A Day of Infamy: November 10, 1975





Dr. Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His is the author of a number of books, including Nations United: How The U.N. Undermines Israel and The West, Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State.

Justice Richard Goldstone’s U.N. report charging Israel of “deliberate attacks” against civilians in last January’s defensive war against Hamas, is just the latest assault to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state and her right to defend herself.

That the U.N. continues to play a central in this effort is not surprising. After failing to defeat Israel on the field of battle, the Arabs chose to employ the U.N. to wage a political war against the Jews.

On November 10, 1975, the 37th anniversary of the Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass), the U.N. General Assembly declared that Zionism is Racism and racial discrimination (Z=R) by passing Resolution 3379. The passage was part of an orchestrated worldwide campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel, after her enemies failed to expel her from the U.N.

On the same day the U.N. declared Z=R, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 3376, establishing an Assembly Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Sixteen of the original 20 members on the Assembly committee did not have relations with Israel, and some had never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist.1

The Z=R resolution initiated a new strain of international antisemitism. Although the resolution was abrogated in 1991, depriving it of legal status, the hostility against Israel it generated in most U.N. member nations—and in the U.N.’s own institutions—continues unabated.

Implications of the Resolution

“In the U.N., words take on a life of their own,” noted John R. Bolton, then Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, “To declare as ‘racist’ the historical and cultural underpinnings of a state is tantamount to branding that state an international criminal, for racism is a crime enumerated in the Genocide Convention and numerous other instruments commonly accepted under international law.’’2

Abba Eban, Israel’s first permanent representative to the U.N. was the man who negotiated her entry into the U.N. and was later Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, believed that this was the first time in history that an international body directed its criticism against ideas and articles of faith venerated by one of its member states—and not against its policies. The U.N. had never endorsed or denounced an “-ism” before. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States never sponsored a resolution condemning communism, socialism, or any other “-ism.” 3

A racist state has “no rights at all, not even the right to defend itself.” observed Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. After 3379 was passed, Israel became “fair game for armed ‘liberation.’ ” The U.N. General Assembly deliberately branded Israel as illegitimate on the same day it recognized the legitimacy of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).4

Antisemitic rhetoric in the U.N. was no longer taboo. Diplomatic representatives were free to use antisemitic stereotypes in their speeches, reflecting classical Christian antisemitism in their political attacks against Israel.5

Demonizing Israel has turned it into a physical target for terrorist organizations, and into apolitical target for left wing and reactionary forces. Whether there are fatwa’s (legal rulings by Muslim clerics issued to legitimize suicide terrorism) or there are organizations demanding divestment from Israeli corporations, destruction of Israel—physical, spiritual or economic—is one of the mantras of the day. This is political antisemitism.6

For the majority of the members in the U.N., Israel is a locus of evil deserving of international condemnation—unlike many countries in the U.N. who practice ethnic cleansing, offer no rights to women or the poor, starve their own people for political reasons, and commit genocide.

These same nations, in the halls of an institution that was designed to prevent exactly this from happening, deny Israel her rights even in the courts of international law. Israel is the target of the majority of U.N. sanctions, is vilified by The Hague for defending herself and is singled out by the Geneva Convention as the utmost violator of human rights.7

Political science professor Ehud Sprinzak suggests this deliberate delegitimization leads to gradual erosion of Israel’s stature and ultimately her right to exist. Those targeted are the last to recognize the transformation until the consequences of ostracism become evident. This occurs when remarks by the country’s spokesman are “perceived as irrelevant,” and when the leadership is no longer regarded as worthy of engaging in legitimate discourse with other countries.8

Branding Israel as racist, portrays her as a country that harms civilian populations, oppresses minorities, establishes restrictive immigration laws and religious statutes as part of their ideological raison d’être. Thus, Israel’s wars, its military response to terror and laws passed by the Knesset are racist. A significant danger to Israel is that if this charge becomes a new stereotype through popular culture, the media, literature and daily speech, it will taint the Jewish state and become a part of the legacy of the West.9

No logical argument ever succeeded in disputing the blood libels or any other spurious allegation leveled against the Jews. Limited response to Z=R ensured that anti-Zionist resolutions continued to be passed. To counter the process of delegitimization, the charges have to be seen as a “corruption of language and thought,” a threat to freedom, and a campaign of disinformation orchestrated by the Arabs and their collaboraters.10

1. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, “The U.N.’s Day of Infamy,” The Washington Post (November 11, 1985): A23; Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate For Terror: The United Nations and the PLO (New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 1989), 108-125.
2. John R. Bolton, “Zionism Is Not Racism,” NYT (December 16, 1991).
3. Abba Eban, “Israel, Anti-Semitism and the United Nations,” The Jerusalem Quarterly (Fall 1976): 110, 118.
4. Kirkpatrick, “The U.N.’s Day of Infamy,” The Washington Post (November 11, 1985), A23; Schoenberg, op. cit., 108-125.
5. Avi Beker, The United Nations and Israel: From Recognition to Reprehension (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1988), 3, 5, 94.
6. Irwin Cotler. “Why is Israel singled out,” The Jerusalem Post (January 16, 2002); Irwin Cotler, “Human Rights And The New Anti-Jewishness,” The Jerusalem Post, (February 5, 2004); Irwin Cotler.” Durban's Troubling Legacy One Year Later: Twisting the Cause of International Human Rights Against the Jewish People.” Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs Volume 2, No. 5 (August 20, 2002).
7. Ibid.
8. Ehud Sprinzak, “Anti-Zionism: From Delegitimation to Dehumanization.” Forum-53 (Fall 1984): 3-5.
9. Ibid 7-8.
10. Ibid.9-10.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


omar ibrahim baker - 11/3/2009

Elliot
I note that to evade addressing specific points and issues outlined above, and separated into distinct paragraphs for clarity, you revert to a glaringly one sided rehash of events in which both communities indulged into violent actions against each other.

These actions are,unfortunately,
“natural” and only to be expected in all cases of inter communal strife as the events in Northern Ireland recently showed.

However politically, which is the dominant criterion here, being a declaration of intent and political aspirations, they could be objectively qualified as:
-For the Arabs:
Natural self defense acts aiming at a cessation of Jewish emigration, uncoordinated, leaderless, sporadic and more or less spontaneous manifestation of legitimate wrath at incoming "emigrants" heralding an imminent colonialist conquest.
( These emigrants were allowed into Palestine by the British mandate against and despite the unremitting opposition of the majority of the people of Palestine) .

-For the Jews:
Part of a colonialist preconceived master plan, politically motivated and led, methoditical and consistent with an ulterior political vision , orchestrated and coordinated by the politicaland military Jewish/Zionist
leadership to attain a specific political goal.
Ultimately an integral part of an unmistakable Zionist campaign aiming at the extensive ethnic cleansing of Palestine from all of its Arab majority and supplanting it with Jewish emigrants.
(Some thing a remorseful Benny Morris regrets not accomplishing.)


omar ibrahim baker - 11/3/2009

Elliot
I note that to evade addressing specific points and issues outlined above ,and separated into distinct paragraphs for clarity, you revert to a glaringly one sided rehash of events in which both communities indulged into violent actions against each other.

These actions are,unfortunately,
“natural” and only to be expected in all cases of inter communal strife as recent events in Northern Ireland showed.

However politically, which is the dominant criterion here, being a declaration of intent and political aspirations, they could be objectively qualified as:
-For the Arabs:
Natural self defense acts aiming at a cessation of Jewish emigration, uncoordinated, leaderless, sporadic and more or less spontaneous manifestation of legitimate wrath at incoming "emigrants" heralding an imminent colonialist conquest.
( These emigrants were allowed into Palestine by the British against and despite the unremitting opposition of the majority of the people of Palestine) .

-For the Jews:
Part of a colonialist preconceived master plan, politically motivated and led, methoditical and consistent with an ulterior political vision , orchestrated and coordinated by the political/military Jewish/Zionist leadership to attain a specific political goal.
Ultimately an integral part of an unmistakable Zionist campaign aiming at the extensive ethnic cleansing of Palestine from all of its Arab majority and supplanting it with Jewish emigrants.
(Some thing a remorseful Benny Morris regrets not accomplishing.)


Elliott Aron Green - 11/1/2009

Omar, I see that you're back in good form. Congratulations!!
Now, about "ethnic cleansing." The Arab side in the Land of Israel began ethnic cleansing actions in 1920 with the Nebi Musa pogrom in Jerusalem in which Jews living in the Old City were attacked, with some being killed. These attacks were repeated in Yafo/Jaffa in 1921, in Hebron, Safed, Jerusalem, etc in 1929, in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country in 1936-39. Before WW I, Jews lived in the Muslim & Christian quarters as well as the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. However, the process of driving Jews out of their homes began in 1920 and continued in 1929, resuming in 1936-39. By 1948, the only Jews left in the Old City were in the gated Jewish Quarter [gates manned by Brit troops were installed to prevent invasion of the Jewish Quarter.

