhent showed in her magnificent book, The
Origins of Totalitarianism, words have tremendous power over men's minds and a
necessary step in the Nazi project in the extermination of European Jewry was
their. linguistic dehumanization of the Jews, those who coined the Zionism is
Racism phrase and popularized these Nazis' analogies know this well.

We must never again underestimate the power of language or the damage
done by the repeated telling of such big lies. These phrases become second
nature, the ideas they begin to represent begin to sound reasonable. For
example the NEW YORK TIMES recently reported Libya's accusations that the
International search effort to recover mines from the Red Sea, mines allegedly
planted by Libya was a "imperialist Zionist plot." Such ludicrous accusations
reported without press comment and without accompanying denials, as well as
the blatant use again T say of Nazi analogies, seem to spread fror new report
to literacy and cultural publications and to the lips of respectp.hl men.


While Roald Dahl the author of Willie Wonka, and also author of well known
adult books, recently wrote about the Lebanon invasion, never before in the
history of man has a race of people switched so rapidly from being much pitied
victims to barbarous murderers, but Israel like Germany be brought to her
knees before she learned how to behave in this world.

Again the form the stereotype begins to run away from the content,
because the words come easy and the agalogies seem to be crism and exciting.

I don't believe that the appearance of such language in the western media
reflects necessary anti-Semitism or intentional hate mongering on the part of
journalism nor does it stem from an acceptance of the truth of Arab propaganda
claim. Rather it is for the most part of result of sloppy writing, sloppy
thinking and of widespread ignorance of modern history among America in
particular but among young Europeans as well.

The best cure for this to my mind in a broad education project, a public
diplomacy campaign, if you will, on behalf of western ideals and values and
among and I include among those the Zionist enterprise. Those who believe
in western values must commence their own linguistic offensive taking pains to
set the records straight, whenever and wherever inaccuracies appear, careful
press vigilance should be accompanied by swift responses to misleading

Now this kind of linguistic offenses can have a myriad of effects. We've
already seen it, on an official level in the United Nations, as Jeanne
Kirkpatrick's activities can prove, she has taken up the cudgles in the United
Nations to challenge those who would malign the United States as well. When
reports come out from the General Assembly she doesn't just say, Oh, my gosh,
I am going to file this, she goes through the U.S. The U.S. now goes through
step by step and makes denial after denial, challenge its inaccuracy after

Similar efforts should be taken by private citizens as well in the press
and the journalists and the cultural context. The seas of vicious stereotypes
are know by the casual and repeated usage of unintentional as well as of
intentional calumnies and I believe that a vigorous and conserted education
campaign can do much to make sure that these calumnies do not take an
unconscious route.

Now I want to turn to a more difficult aspect of this problem, how does
one respond on an official level, to those who originated and spread the
phrase, the concept of Zionism is Racism. First we must recognize that these
nations are aiming this campaign at us in the West. They wish to reduce
support for Israel among Jews and non-Jews by depicting her as an immoral
society discriminatory imperialistic and racist when they mouth the words
Zionism is Racism it is not out over an over-zealous liberalism, or out of
honest belief in the notion it is a new form again, I state, of anti-
Semitism clothed in a more legitimate garb.

Now what can be done about them. Not only can something be done but much
I believe is being done on an official level by this government to combat
these forces. *he United States possesses despite our embattled position at
the United Nations great power and influence in that forum and this

administration in particular has demonstrated that when we make our positions
clear, when we draw bright lines, if you will, we send a strong signal to
friends and non-friends alike, that they must not exceed certain limits of

For example in 1982 and again in 1983 there were challenged to Israel's
participation both in the UN.. General Assembly and in the International
telecommunications union, and I want to just interject here, that it is
important to focus not just by what happens in the General Assembly which is
where all the media pays attention but in the specialized agencies because
again that is where these notions begin to take root. As you all know the
Zionism is Racism concept didn't start in the General Assembly but it started
in a more specialized U.N. conclave, and it is the day to day efforts and
viligence in the specialized agencies, on the official level, which is can
be used to prevent this cancer from continuing to grow.

When these efforts were made Secretary Shultz announced that the United
States would respond to these moves, if they succeeded by withdrawing from
both bodies and by withholding payment to the U.N. and to the ICU budgets.
This policy has a salutory impact, as you know the resolutions did not pass
either year. In 1982 we withdraw from the International Atomic Energy Agency,
when that body at Iraq behest rejected the credentials of the Israeli
delegation, this had a desirable effect. In 1983 both Israel and the United
States once again participated in IAEA meetings.

When India hosted the 12th World Energy Conference in 1983 a more subtle
variation of this enterprise was used the Indian government denied visas to
the Israeli delegation thereby I suppose attempting to moot the question of
Israeli participation. On hearing this news Secretary of Energy Don Hodell
cancelled his appearance as keynote speaker and forbade officials under his
authority from attending that conference.

Recently Syria has attempted to add to this coming year's agenda at the
World Energy Conference suspension of Israeli membership. The State Depart-
ment has responded that the U.S. will seize involvement in that body if
Israel's membership is in fact suspended.

In June of this year efforts were made to expel Israel from the Unversal
Postal Union. That effort was similarly blocked and in August of this year
the U.S. fought and voted lost here against an anti-Israel resolution at the
U.N. Population Conference in Mexico City.

Most recently the President stated at a meeting with Jewish women leaders
that the United States will actively oppose any efforts at the upcoming
International Women's Conference in Nairobi, to utilize the conference for
attacks on the State of Israel. The two previous U.N. women's conferences
held in Mexico City in 1975 and in Copenhagen in 1980 and I see there are many
veterans with scars of those meetings here, those meetings deviated form the
agenda of dealing with matters of improvement to women and became dominated by
extraneous anti-Israel political discussion.

The President noted that the U.S. will once again oppose any agenda item
that attempts to associate Zionism With Racism, and that if such a resolution

is nonetheless adopted, the U.S. will have no choice but to consider
cancelling participation in the Conference.

Now I think the Nairobi's Women's Conference offers an extraordinary
opportunity for American Jewish Women's groups to take an active part in
forming coalition of women's organizations committed to careful monitoring of
this conference. It is an opportunity to be proactive not merely reactive.
Non-Jewish women's groups should be encouraged to join such a coalition, and
to take a firm stand against similar attempts to degrade the Conference in

Again 1 must say the reason for so doing is that this is not merely an
effort to attack Israel, but indeed it is an effort to attack the West and
American values as well.

By aggressive diplomacy and a willingness to draw the line, to draw a
bright line, as to how far you can go and no further, the U.S. has succeeded
in directing in some respects at least the world body's attention away from
this obsessive preoccupation, with anti-Zionism and toward the many useful
functions that the U.N. and its specialized agencies can perform.

In a similar fashion the U.S. can express to our allies and trading
partners the values we place on constructive U.N. activities in vote and our
displeasure with attempts at politization of the United Nations and its
specialized agencies and we can and will encourage them to speak out as we
have against such anti-Israel actions which are contrary to the very
principles of the United Nations and as Secretary Shultz has said, "do grave
damage to the entire United Nations system."

The potential I think is great, will continue effective action in
countering those who propagate the Zionism is Racism idiology. We, on the
part of the administration will continue to do so by our official vigilance
and I would encourage you all to do so by the private vigilance that I spoke
of earlier as well. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Jeane Kirkpatrick
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

I understand you've heard a good many speeches today already. Even before
they began, there was probably not much that was new could be said about that
most obnoxious resolution considered here today. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan
was our nation's chief representative to the United Nations he described that
terrible day in vivid an searing language. He asserted what we have here
today is a lie, a political lie of a variety well known to the 20th Century.
Through that lie, he asserted, the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given
the appearance of international sanction.

Why should we say more about this obscene resolution, about which there has
been a good deal of talk already today? Although it has been nearly a decade
since it was passed in the General Assembly, its effects are very much with
us. Like a terrible bacillus it has spread its poison literally worldwide.

The answer to why we should speak about it today, lies in both the past and in
the future. We must continue to speak about the resolution as long as the
*vicious campaign it symbolizes against the State of Israel continues. I am
here today from the General Assembly to tell you what you already know, that
campaign continues, in full force, this very day.

It has become very clear in the years following the passage of the Zionism is
Racism resolution that it is less a slogan than a program, a program for the
delegitimization and disappearance of the State of Israel. That program got
underway in 1967 after the Six Day War, when it was decided that a political
assault on israel would be more successful than military assaults on Israel.

