The UN rescinded 'Zionism is racism' in 1991. Now it's back - analysis

However, unlike virtually every other common antisemitic accusation used over the centuries to stir up hatred against Jews, the charge that Zionism is racism was actually rescinded by the organization that first promulgated it. Without explanation or apology, in December 1991, the UN General Assembly simply rescinded the resolution in a single sentence.

Underlying both the original UN resolution and its subsequent revocation was, of course, a complex mix of political and diplomatic maneuvering.

The allegation depends on linking Zionism with the perception of Israel as a colonial enterprise – a foreign power imposing itself on a native population. Although that belief ignores the long-standing historical evidence of the Jewish people’s ancient and continuous ties to the land, it was used to justify the UN resolution.

Today, with the tide of global antisemitism at full flood, the claim that Jews are colonists in the Land of Israel has become mainstream, and the “Zionism is racism” charge has reemerged in both the US and the UK.

The IHRA is an intergovernmental organization of 35 member countries dedicated to Holocaust education, remembrance, and research, as well as combating antisemitism. Its working definition of antisemitism, adopted in 2016, is now used by 1,334 entities worldwide – including 48 national governments, along with universities, NGOs, and other institutions.

The IHRA provides 11 illustrative examples that potentially constitute antisemitism. One of them is “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

So New York City no longer officially treats the claim as a possible manifestation of antisemitism. In April, the city’s executive director of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism said that the administration had no codified definition of antisemitism.

At the conference, amid procedural and internal disputes, the motion was sidelined. It was not defeated, however; the conference ran out of time before it could be debated, and the motion was deferred. It is expected to return at the party’s autumn conference.

The Green Party’s charismatic leader, Zack Polanski, has not offered unqualified endorsement to the proposition. He has repeatedly said it “depends on what you mean by Zionism,” but he has indicated that he would vote for the motion if “Zionism” were defined as the current Israeli government’s activity in Gaza. That, he calls “absolutely” racist.

If the motion were adopted in its current form, it could place members who identify as Zionists – including Jewish members who support Jewish national self-determination – in a difficult position. The motion’s language has already raised concerns among Jewish Greens that Zionist members could face exclusion or pressure to disavow their views.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 (“Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”) was not the product of a sudden vote in November 1975, but the culmination of a carefully prepared diplomatic campaign.

The idea of equating Zionism with racism had Soviet antecedents dating back to the 1960s. By 1975, Arab and Palestinian diplomacy had successfully woven it into the prevailing Third World language of anti-colonialism, apartheid, and racial discrimination.

When Somalia, backed by 13 other countries, tried to insert Zionism into the UN’s anti-racism program, it encountered stiff resistance. So Somalia sponsored a stand-alone resolution because African states did not want their anti-racism campaign to be sidetracked.

That led to a diplomatic battle, with several attempts to postpone it. Somalia and its supporters persisted. US and Western diplomats tried hard to detach African and other nonaligned states from the Arab bloc. They failed. On November 10, 1975, Resolution 3379 passed by 72 votes to 35, with 32 abstentions.

In Israel, 3379 was perceived as an attack on the very concept underlying the state’s foundation. On the day the resolution was adopted, Israel’s then-ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog, delivered his response to the General Assembly.

Zionism, he told the forum, was the Jewish people’s national liberation movement. It was the modern expression of the long-standing Jewish historical, religious, and cultural connection to the Land of Israel.

The charge of racism Herzog countered by pointing to Israel’s political and civic life, including Arab participation in public institutions.

His most famous words came at the close: “For us, the Jewish people, this resolution, based on hatred, falsehood, and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper, and we shall treat it as such.”

He then tore up a copy of the resolution – a symbolic act that became one of the most enduring images of Israeli diplomacy at the UN.

By 1991, the political landscape that had produced Resolution 3379 had been transformed. The Cold War was ending, the Soviet Union was retreating, the Gulf War had exposed the limits of Arab solidarity, and the US enjoyed unprecedented diplomatic leverage.

As the Madrid peace process got under way, then-president George H. W. Bush seized the moment and made the repeal of 3379 a US objective. Britain and the EU joined the lobbying campaign. The Arab and pro-Palestinian camp did mount determined resistance – including an attempt to require a two-thirds majority – but its influence was visibly eroding. In the end, on December 16, 1991, 111 states voted to rescind Resolution 3379, with 25 opposed and 13 abstaining.

But the genie is out of the bottle. The UN’s repudiation of the “Zionism is racism” allegation carries little weight with those whose objection is to Israel’s very existence. No amount of legal or historical evidence will persuade opponents who are resolved not to engage in reasoned argument.■