Nearly thirty two years ago, on November 10, 1975, initiated and spurred on by the Soviet Union, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions),  which stated that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

The Soviet Union, having had ratcheted up their anti-Israel propaganda after the Six-Day War (1967), and compounded by the increased Arab oil funds available for an anti-Israel campaign following the  Yom Kippur War (1973), gave this resolution much of its initiative. The "Zionism = racism" campaign was, in part, a response to United States’ proposals that criticized the Soviet Union.

 Fifteen years ago, on December 16, 1991, through much of the efforts of the White House and President George H.W. Bush,  the Conference of Presidents and other Jewish organizations, Resolution 3379 was rescinded by Resolution 4686 with a vote of 111 to 25 (with 13 abstentions). This horrific U.N. Resolution 3379 lasted more than 16 years.

 Although 3379 no longer exists and is officially off the books, there remain questions:

Did the decision to rescind this resolution really change society’s opinion of Zionism?

Was the vote taken in 1991 a true reflection of the UN’s sentiments or was it a factor of a
 little ‘behind the scenes’ arm twisting and diplomatic maneuvering?

Was it merely a hopeful response to the Madrid Conference, which convened on
 October 30, 1991, a meager six weeks before 4686?

Do people today still use the Zionism/racism analogy as ammunition for anti-Israel
 incitement, albeit using different phraseology?  

Are there nations/peoples today who claim not to be anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist? is
there a difference?

Had 4686 been proposed today, would it have succeeded? with the same overwhelming
majority?  

Just a little googling will present countless websites and books replete with references to Zionism as racism.

“Zionism is a racist ideology, like all nationalisms. The specific racist characteristics are summarized here: labeling them racist should be uncontroversial in itself. However, Israel and its supporters are allergic for the label, and that hinders rational assessment of nationalist ideology.” (Nation Planet)

For many people (and the numbers are increasing), Zionism is still defined as a horrific movement of oppression, hatred and bigotry. So what then did we accomplish in 1991? 

Obviously, the repeal of this Resolution was absolutely necessary for any type of Zionist organization to be taken seriously, and it was with much joy that we all celebrate the anniversary of its rescission. What we need to realize is, that we did not just battle to make Zionism an acceptable and politically correct term, but that our mission continues…we must persist and make Zionism an acceptable ideology. People must be constantly reminded that Zionism is not in any way a form of racism, and they must also know why.

In reality Zionism, unlike other ‘nationalistic’ movements, has no race or color, or common ideology that makes anyone right, or better than anyone else. Zionism is a secular Jewish movement founded on the ideals of Theodore Herzl in 1896. Recognizing the futility of trying to combat centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, Herzl envisioned the founding of a future independent Jewish state. He created the political term Zionism, named after Jerusalem’s Mount Zion. The movement gained significant momentum with post-Holocaust emigration and continues to be connected with the political support of the State of Israel. Nowhere in any of its ideologies does it discriminate, isolate, segregate, show animus towards others or believe in racial superiority.

In fact, Israel, unlike any other country in its vicinity, let alone the rest of the world, is one of the most open societies with the most freedoms.

How then was 3379, completely misrepresenting the true meaning of Zionism, passed?

At a luncheon/symposium commemorating the anniversary of 3379’s repeal, there was an array of speakers who conveyed their memories of 4686’s implementation and their remarks on how 3379 could ever have been passed in the first place. These included Shoshana Cardin, the former president of the Conference of Presidents who was elemental in getting the resolution overturned; Michael Herzog, the son of Chaim Herzog, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN at the time; Saúl Weisleder, the Costa Rican representative to the U.N. mission in New York; Richard Holbrooke, a former US Ambassador to the UN; and Acting U.S. Representative to the United Nations Alejandro D. Wolff, among others.

Most moving was the accolades presented by all the speakers to the widow of US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Elizabeth Brennan Moynihan. We were all reminded of the memorable speech when he was the United States representative to the UN who, when 3379 was passed, said,

“The United States, rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations and before the world that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”  (US Permanent Representative to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Weisleder while not in the U.N. at the time of the enactment or repeal of the resolution,  did shed some light on a speech given by Father Benjamin Nunez at the time the resolution was enacted. Father Nunez, an avid supporter not only of Israel, but of what he believed and knew  was right, made it clear that 3379 was a disgrace to the very institution ratifying it.

“The Arab refugees were a consequence of the blindness of the Arab leaders…Knowing both peoples as I do, and aware as I am of the statements of the spokesmen of Egypt and the PLO, and of other Arab leaders, who say that the Jews should be cast into the sea, I must state that I am firmly convinced that if there were Arab refugees it was because the people of Israel, which is its own army, is a people and a State with profound and deep-rooted moral principles. That is why there were Arab refugees. If—God forbid—the Arabs had been victorious in any of those wars there would have been no Jewish refugees, because not a single Jew would have been left alive.”  (Father Benjamin Nunez)

We also heard from Michael Herzog who spoke about his father Chaim Herzog’s famous act of literally tearing up the resolution after exclaiming in front of the general assembly.

“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.” (Ambassador to the UN Chaim Herzog)

John Bolton, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who in 1991 was Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State, deserves to be recognized for his efforts in getting resolution 4686 to pass. Bolton, a strong- willed man, a man of personal conscience and conviction, did then, and even in our more recent events, stand up for what he believed in, at times, to great personal cost.  He never let his political or career aspirations stand in the way of justice; he always fought for what he knew was right. 
These were great men and women, who fought for what was true and just. We all applaud the gallant efforts and success of those who helped repeal 3379. But we cannot rest on their laurels.

Today, we have a whole new cast of characters who are making Israel’s demise their primary agenda. Some are more verbose, others more subtle.

We do have our work cut out for us.

Gideon Platt is a senior at the Ramaz Upper School.