The Zionism iss Racism resolution has special significance in the campaign of
destruction and delegitimization of Israel. First, it symbolizes the alliance
of the African and Arab blocs inside the United Nations with regard to all
questions concerning the Middle East. That alliance, not written on paper,
but clearly stipulates that African nations will vote against Israel on
questions involving the Middle East, and Arabs will vote with Africans on all
matters concerning South Africa. That alliance plus the Soviet bloc, which
can always be counted on to join a vendetta, provides the famous automatic
majority which is available for all resolutions against Israel. The alliance
provides the stable structural base for anti-Israeli actions inside the body.
It is very important to understand this because support for anti-Israel
resolutions in the U.N. is independent of any particular circumstances, it is
available regardless of Israel's policy, or the merits of any particular case.
It is as permanent as the blocs on which it is based. That alliance has
cracked in the last two years largely under U.S. pressure and some Africans
have been persuaded to distinguish their interests from those of Arab nations.
But the alliance is still very much alive, and it provides a permanent
structural base for anti-israel resolutions of all kinds.

- 2-

Second, that Zionism is Racism resolution constitutes, as I think everyone
understands it today, a direct attack on the moral foundations of Israel. It
is not simply an attack on the ideology of Zionism, it is not even primarily
an attack on the ideology of Zionism. To appreciate the full meaning and the
power of this assault on the moral functions of Israel, it is necessary to
understand that inside the United Nations, adversaries of Israel wholly
identify the State of Israel with Zionist ideology. They refuse normally to
call Israel by her name, referring to her instead as a Zionist entity.

It is important to remember also that inside the United Nations racism is the
ultimate crime. In the United Nations context, states which are designated as
racists have no rights whatsoever. They have only obligations. Their very
existence is considered to be a form of aggression and anything which calls
itself a national liberation movement can act against a racist state.

When Israel is designated a racist state the word is out, that Israel is fair
game for every would be aggressor in the world. Speech after speech,
resolution after resolution inside the United Nations, reams of official
propaganda produced inside the United Nations by the Committee on Palestinian
Rights and all the other committees associated with it, describe the founding
and the existence of Israel as aggression. It is very important to understand
that by defining the foundation of Israel as aggression, the intention is
clear: to brand Israel a crime against international law, that Israel's very
existence is a crime against international law, utterly, totally lacking in

Resolution after resolution describes Israel as guilty of genocide. Any
attack against the state and the people of Israel is justified. Any Israeli
effort to defend herself against attack is defined as unjustified aggression
against the attacker. P.L.O. firing into Israeli villages, for example, is
ignored or justified as the legitimate right of a national liberation
movement. But Israelis firing back is a serious threat against international
peace and security, a crime against civilized society. This sounds like
exaggerations, it is not exaggeration. It is necessary to listen, and to read
the speeches and the resolutions of the United Nations, in order to understand
the extent to which the campaign of delegitimization against Israel, the
branding of Israel an international outlaw dominates the body.

One rather stunning case was that of the terrorist Abu Ein who was charged, as
you doubtless know, of setting a bomb in a crowed Israeli supermarket in which
two persons were killed and scores wounded. Abu Ein was treated in a whole
panoply of speeches as a hero. Israel, seeking to bring him to trial through
due process of law, was mercilessly excoriated for violations of international
law. And the United States was berated for extraditing Abu Ein after he had
exhausted some 2-!1 years of full protection of our court system. In that same
resolution that condemned the United States for extraditing Abu Ein, the
General Assembly voted 75 to 21 with 43 abstentions, to "reaffirm the


legitimacy of tih ruggle for ir depcndcnce, territorial integrity and
national unity and for liberaLion from colonial and foreign domination by
,lien su1 .,.. ..: by all evanilable means." This couldn't be clearer. The PLO
has :- r.g;t tl set burhs in crowded supermarkets -- that's struggle by any
ar' ~lL i.,LC:;s. :sraei had rot even the right to try the bomber in a court of
law with iuli 'egal protection.

It is difficult for persons who have not lived at the United Nations and
witnessed it first hand to understand the ferocity and the perversity of the
assault or. Israel inside the IU:'ted Nations. You know it always sounds like
exaggeration. T sometimes am very hesitant about actually quoting speeches
attacking Israel inside the United Nations because they sound so extreme, so
violent, it almost seems like a breach of good taste or reason even to quote
them. And that kind of reticence -- which is, I am sure, very widely felt --
compounds the problem of people understanding how intense the feeling is
against the State of Israel.

When Israel -- a state that was founded in the ashes of the Holocaust -- is
routinely accused of nasty practices and genocide, we know that we are in the
force of a kind of double speak, a moral double speak. Not just moral double
:peak, but a kind of a moral double bookkeeping in which Israel can do no
right and her detractors can do no harm. No crime literally is too indecent
for Israel to be though guilty of. Thus, in a letter to the Security Council,
in March 1983, the permanent representative of Iraq, charged, and I quote,
"Israeli terrorism has now reached the point of the implementation of schemes
for the collective poisoning of Palestinian students and inhabitants." The
representative of Jordan in another letter the same day described, "the
collective poisoning of nearly 1,000 Palestinian school girls in the West
Bank," and the P.L.O. asserted, the same day in a letter to the Security
Council that, "without question, a new phase in Israel's campaign of genocide
against the Palestinian people has now been launched."

Now, when investigations conducted by the World Health Organization and the
International Red Cross at the behest of the Secretary General could find no
evidence of poisoning, the matter was simply dropped. No one apologized. It
is difficult to grasp, difficult to believe, the obsessive quality of the
campaign against Israel, where literally any occasion can be turned into an
assault, where no one really expects that Israel will receive fair treatment.
I felt, as a matter of fact, rather badly for my new Israeli colleague,
Ambassador Benjamin Netanyahv who is coming to New York. I have a high
opinion of him and 1 was pleased that he was coming but I felt rather badly at
the thought of what a real horror he would be encountering. I felt certain
that he did not understand, as indeed virtually no one understands, how bitter
and how intense the assault against Israel is, and how widespread the
expectation is inside that body that Israel will not receive fair play. It's
simply one of the operative assumptions in the institution that Israel will
not receive fair play.

This very week the General Assembly is dealing with a package of
resolutions on the occupied territories the so-called question of Palestine,
the situation in the Middle East. All these resolutions are unbalanced and


unfair. The worst is offered under the title of the situation in the Middle
East. It is a reiteration of the obnoxious Golan Heights resolution which
calls down upon Israel a kind of an anathema that no other nation in the
history of the United Nations has ever been subjected to. In that resolution
there is reiterated the finding that of all the nations in the world, Israel
is not a peace-loving member state, "that it has, and I am quoting
"persistently violated its obligations under the Charter, that it has carried
out neither its obligations under the Charter, nor its commitment under the
General Assembly resolution 276 of 11 May 1949. That Resolution calls for
Israel's total isolation. It calls on all states to end all economic,
financial, technological, military assistance and cooperation with Israel. It
calls on all states to sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with
Israel. Clearly, this resolution portends more efforts in more U.N. bodies
seeking Israel's expulsion. That resolution is co-sponsored by Bangladesh,
Cuba, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Viet Nam, and Yugoslavia.
That resolution will pass. Neither fairness, nor evidence will matter, that
Resolution will pass.

It isn't as though we have very high standards of the nations inside the
United Nations either. We don't have very high standards for sovereignty.
After all the Ukraine can sit in the Security Council and Byelo Russia and
Mongolia are full members of the General Assembly. We don't have very high
standards for peace-loving qualities either -- after all, Libya who commits
aggression on a regular basis against her neighbors sits as a peace-loving
state; Syria sits as a peace-loving state; Viet Nam, the Soviet Union, both of
whom currently occupy neighboring countries, with hundreds of thousands of
troops Cambodia and Afghanistan, sit as peace-loving states. It isn't that we
have very high standards, it is that we have double standards, we have double
standards of a very specific sort. There is one standard for Israel and
another standard for everyone else.

These resolutions have no positive purpose but that does not mean that they
are devoid of content. They intend to destroy.

Senator Monyihan, when he was Ambassador Moynihan, observed that we should
reflect on the fact that if the General Assembly did not exist, that Zionism
Is Racism resolution would not have passed. That of course is true. It is
also true that if the General Assembly didn't exist we couldn't reaffirm on a
continuing basis the resolutions which are so revolting. A kind of, a kind of
crowd psychology described by Sigmund Freud takes over in these circumstances
and nations which have no problem with Israel -- no Jews, no Arabs, no
Moslems, no Palestinians -- join in a kind of seizure of mob psychology in the
vote against Israel. It is a dismal thing to watch. The fault, of course, is
not the General Assembly. Ambassador Meir Rosenne and I were just exchanging
some comments about this. The problem isn't the General Assembly, the problem
is the members of the General Assembly. The problem isn't with the
Secretariat, it is with the members of the United Nations. It is the members
who offer the resolution, and the members who vote for the resolutions and it
is the members who lend themselves to a campaign of delegitimization and
destruction of the State of Israel. They also, at the same time, lend

- 5-

themselves to the perversior of the institution, that is the perversion of th.
United Nations itself, by falsifying language, falsifying concepts like
sovereignty, and law, are self-defc~se, and collective self-defense, and
perverting the instarurents of peace. They lend themselves to the campaign for
the destruction oi Israel.

it is doubtless next year, for the next anniversary of the Zionism Is Racism
resolution, there will be another effort in another U.N. body to expel Israel,
and deny her participation in the U.I. Under the charter, membership is
vested in the Security Council. Since there is a veto in the Security
Council, Israel couldn't be expelled by the means provided by the Charter, so
another pathway was developed for circumventing the spirit of the charter.
This path seeks to deny membership by way of denying participation. It does
not, in fact, expell formally -- it denies credentials and seeks to deny

I want to say to you as clearly as I possibly can that it is my solemn opinion
and most serious judgment that Israel would already have been expelled from
the United Nations had it not been for the laws on our books making clear that
if the State of Israel is denied participation in any body of the United
Nations, the United States will withdraw also and will withhold all financial
contributions until Israel's right to participate has been restored. Were it
not for that law -- and were it not for the vigor with which we have pushed
the campaign to prevent the expulsion of Israel -- I believe that Israel would
have already been expelled from most U.N. agencies. The campaign has so far
been mounted, of course, in IAEA, in the International Telecommunications
Union in the WHO in the General Assembly itself, and so forth. As it is
turne( back, the campaign is only stopped temporarily.

Last year the Iranians devoted a tremendous amount of effort and worldwide
lobbying to the campaign for the expulsion of Israel from the General
Assembly. They visited countries which no representative of the Ayatollah
Khoemeini had ever visited, seeking votes for the Resolution to deny
participation to Israel. They attempted to raise a new kind of donors
cartels, whose purpose which would be to donate the money that the U.N. would
be deprived of in case the United States left. They worked very hard on this
issue and we have some grounds for believing they have already gone to work on
the same effort year. It will not go away, I suspect, for quite a while.

Because of the perversion of language and law that is associated with the
campaign against Israel, the General Assembly and the United States is unable
to do a good many of the constructive tasks which we might otherwise do. We
cannot, for example, act against terrorism because terrorism is defined in
terms of national liberation movements which are defined as having all rights
when they act against illegitimate regimes such as the State of Israel. What
difference does it make really anyway. Why should we bother? why does it

I think that we have already seen in our times the tragic consequences of the
refusal to face unpleasant truths. We have permitted lies to go unchallenged,


which are then transformed into policies, and policies to go unchallenged
which are transformed into murder. Examples abound. In Mein Kampf for
example, we all know that Hitler stated in the most unambiguous terms his
views about the hatred and contempt he felt for Jews. If the Final Solution
is not spelled out clearly in Mein Kampf, it is clearly foreshadowed. Almost
no one heeded the clear warnings that were present, not even when that hatred
was translated into policies. For example, into attacks on Jewish stores, and
into discriminatory legal declarations, and discriminatory legislation
requiring the Star of David to be worn, forbidding the Jewish lawyers longer
to practice before German courts or excluding Jewish children from German

The previous position to shrug off horrible facts is powerful in our time.
All of us would rather not face the truth, either about the hate around us, or
the silence of others in the face of that hate, about unfairness around us, or
the likelihood that that unfairness will prevail. That is almost un-American.
You know we Americans are supposed to look on the bright side and we 20th
Century Western citizens are optimists, all of us given to looking to looking
on the bright side.

The fact is, though, as Rabbi Joshua Heschel said, "of all the organs in the
human body the most dangerous is the tongue." The Holocaust, he reminded us,
began not in the camps of Auschwitz or Buchenwald, but in the hate-filled
words of Nazis. I believe that the fate of whole nations sometimes depends on
words. Words do have consequences, ideas do matter. We live by those ideas.
Lies which go unchallenged are a mistaken finally for the truth. I think that
the lie that Zionism is Racism has already spread far, and damaged many. That
lie will only be corrected, expunged wht~ it is pursued, not only with the
purpose of demonstrating that as to the facts it is incorrect -- and it is
incorrect as to the facts -- but to demonstrate that its consequences are
deadly for all of us and for the institutions through which we would like to
make peace and improve our society.

I think the challenge is enormous. I do not believe we can forget that lie as
long as it circulates in the world. I believe that it is the clear political
and moral responsibility of all of us to refuse to ignore it and to insist on
calling attention to just how revolting and obscene it remains.


The participants in the seminar, organized by the World Zionist Organization,
the World Jewish Congress and B'nai B'rith International, held in Washington,
D.C., hosted by the Department of State of the United States on December 10th,
Human Rights Day, having heard addresses of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
Ambassador T.T.B. Koh, Ambassador Meir Rosenne, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick,
having been welcomed by Assistant Secretary of State EJliot Abrams, and having
as discussants distinguished scholars, authorities and public leaders, and
after having thoroughly analyzed the significance and implication of the
United Nations General Assembly Resolution of November 10, 1975,

EMPHASIZE their vigorous opposition to any form of racism and dissemination of
racist ideology, and warn against the danger of ideological and religious
extremes wherever they occur; and

REAFFIRM that Zionism is the fulfillment of the Jewish people's right to
self-determination, of its aspiration to live in freedom and political
independence in its ancient homeland, that Zionism has always been committed
to liberal humanistic and democratic values;

DECLARE their abhorrence at the travesty committed by U.N. Resolution 3379
defaming Zionism, the National Liberation Movement of Jewish people;

STRESS their conviction that Resolution 3379 subverts the principles and
purposes of the UN Charter, perverts the tenets of truth and huran dignity and
corrupts the minds of uninformed people;

MAINTAIN that this resolution was designed to provide the justification for an
all out assault against the Jewish State, in order to bring an end to Jewish
independence, to serve the spreading and deepening of hatred against the
Jewish people and its spiritual and cultural heritage, and to intensify
age-old anti-Semitism by means of the defamation of modern Zionism;

EXPRESS their deep concern at the lack of public awareness of the nefarious
implications of Resolution 3379 and the designs of its orginators; and

CALL UPON people everywhere who are dedicated to democratic values and human
rights, and governments of all enlightened countries to resist this insidious
campaign of slander of Zionism and of the Jewish people and help expose its
underlying designs:

to eliminate the sovereign existence of Israel

to incite hatred Pgainst the Jewish people

to subvert the power of resistance of nations

upholding human liberty and national freedom.

World Reports

Analyses of critical issues confronting the Jewish world

January, 1985


by: Harris 0. Schoenberg
Director of UN Affairs,
International Council of B'nai B'rith

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (XXX) of November 10,
1975 declared that Zionism, the movement of the Jewish people to live free in
its own land, is a form of racism and racial discrimination. It was adopted
by a vote of 72 to 35 with 32 abstentions.

This two-to-one majority obscures the fact that Resolution 3379 (XXX) is
undoubtedly the most controversial resolution ever adopted by a United Nations
body. It is controversial because if tells and legitimizes a dangerous lie,
and that lie slanders a whole people. It is controversial because it
besmirches the reputation of the UN, undermining the moral authority of the
organization. It is also.controversial because it debases the language of
human rights, subverts the UN program to combat racism and racial
discrimination, and constitutes a psychological barrier to peace between the
Arabs and Israel.

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the sense of betrayal evoked by the
UN's assault on Zionism. One of the largest and most emotional demonstrations
ever held in the City of New York, more than 150,000 people, vigorously
protested against the Zionism-racism resolution soon after it was adopted.
Jews had heard their enemies call Zionism names. But coming from the UN, it
was a fierce and unexpected attack, signalling the rise of Nazi-like forces
only 30 years after World War II in the very organization that was created to
combat the Nazis. As recalled by Ambassador (later Senator) Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, "dimwitted Tass, the Soviet news agency, would state that surely the
event came as no surprise to anyone, surely everyone saw it coming. But no,
it came as a complete surprise to those who had the greatest need to see it
coming .... Jewish history seemed to deny the possibility that the enemies of
Jews could be on the left. Jewish history seemed especially to deny that Jews
could be thought guilty of crimes committed by governments."

Those who promoted the equation of Zionism with racism and continue to do
so have two immediate objectives. They seek the global delegitimization of
the State of Israel and they seek the discrediting of Jews the world over who
support the right of Israel to exist. Arab and Muslim anti-Zionists remain
unreconciled to the concept of Jewish sovereignty. The Soviets fear the
corrosive influence of Zionism and Jewish liberalism on their own totalitarian

1S 164oe Is Av, N, WashIn D B 6,S

- 2 -

In recent months renewed interest in combatting the Zionism-racism
resolution (Z-R) has grown in Jewish circles. Why this interest took nine
years to emerge needs to be explained.

Once Resolution 3379 (XXX) was adopted, it was clear that a successful
effort to rescind it required the leadership of the United States. Ambassador
William Scranton who succeeded Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the UN was
non-combative. His successor, Andrew Young, offered possibilities because he
made a determined effort to reach out to the Third World, particularly Black

In 1977-1978 during the tenureship of Ambassador Young, the ICBB
initiated an effort, working through one of Young's deputies, Ambassador
Allard Lowenstein, to rescind Z-R. Lowenstein ran into such determined
opposition in New York and lack of will in Washington that he came back trying
to get our organization to influence Israel to change its policies.

Nonetheless, in a newspaper article which he wrote several months later
explaining why he left his UN post, Lowenstein concentrated on Z-R: "The
United Nations resolution defining Zionism as racism multiplied the number of
people who dismiss the UN as a kind of radicalized Lewis Carroll contraption
filled with leftist mad hatters who might next announce that slavery is
freedom..." Lowenstein went on to comment that this "stinking little
resolution ... gave anti-Semitism a brand new respectability", impugned the
anti-racist credentials of the United States, discredited the UN, and
shattered the unity against racism which "might otherwise have been
effective...". Lowenstein concluded that "freeing the UN from Z-R is as
important for the UN as it is for Israel, and as I believe it is for the U.S.

So-called political realists advocated nonetheless that the
Zionism-racism resolution was so patently false it was a major embarrassment
to the UN and would eventually fade away if left alone. Furthermore, given
the isolation in the UN of Israel and the United States, not only would an
effort to rescind Z-R lose, they argued, but the obscene equation would likely
be reinforced. This argument was responsible for the next few years of

Two things changed. First, Z-R did not fade away. During the tenure of
Ambassador Young and his protege Donald McHenry, new attacks on Zionism were
mounted in the General Assembly and at the second UN women's conference in
Copenhagen. Second, during the tenureship of Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
the United States demonstrated repeatedly and consistently that it would no
longer be kicked around with impunity.

Ambassador Kirkpatrick went beyond that to lead what she called the
"revolt of the moderates" against excessive and abusive language in UN
resolutions. Added to these developments were the split in the PLO, the
divisions in the Arab world, the decline of petropower, and growing Black
African disaffection with the radical Arab political positions the Africans
were constantly asked to support. Indeed, despite intense Soviet pressure,
stiff African resistance kept Z-R out of the fall 1984 General Assembly
resolution which authorized a second UN decade to combat racism and racial

- 3 -

Given these important changes, which are reflected today in the political
climate of the UN, can we go further now and successfully challenge Z-R
itself? If so, how should we proceed to reverse the moral outrage that was
perpetrated nine years ago? To answer these questions and better determine
the obstacles to be faced, this writer has interviewed, over a several month
period, a range of UN diplomats and high-ranking Secretariat officials. The
interviews were conducted off the-record in order to elicit a greater degree
of candor.. Below are may preliminary findings.

Narrow Range of Concern.

My first finding is that the Israelis in the delegation and the
Secretariat and the Americans at the top level of the delegation are greatly
aware of and concerned about the problem, but their views are shared by few
others. In addition, the Israelis and the American split over what to do.

The Israelis are very concerned about Z-R. But they are also the most
bloodied by the ongoing political warfare which characterizes the UN arena,
and they are not eager to make it worse. One seasoned veteran commented:
"Better let it lay. Fighting will only arouse the Arabs and make it seem more
important than it is."

The Jews on the U.S. delegation express themselves most passionately
about Z-R. One said: "I did not know what it means to be a Jew until I came
to the UN." In contrast to the Israelis, they are eager to do battle and
confident we can win. One urged me to renew our campaign against Z-R without
delay. "You've got to fight it!" It's not a waste of time. It must be
cancelled. Fight it!"

The Americans in the Secretariat, on the other hand, resemble in reaction
the West Europeans rather than their fellow citizens at the U.S. Mission (who
are a special breed selected by Ambassador Kirkpatrick). They have little
sense of the. problem except that Z-R is one of those unfortunate resolutions
that is undermining public confidence in the UN. And they have, to quote one,
"damn little sympathy" for Israel.

The West Europeans are quite cynical about UN resolutions in general.
The Latins follow the lead of the Europeans. In the case of Brazil, however,
that government recently announced its shift to an anti-Z-R position. The
Soviets use Z-R to justify campaigns against Jews at home and to isolate the
West, and the U.S. in particular, from the Third World, especially the

The Africans, who split in 1975 over Z-R, are still divided. Most of
those who are friendly suggest that Z-R be ignored for now. The perspective
of Black Africa is distorted by Israel's close ties to South Africa and by the
leverage of the PLO within the Non-Alligned Movement (NAM). Although the Arab
bloc has been less responsive to the PLO since 1982, the PLO and its Cuban
ally are still influential members of the NAM and sit on its Coordinating
Bureau. Thus, the Political Declaration adopted as late as the 1983 NAM
summit in New Delhi continued to define "the quintessence of the policy of
non-alignment" as "the struggle against imperialism, colonialism,
neocolonialism, apartheid, [and] racism including Zionism...". among the
Asians there is sc;acely any recognition that a problem exists. One friendly
and intelligent ambassia!or sinp!y deniedd that Z-R legitimizes anti-Semitism.

1975 vs. 1985

To assess with any validity the chances of success in repealing Z-R it
was necessary to compare the dominant political forces at work then and now.
My second finding is that there have been some significant and favorable
changes. At the same time, Z-R has become to a certain extent institution-
alized in UN rhetoric and there is greater reluctance to challenge the
concept. This makes it harder but even more important to deal with.

Here are the favorable developments. In the mid 1970s the Arabs were
united and at the height of their power. Today the PLO has split and the Arab
world is divided into an Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Saudi front and Syrian,
Libyan, Southern Yemen one, supported by Iran. Petropower is diminished and
the West no longer appears to be in a protracted period of inflation and

Radicalism was at the height of its influence in the mid 1970s under the
Algerian and Cuban leadership of the non-aligned. A government like that of
Dahomey (later Benin) could state in favor of Z-R during the Assembly debate
on November 10, 1975 that "rather than see the United Nations bogged down in
compromise, we prefer to see the United Nations dead ...". (A/PV. 2400, p.

Today the second generation of Africa's leaders has shifted from
radicalism to a more moderate approach. Furthermore, it expresses
disenchantment with the Black-Arab alliance. The President of the Ivory
Coast, for example, is quoted in an African publication as saying that the
Black Africans are tired of acting as a voting machine for the Arabs. And
they are reaching out again for better ties with Israel.

We also have to consider the bad news. The Middle East has moved to the
right and is swept up in a tide of Islamic fundamentalism, which rejects the
legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty. The Europeans, who categorically rejected
the idea of Z-R ten years ago in their UN speeches, today are too dependent on
Arab oil and trade to take any initiative which would rile their Arab friends.
As one West European diplomat stated frankly: "I would not be allowed to
introduce an anti-Zionism-racism resolution. It would embarrass our friends."
The new European interests in the Arab world are reinforced by a perception of
modernization and Europeanization there as compared with a weakening of
pioneering socialist ideals and a strengthening of rightist and even fascist
trends in Israel. The 1983 book The Dream of Israel by Norwegian author Nils
Butenschon reflects this tendency. It concludes that as an idea Zionism is
not racism. But in its effect on the Palestinian Arabs, Zionism "could be
said to be a form of racism" because it systematically denies equality to
Israel's non-Jewish population.

Among the Americans in the UN Secretariat, as well as among some
Europeans in the missions, the idea persists that Ambassador Moynihan's
outspoken defense of U.S. interests and his counterattack on Idi Amin were
responsible for Z-R since they alienated and provoked the Third World. One
high-ranking American said if he had been U.S. ambassador at the time, he
would have defused the issue by stating that Zionism was really colonialism,
not racism at all. Ambassador Kirkpatrick is also viewed by this type of
official as combative.

- 5 -

The Asians are more realistic in citing the reasons for Z-R. Tremendous
pressure by Arab and Islamic states and by Muslim minorities which governments
feared were falling into the hands of the fundamentalists are cited most
often. Z-R became a test of friendship.

A New Action Program to Defeat Z-R

At the second UNESCO Conference on Cultural Policies held in Mexico City
in the summer of 1982, there was a vote against Zionism. The result was
45-29. All the other states (about 75 more) abstained or refused to
participate in the vote. I believe these results are indicative of the trend
at the UN. There has been movement in the right direction. But it still is
far from enough. How can that movement be helped along?

First, it is important to remember that states will not be persuaded
simply by the justice of our cause. They need a more compelling reason. As
one Asian ambassador put it very bluntly: "We are not at the UN to help
others or to promote human rights. We are here to look out for our own
interests and our own people."

Second, one needs to keep in mind that no General Assembly resolution has
ever been rescinded. When the Beijing Government arrived at the UN, its
representatives spoke to then Secretary-General U Thant about rescinding the
resolution which labelled the People's Republic the aggressor in Korea. But
they got nowhere and eventually dropped the matter. Technically nullification
is difficult. But the practice has grown up in the last ten years to ignore
the rules with the excuse that the Assembly is master of its own procedure.

Third, the campaign for nullification must be carried on at the popular
as well as the official level. This means mobilizing the NGO community and
informing the media. Then the U.S. Congress and the legislative bodies of
other democratic countries must be mobilized. Mass mobilization is needed to
overcome the foreign policy elites' lack of interest and concern.

Fourth, there must be movement toward a settlement of the Namibia problem
and progress in South Africa to help break the African-Arab bond. At the same
time, we must continue to build confidence among the Africans through UN

Ultimately, the only way to get rid of Z-R may be to make it a basic
issue of United States UN membership. But there are tw;o problems. First,
since the U.S. did not make Z-R such an issue in 1975, it is harder now. In
fact, only the denial of Israel's credentials has achieved the status of a
membership issue, and Z-R was interpreted in 1975 as a counterthrust to this
American ploy. Secondly, assuming one can convince a U.S. Administration that
Z-R is such a priority issue, even the use of the threat of withdrawal may not
assure success. The issue is so highly charged for the Arabs as well as the
Jews, the Arabs may be willing to risk the future of the organization.



Since 1975 Z-R has not gone away. Jews have become more concerned about
it. They may he encouraged to act by the realization that forces which were
responsible for it have weakened during the last decade. Yet, the forces that
wish to combat Z-R are still not strong enough to succeed. Careful
preparation over many months and even years is required. Even then success is
not assured. But history demands a try.


A Publication of the International Council of ste'el 'rith
arrehlo Doran, Dr. lsaac Freakel, Fred Suea iao Co-Chirue
Wrren. Eiseberg, Director CGeore L. SPeetre, Associ.te Director
Dr. Wiltim Korey, Director of Interntonl Policy Imeer
Dr. IrIS kSchoeaberg, DiLrector of U.N. Affairs

I I n t e r n t i o a Ci o a r i I

World Reports

Analyses of critical issues confronting the Jewish world

December, 1984

The Kremlin and the UN "Zionism Equals Racism" Resolution
by: William Korey
Director, Policy Research
International Council of B'nai B'rith
Close analysis of Soviet propaganda in newspapers, journals and books
during 1975 and afterwords illuminates the motivation of the Kremlin in
becoming a prime mover of the "Zionism equals racism" resolution at the UN.
Probably nowhere else has that resolution received the massive attention and
endorsement as it has in the USSR. Strikingly, even today at the United
Nations where, for a variety of reasons, there is a diminished interest in
revitalizing that resolution, it is the Kremlin's representatives who seek to
keep the issue vigorously alive.

While not generally known, the Fall of 1974 marked a new stage in the
Soviet anti-Semitic propaganda drive, masquerading as anti-Zionism. The
Central Committee of the Communist Party prepared a secret directive entitled
"Plan of Measures to Strengthen Anti-Zionism Propaganda and Improve Patriotic
and National Education of the Workers and Youth." The 7-point "plan" which
was sent to every Party district committee specifically called for
"intensification of the struggle against the anti-Soviet activity of Zionism,"
and ordered that a special group of lecturers from the atheist-promotion
society, "Znanie" (or "Knowledge") be selected "to give lectures on Zionist
themes" everywhere in the USSR.

What was missing from the new campaign was the kind of moral sanction
that could provide an ideological legitimacy to the campaign which had clear
anti-Semitic overtones. There was discouragingly little on the subject of
Zionism in the sacred writings of Bolshevism's Founding Fathers, including
V.I. Lenin, to offer a justification for the media drive. Indeed, the
inherent bigotry, as some sensitive foreign Communists noted, did violence to
classical Marxism and especially to Lenin. It was for this reason that the
Kremlin could-and did seize upon the UN "Zionism equals racism" resolution
when the resolution was initially mooted at the General Assembly in the Fall
of 1975, and the Soviet Union became its great champion. That resolution
could offer a rationalization for virulent anti-Zionism that was international
in character and that sprung from the single most prominent global

How the secret Central Committee directive significantly transformed the
anti-Zionist drive can be seen in the extraordinary national attention drawn
in early 1975 to an obscure anti-Semitic book published in Minsk in 1974.
Entitled The Creeping Counterrevolution and written by Vladimir Begun, the
book recalled the themes of the infamous Tsarist fabrication, The Protocols of


the Elders of Zion. Begun's book merits summarization.

According to the author, Judaism is the principle source of Zionism. The
Jewish religion is "extremely reactionary" and distinguished by a "racial"
character by which mankind is divided "into two unequal parts: the Jews
'chosen by God' and the non-Jews 'despised by God' ...." The Torah is
described as "an unsurpassed textbook of blood-thirstiness, hypocrisy,
treason, perfidy and moral degeneracy -- all the lowest human qualities." The
Jewish religious ethic, with respect to the non-Jew, is a compound of
"shamelessness and cynicism" which played "an exceptionally harmful role in
the long history of the Jews."

Begun traced "Zionist gangsterism" precisely to the teachings of the
Torah and the Talmud. He perceived the Judaic tradition as one sanctioning
the conquest and enslavement of all non-Jews by Jews. And it is precisely
such religious belief that has brought "calamity on the adherents of Judaism."
He found the Purim story particularly instructive. To this day, it "serves to
teach treachery ... bloodthirstiness and criminal methods of conquest of
power." Those persons who today profess Judaism are "excellent material for
the Zionists" and the synagogue thus "remains a potential basis for subversive

In three important respects, Begun's work added new dimensions to Soviet
anti-Semitic literature. First, if others saw in Zionism a tool of an
external factor, of Western capitalist imperialism, for the domination of the
world, Begun would eliminate the external factor altogether. In his view, the
Zionists, representing the Jewish big bourgeoisie, have drawn up "delirious
plans of world domination and enslavement of nations." The aspiration is
clearly an outgrowth of the teachings of the Torah supposedly requiring all
nations to be transformed into "slaves of the Jews." Begun-finds a "unity" in
the Judaic world outlook *th "the ideology and strategy of the present-day
servants of Zion." As part of their "strategy," Begun asserted, the Zionists
sought to win control in 1968 of the governments of Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Second, the modern striving for political domination by Zionism is not to
be understood as merely a current phenomenon. Already, during the later
Tsarist period, Begun argued, Zionists were intent upon achieving domination
of Russia. A certain Aron Simanovich, Begun found, "dominated" Rasputin who,
in turn, "dominated" the Tsar and the Tsarina. (Begun's "research" leads him
to believe that Simanovich, a court jeweler, was Rasputin's private secretary
and the Court's eminence grise. Needless to say, the belief corresponds in no
way with historical truth.) Participating in the alleged "domination of
Russia," according to Begun, were "the biggest Jewish capitalists and
businessmen" of the time.

Third -- and most incendiary -- overt anti-Semitic outbreaks are
justified as part of the class struggle of the oppressed against oppressors.
This appears to be the first time in Marxist or Soviet literature that a
rationale of this type can be found. Begun, after taking note of the pogroms
in Tsarist Russia in the late 19th century, argued that "anti-Semitism can
occur as the spontaneous reaction of the oppressed strata of the toiling
population to their barbarous exploitation by the Jewish bourgeoisie." An
extraordinary passage then followed: "We do not grieve today if our fathers,
grandfathers and great grandfathers in their distress and want, treated their

- 3-

oppressors disrespectfully, regardless of whether they were native or alien by
blood." To make this argument, Begun is required to perform a monumental
distortion: the oppressed Jewish community of Tsarist Russia, subject to a
host of discriminatory restrictions, suddenly is transformed into oppressors.
Begun found no difficulty in doing so. He wrote that "the real power of the
Jewish bourgeoisie was incomparably higher than its formal civil rights." As
proof, he points to the alleged role of Aron Simanovich.

The Begun book was printed in a limited edition of 25,000 copies, but in
March, 1975, several months after the historic Central Committee directive, it
was given extensive national attention through a long review article by the
well-known critic, Dmitri Zhukov, in the important journal, Moskva. So
prominent would Begun become that his next volume, entitled Invasion Without
Arms and equally hate-ridden, was published in 1979 in Moscow in an edition of
150,000 copies (and a later second edition of 50,000 copies in 1980).

The significant Zhukov review began in this way: "The Zionists and their
underlings ... have gathered into their hands the press, radio and television
in many countries ... have agents in almost all corners of the world [and] are
trying to put to sleep the vigilance of the peoples...". Zhukov then went on
to endorse the main thesis of the Begun book, i.e., "the chief strategic aim
of Zionism: is to transform the "Jewish bourgeoisie into the ruling caste of
capitalist society." The process was initiated in the late 19th century
during the era of imperialism when the Jewish bourgeoisie "decided to
establish Zionist organizations" the members of which would then secretly
"penetrate into all government institutions and public movements and operate
within them."

Aside from the domination theme, Zhukov focused upon another
characteristic anti-Semitic theme -- Jewish clannishness or exclusivity.
According to him, the Zionists, after seizing control of the press and of
government institutions in a number of capitalist countries, place in key
positions other Jews and keep out "talented people of non-Jewish origin."
Citing a like-minded publicist of Poland, Jerzy Urban who "spent some time in
the midst of Zionists," Zhukov observed that even scientific discoveries were
differentiated "in their importance" by Zionists in terms of whether they were
made by someone "among whose ancestors it was possible to find a Semitic

The clannishness was viewed as a product of Zionist ideology which
allegedly divided the world into two groups: the "superior" Jews and the
"inferior" non-Jews. Such "nationalistic raving" can in turn be traced,
according to Zhukov citing Begun, to "the dogmas of the Jewish religion,"
especially the "Chosen People" concept. Various archaic passages from the
ancient Jewish religious works are quoted to demonstrate that "the best of the
goyim deserves being killed" and that the property of the non-Jew can be
legitimately seized by the Jew.

The capstone of Judaic "monstrous thinking" was held to be "the
particularly repellant" notion of "mastery of the world" presumably
"formulated" in the "Holy Writings of Judaism" and "reflected in prayers."
The Zionists, drawing upon the traditions of "exclusivity" and "racial
purity," began "dreaming of mastery of the world." Zhukov proceeded to the
extraordinary conclusion that Hitler "borrowed his own racist concepts


directly from the Zionists." From this perspective, further shocking
assertions are no longer excluded. Zhukov found that Zionism and Fascism
shared "mutual ties" in their basic "approach to the racial problem" and in
"their hatred for the Soviet Union."

The aim of the Zionists is still to be realized, Zhukov stated, for "the
Jewish bankers are not yet in power everywhere." In consequence, quoting
Begun, the critic concluded that "the most important task of the Zionist brain
center" is to seize "key positions in the economy and in the administrative
and ideological apparatus of the States in the Diaspora."

In the ideological sphere, Zhukov said the Zionists strive to destroy
"national cultures," presumably acting out what had earlier been called their
"cosmopolitan," and "alien" propensities. They strike at prevailing socialist
ideologies with the objective of "ethical decomposition" through the vilest
means. They "sow poison and corruption" by "sly" and "hypocritical" means.
Czechoslovakia, under Dubcek, was a testing ground for the Zionist technique.
Having seized control of the creative arts and the press, they require every
performer, artist and writer who wished one or another favor to "dance" to
their "tune." The Zionists in Czechoslovakia, according to Zhukov,
constituted together with their brethren abroad, an "international clan, which
not only speculated in culture, but, what is worse, carried out a genuine
ideological subversion." Similar strivings by Zionists in Poland were
"unanimously stopped by the Polish people."

Zhukov concluded his review with unqualified encomiums. Begun's book is
distinguished "by a deeply scientific approach" by "a wealth of material" and
by a "principled attitude and argumentation." If Zionism is "like Fascism,"
it is "better concealed" and is "more ramified." Begin's contribution was to
disclose its strategy and reveal its roots and branches. The "perfidious
scheme" of the "enslavers" who operate "under the blue star of David," Zhukov
believed is now clearly revealed while Zionism itself is "doomed to perish."
For, standing in its path is the "camp of socialist countries" which is the
"chief obstacle" to the realization of the "mad plans for world mastery and
the enslavement of peoples...."

In addition to writing the Moskva review, Zhukov joined two other authors
in preparing for 1975-76 a full-length documentary entitled "The Secret and
the Overt (The Aims and Actions of Zionists)." To judge from a report on the
film in the Soviet movie journal Kino (August 1975), it is of a piece with
Zhukov's review of the Begun book. According to the Kino report, "The entire
shameful road of Zionism is the road of insolent deception, dark intrigues,
treason, treachery and bloody violence... The Zionists are racists." The
leaders of Zionism, the journal asserted, had operated in collusion with the
Nazis and, indeed, provided Hitler with financial capital. Even though the
Nazis burned in gas ovens hundreds of thousands of Jewish "workers" and the
Jewish "poor," the Zionists continued to the bitter end their collaboration
with Fascism.

The strong endorsement of the Begun book signalled a vastly stepped-up
campaign. A massive outpouring of vitriolic propaganda about Zionism filled
the press and the other media beginning especially in the summer of 1975.
Guidelines for the campaign were provided by the key propaganda journal,
Agitator, which is designed to instruct the professional agitators and

-5 -

propagandists on the correct Party line to be pursued on the basic policy
issues of the day. In June, Agitator carried one of its rare pieces on the
subject, entitled "The Zionist Feedbag of the Aggressor," by no less an
authority than the rabid specialist on Zionism, Yevgenii Yevseev.

In an inquiry designed to uncover the source of Israel's "adventurous
course" that presumably keeps heated the tensions of the Middle East, Yevseev
stressed the "wide support" for Israel "among the leading circles of interna-
tional Zionism, among the manufacturers and sellers of arms in the various
countries of Europe and America." Singled out are the World Zionist
Organization with branches in 70 countries and the World Jewish Congress with
"centers in no less than 80 states of the globe." The two organizations are
said to "have enmeshed almost the entire capitalist world as if by a net."
Besides recruiting "cannon fodder" for the Israeli army, they conduct
"espionage and subversion" on behalf of anti-Soviet groups.

At the center of the Zionist operation, according to Yevseev, are some
500 of the "most influential and most mighty bankers and businessmen from
dozens of small and large capitalist countries of all the continents." It is
these "golden feedbags" of capital who "personify the true master of Israel"
and "determine its political course." If earlier they had hidden their
influence, according to Yevseev, not they have come to shed former restraints
and display their role openly, at least in the U.S. But when General George
Brown dared to criticize them, the "entire mechanism" of Zionism swung into
operation forcing him to "retract his words officially." The power of the
"mechanism" resulted from the supposed "fact" that 80 percent of the local and
international information agencies "belong to the Zionists." And in the world
of capital, Yevseev observed, "he who pays the piper, calls the tune."

Trofim Kichko, another notorious bigot, who for more than a year had not
appeared in print, also returned to the intensified propaganda battle.
Writing in Dnipro (No. 7, July 1975) published in Kiev, he and a colleague, D.
Koretskoy, drew special attention to the attempts of Zionists to attract the
youth. They do "all they can to turn young people into unthinking executors
of mad plans." Even Communist youth is not excluded from their objective.
"Particularly perfidious" is their role in penetrating radical youth movements
in order to "disarm" them ideologically through the Zionists' control of the
ramifiedd system of mass propaganda, information, and art...."

Even serious publications of the U.S.S.R. were harnessed to the anti-
Zionist campaign. Voprosy istorii (No. 7, July 1975), the journal of the
historical profession, featured a voluminous article on "Social Democracy,
Zionism and the Middle East Question" by L. Dadiani. Couched in language of
sobriety and equipped with extensive footnotes, the article nonetheless made
the necessary obeisance to the propagandists: "As is known, Zionism had been
and remains a reactionary and absolutely nationalist ideology ... of the big
Jewish bourgeoisie...." Dadiani also borrowed a leaf from Kichko. He stated
that a principal "task" of the Zionist labor movement was "to brainwash Jewish
youth in various countries." But the main burden of his research was directed
to demonstrating the alleged penetration of international Social-Democracy by
Zionism and the "intimate" links of their relationship. If vulgarity and open
bigotry were eschewed, at the same time, the article served the purpose of
justifying the all-out propaganda campaign.

A leading literary periodical, Literaturnaia Rossiia (No. 37, September
12, 1975), reviewed a new collection of documents, prepared by the Institute
of Oriental Studies of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences and entitled Against
Zionism and Israeli Aggression. According to the review, the "scholarly"
volume, containing 274 pages of material taken from the Communist press of
Israel and other countries, provides an "exposure" of the "class essence" and
"imperialist character" of Zionism. The reason for the new and serious
academic stress upon Zionism was made clear in the opening paragraph of the
review. In the contemporary "historical struggle of two world systems -- the
capitalist and the socialist," which is currently marked by "considerable
intensification," "international Zionism" constitutes one of the main "shock
troops" of "imperialist reaction."

An important international affairs periodical Mezhdunarodnia zhizn' (No.
9 September 1975) joined the chorus of anti-Zionist abuse with an article on
"The Victims of Zionist Deception" by V. Vladimirsky. The emphasis of the
article was upon Soviet Jews who had been "lured" to Israel by the "lying
propaganda" and "subversive activity of world Zionism." Israel's economic
difficulties are highlighted to illustrate the nature of the "deception." The
result, the author asserted, is the growth of emigration from Israel and the
collapse of the "mythical" concept of a "Biblical Homeland."

It was precisely at the moment when the Soviet mass media campaign
against Zionism was mounting that the United Nations adopted on November 10,
1975 the resolution equating Zionism with racism. The reaction in the
U.S.S.R., not surprisingly, was enthusiastic. What the U.S.S.R. had been
incessantly preaching had now acquired an international sanction. Indeed,
Soviet delegates at the UN were vigorously lobbying for the resolution of
which Cuba, its proxy, was a prime mover and of which the Soviet Union was
itself a sponsor. As if by signal, the Soviet press launched a monumental
effort both to laud the UN resolution and to interpret its meaning and
significance. The new and clearly orchestrated anti-Zionist campaign now
exceeded in scope and magnitude even previous efforts.

The campaign did not swing into high gear until final action by the
Assembly. However, Pravda, as early as October 19, began orienting the Soviet
public to the significance of the U.N. resolution. Two days after a vote in
the Third Committee of the General Assembly branded Zionism as a form of
racism, the Soviet Party organ called the resolution "authoritative." Pravda
hailed the U.N. "condemnation" of "Zionist ideology" on grounds that the
ideology was linked "with the most reactionary forces of imperialism." (The
two-day delay in Soviet reportage was due mainly to time differences between
New York and Moscow. The resolution was adopted by the Third Committee late
on October 17th. Tass filed the story early on October 18th.)

Between the action of the Third Committee and the final adoption of the
resolution in the plenary of the General Assembly on November 10, three weeks
intervened. The Soviet mass media, during the interval, concentrated upon the
opposition that the resolution had evoked. Komsomolskaia pravda, on October
28, perceived the resistance as a "maneuver" by Zionists and other "opponents
of the improvement of the international climate" to "foil" the decision of
"the great majority of countries." The newspaper emphasized that the
resolution -- "a very important document" -- would withstand the "inadmissible
pressure" of the United States.

- 7 -

The November 1 issue of Pravda, in the special Column of the Commentator,
addressed the matter more sharply. Noting that the vote in the Third
Committee indicated that "the world community has resolutely condemned the
expansionist course of Israel," the writer observed that the Zionists have
initiated "a crude slanderous attack" against the U.N. and, more importantly,
were trying to "blackmail" Latin America, Asian, and African countries in
order to force them "to change their positions" in plenary. The reason for
the Zionist campaign is that the Third Committee had "called Zionism by its
true name." The reasons for the Western opposition to the resolution and the
hesitancy of numerous African countries were totally neglected. For Pravda,
the resistance emanated only from Zionist circles and from those who "in
essence connive with the aggressive, expansionist plans of the Zionists."

(Moscow Radio, in broadcasts beamed to the Arab world on the previous
day, attacked the United States for its support of Zionism which, "in fact,
means a policy of piracy, exploitation and oppression." Two reasons were
offered as to why the United States is "the main supporter of world reaction-
ary Zionism": 1) the United States itself practices racial discrimination
against the Negro and Indian populations, and 2) "Zionist capital is an
influential part of the capitalist system of the U.S.A.")

The Red Army newspaper, Krasnaia zvezda, both on November 1 and November
4, carried special articles on Zionism. The first, entitled "Official Policy
-- Racism," reviewed a work which found Zionism "even worse" than the
oppression and discrimination practiced against blacks and Indians in America.
The second article entitled "The Ideology of Racial Discrimination" quoted
approvingly from statements of U.N. delegates, mainly Arab, who found Zionism
to be identical with apartheid.

Following the final plenary vote, the floodgates of the Soviet propaganda
machine opened wide. Trud, on November 12, summarized the U.N. decision as
well as previous actions in international forums where Zionism was condemned
"as a form of racism." Moskovskaia pravda, November 13, printed a long
article with the headline "Zionism in the Pillory." Commenting upon the U.N.
decision, the writer stated that "the world forum of the peoples of our planet
has nailed Zionism to the pillory of history as a political ideology of
imperialism and racism." The final statement of the article was particularly
provocatory. For the Soviet reading public, he interpreted the U.N. action as
meaning that "the great majority of the peoples of the world ... resolutely
demand the eradication of that [Zionism] from our planet."

Sovetskaia Rossiia was equally shrill on the same day with a headline
"Zionism -- This is Racism." The author of the lengthy piece concluded that
the "genuine racism" practiced "daily" by Zionism is "the same as is today
practiced in South Africa and Rhodesia" and as had been practiced "in the
recent past in Hitler's Gertany." Soviet broadcasts to the Arab world
focused upon the opposition of the United States and the Western states to
the resolution. Moscow Radio declared that opposition to the resolution
reveals Zionism to be "a racist ideology seeking to suppress human rights" and
is "tantamount" to opposing "basic human rights."

The well-known Yevseev entered the list of commentators on the UN vote on
November 14 with a special article for the farm periodical Sel'skaia zhizn'.
His language was, not unexpectedly, venomous. Defining Zionism as an ideology


having a "man-hating and Fascist character," he welcomed its "authoritative
condemnation" by the UN. He saw in the vote the first major setback for
mankind's great enemy: "For the first time in many years, the Zionists did
not succeed in using effectively hidden methods for silencing the voices of
condemnation and criticism directed against the aggressors and rapists who
operate under the six-cornered Star of David." Yevseev, no doubt anticipating
a free rein to express his feverish anti-Semitic hostility, concluded that the
U.N. vote carries "great political significance."

The weekly Za rubezhom which appeared on November 14 printed the headline
"The Racist Grin of Zionism" for an article originally published in Paris.
The charges in it echoed themes of Begun. In the "Jewish state," "only Jews
are considered human beings and the non-Jews are treated like animals." On
November 15, both Izvestiia and Pravda Ukrainy carried articles with exactly
the same headline, "Zionism -- A Form of Racism." The authors, however, were
not the same. Izvestiia treated the "important event" of the U.N. vote in a
prosaic, matter-of-fact way, though of course with the usual bias. The
Ukranian newspaper was characteristically more vehement. In describing
Zionism, the author stressed that its theory and practice "is founded on the
racist fabrications about the 'God-chosenness' of the Jewish people." The
journal, Gudok, on'November 15 also devoted a special article on the subject
with the dramatic headline "The Zionist Witches' Sabbath."

The most vitriolic of the commentaries on the U.N. resolution was written
for Komsomolskaia pravda on November 19, by the author of the violently
anti-Semitic book, Beware: Zionism!, Yuri Ivanov (first published in 1969).
His name had not figured in the Soviet national press for several years. His
return, following the U.N. decision, was obviously of considerable
significance. The overt bigotry associated with his name was not being given
clear signals of official encouragement.

Ivanov, true to his earlier form, did not cloak his personal dislikes.
The opponents of the resolution were "the typical bearers of hatred of man --
the Zionist magnates and their toadies who nestle everywhere where the Dollar,
Gulden and the Rand rule." But, if they suffered defeat, at the same time,
"what is important" to them is not what the goyimm" say. (Ivanov cited here a
quote from a 5-year-old Paris newspaper article and then took the occasion
to define goyimm" as "non-Jews.") The Zionist "magnates" still exert a
powerful influence in "the world of imperialism."

To demonstrate the theme of Zionist influence, Ivanov reached far into
the past for a quotation from auto-magnate Henry Ford. Presumably Ford was
quoted in The New York Times of March 8, 1925 as saying -- according to Ivanov
-- that if the "50 Jewish financiers who are richer than I am" and "who create
war for their own profits" were subject to public control then "wars will be
eliminated." Ivanov expressed strong doubt that such a statement would be
published now in the U.S. He added: "In the United States of today, just as
in the majority of other capitalist countries, such an exposure of the Zionist
Mafia is like death for any businessman, no matter how rich he is."

It is fascinating and instructive that the Soviet author of an anti-
Zionist classic would seek documentation from the observations of Henry Ford.
The latter's well-known bias toward Jews found its ultimate expression in the
publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his Dearborn


Independent. Ivanov, whose own writings are clearly inspired by the
Protocols, would have been drawn to an affinity with Ford and any others whose
perspective of reality was affected or determined by the Protocols.

An examination of The New York Times of March 8, 1925 indeed, reveals
Ivanov's special interest in the Protocols.* The Ford auotation appeared on
the front page of the book review section where the book under review was
Secret Societies and Subversive Movements by Hesta H. Webster. The reviewer,
Silas Bent, observed that Mrs. Webster accepted the Protocols as valid. It is
not unlikely that Ivanov steeped himself in Mrs. Webster's anti-Semitic work.
But what is even more striking is the fact that Ivanov literally doctored the
Ford quotation. The Times citation attributed to Ford does not carry the
words "who are richer than I am" after "50 Jewish financiers." Evidently,
even Ford was not sufficiently anti-Semitic for Ivanov. He obviously felt the
necessity of forging additional words to give emphasis to Ford's and his own

Commentary upon the U.N. vote in the Soviet mass media continued until
the end of November. Za rubezhom on November 21-27 offered one of the most
elaborate and lengthy discussions of the U.N. debated under the headline
"Zionism in the Pillory." The tendentious character of the article was
indicated in the penultimate paragraph where the Zionists were equated with
"Nazis who have lost all feeling of morality and humanity." Another lengthy
and more tendentious treatment appeared in Sovetskaia kultura on November 25.
The author, S. Astakhov, called the U.N. resolution a "truly historic
document" and proceeded to explain why it has aroused "rage" among Zionists.
Again the theme of the "Chosen People" concept -- appropriately distorted --
was emphasized with the elements of "racial superiority" and "exclusivity"
thrown in.

The principal ideological journal of the U.S.S.R., Kommunist, summed up
the campaign in a very lengthy article in its December issue. Zionism was
declared to be "from the very beginning a reactionary, bourgeois-nationality
ideology" which became "a tool of imperialist policy and ... a defender of the
interests of the monopolistic bourgeoisie." The "racist character" of Zionism
was recapitulated with the usual references both to the UN decision and to
Israeli practices. Within Israel, the "racist" essence of Zionism "has been
raised to the level of state policy," according to the author.

From 1975 until the present, the UN resolution on "Zionism equals racism"
became the point of departure for all Soviet books dealing with Zionism, which
incidentally were also replete with anti-Jewish hate-mongering. Several score
of such volumes have been published. Most significant was the volume written
by a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, Lydia Modzhorian, a specialist
on international jurisprudence. Her book was appropriately entitled Zionism
as a Form of Racial Discrimination, the precise language of the UN resolution

The Modzhorian book became a standard Soviet work on the subject of
Zionism. The UN resolution was shown as providing the legitimization of the
struggle against Zionism conducted in the USSR and elsewhere. That the book
was extraordinarily tendentious was apparent to everyone who was familiar with
Modzhorian's anti-Jewish virulence. Illustrative was her comments in the book
about the notorious pogroms during the Tsarist epoch. She justified them on

:: S Jewish Currents, May, 1977: p. 19.

- 10 -

grounds that they were "a reaction to the exploitation to which the broad
masses were subjected in capitalist enterprises." In her view, the pogroms
were "artificially exaggerated and widely used by Jewish entrepreneurs and

The anti-Zionist campaign in the USSR has been massive in the last decade
with thousands of articles in the press and journals, scores of books,
innumerable radio and television programs, numerous public lectures, and a
great number of virulent cartoons. The central themes echo the basic ideas of
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: 1) that the Zionists (or international
Jewry), through the "Chosen People" concept, seek world domination; 2) that
this aspiration is to be achieved through guile, cunning and conspiratorial
devices; 3) that Zionists (or Jewish) control of Western and international
banking and their manipulation of the press enables them to pursue effectively
the aim of world domination.

From time to time, a fourth Protocols theme will make its contemporary
appearance: that Free Masonry is exploited by the Zionists to achieve a mass
base for their conspiratorial purposes. This theme has appeared especially in
various Soviet lectures (most notably by Valery Yemelyanov) and in articles in
Komsomolskaia pravda.

Tragically, the UN resolution has been used by the Kremlin to provide an
authoritative international sanction to these fundamental themes, particularly
the first. Zionism via the Judaic concept of the "Chosen People," totally
distorted of course, is presented as being racist and as striving for racial
domination over the non-Jew. It has become conventional wisdom in the USSR.
Even Leonid Brezhnev at the 26th Party Congress in February, ,1981 and
Konstantin Chernenko, in a subsequent booklet on human rights, have formally
defined Zionism as "chauvinism" and, ironically, bracketed it with anti-

It was exactly fifty years ago, that a presiding judge in a historic
Swiss trial dealing with the authenticity of Protocols of the Elders of Zion
offered some pertinent comments. "I hope that one day there will come a time
when no one will any longer comprehend how in the year 1935 almost a dozen
fully sensible and reasonable men could for fourteen days torment their brains
before a court of Berne over the authenticity ... of these so-called Protocols
.. [which] are nothing but ridiculous nonsense." That an international
institution and a major society can subscribe to similar "ridiculous nonsense"
that Zionism is racism is equally distressing. As we enter into the tenth
year of a resolution which has sustained and reinforced anti-Semitism, no more
so than in the USSR, it is appropriate to raise the question of how much
longer will civilization be burdened by such bigotry.

Significantly, some progress had been recorded. A previous UN sponsored
"Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination" had later included
specific programmatic references to the "Zionism equals racism" resolution of
1975. As a consequence, the United States and various West European countries
refused to participate in the "Decade's" activities. And African countries
have become increasingly concerned that the "Zionism equals racism" resolution
acts as an obstacle to the struggle against apartheid and racial

- 11 -

The UN General Assembly Third Committee, several weeks ago, adopted by
consensus an Ethiopian draft resolution on a Second UN Decade to Combat Racism
and Racial Discrimination which carries no reference to "Zionism equals
racism." Strikingly, the USSR, together with its allies and radical Third
World delegations, made intense efforts to incorporate the reference. The
Kremlin, clearly, regards the 1975 resolution as critical to its current
ideological interests and concerns. A rebuff to its determination is to some
extent encouraging. But a decisive step can come only with the rollback of
the malicious and incendiary resolution itself. That must remain the goal of
those committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A Publication of the International Council of B'nai B'rith
Shalom P. Doron, Dr. Isaac Frenkel, Fred Simon Worms Co-Chairmen
Warren W. Eisenberg, Director George L. Spectre, Associate Director
Dr. William Korey, Director of International Policy Research
Dr. Harris Schoenberg, Director of U.N. Affairs
Lronard Steinhorn, Assistant to the Director

*,:t 1 ~~

-' .