In the Israeli War of Independence, Arab irregular forces began driving Jews out of their homes starting in December 1947 in parts of Jerusalem, south Tel Aviv and elsewhere in the country. The Shimon haTsadiq neighborhood was ethnically cleansed by Arab irregular forces under Husseini command in late December 1947, the nearby Nahalat Shimon Quarter was "cleansed" by joint Arab and British efforts in January 1948, after the British had disarmed the Jews. The Siebenbergen Houses Quarter nearby, near the American Colony and the Orient House, was "cleansed" of Jews soon after Nahalat Shimon.
So much for "ethnic cleansing" which was an Arab first.

(The Israeli Law of Return) that allow "return" based solely on racist/confessional affiliation (being Jewish)

Now, Omar, don't you know that the prevalent law in Israel under Arab/Muslim rule was shari`ah which held all non-Muslims to be inferior in rights and liable to exploitation by the Islamic state and to humiliation by any individual Muslim?? Let's clean up shari`ah now before any more harm is done to non-Muslims in Islamic states, like Egypt or Iraq.

As to your complaint about "final borders." Israel was willing to accept the 1949 armistice lines as final borders through all the years from 1949 to 1967. But the Arabs refused any peace with Israel based on any borders whatsoever. You should complain to the Arab leadership, not to Israel.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/27/2009

"Apartheid" hardly describes what Israel is about; both at birth and ever since!
A new word should be coined to describe this anomaly among nations that:
-Proclaimed it’s "independence" with some 75 % of its "citizens" being foreign born ie aliens born in other places than where it proclaimed its independence and sovereignty and supplanted a great portion of the indigenous people with aliens avowing a certain faith

-Denies the indigenous people of the land who chose, during war time, to distance themselves and their families from theatres of war operations from returning to their homes and retrieval of their legitimate properties

-Forcedly transported and transferred civilian population away from their hometowns and villages (Lod, Ramla etc)

-Enacted a racial/racist ethnic cleansing campaign by consciously and deliberately implementing mass massacres of civilians of all ages and both sexes to “induce ” civilians to move away from their own dwellings and birth places ( Deir Yassin, Tantura etc)

-Demolished some two thousand hamlets and rural population centers of the indigenous people of the land and is erasing their names from maps to efface its national provenance.

-Rejected and failed to implement an Israeli Supreme Court ruling that allows the inhabitants of two villages still residing in Israel to return and dwell in their own native birth places (Ikrit and Burum)

-Presumes legitimate birth through a UNGA resolution ( Partition of Palestine) which it failed to implement and respect as to the amount of land allocated to it by overrunning and occupying an ADDITIONAL 50% of the other party's allocation

- Enacted laws (The Israeli Law of Return) that allow "return" based solely on racist/confessional affiliation (being Jewish) irrespective of place and time of birth and denies the native born that dwelled for generations their right of return


-Enacted laws that deem residents of Jerusalem uninterruptedly living in Jerusalem , before and after its declaration of “ independence, as "absentee" despite annexing Jerusalem and denying them the right to regain their properties in Jerusalem

-Was admitted to the UN on condition of implementing an other UN resolution (Return of Palestinian refugees), that it consistently fails to implement

-Failed, still does, to demarcate its final borders while energetically annexing lands it occupied in war time: de jure (Jerusalem and surrounding), annexing semi/quasi de jure other lands by enacting laws about its determination to keep it ( The Syrian Golan Heights) and annexing de facto big swaths of other's land by erecting physical barriers ( the Wall) constructing and expanding and populating it with its own people ( the Settlements).
-Harbors regional domination aspirations by insisting on retaining its regional nuclear monopoly and menacing all and sundry that dare consider breaking that monopoly

There is so much to note and ponder about Israel that the term "apartheid" actually fails to do justice to being totally inadequate and only partially defining this anomaly among nations.

A new term should be coined to cover: aggression/colonialism/racism/ forced transportation and people sup plantation of people, confessional discrimination and domineering aspirations .
With or without that term Israel is being progressively known and perceived through out the world for what it truly is: a racially conceived and racistically implemented colonialist project.

More important than finding a new designation for Israel , Israel is being progressively rejected in its immediate surrounding by both its Arab and non Arab neighbors and its very existence , due to its mode of birth and sustenance , is on its way to total delegitimization .


Elliott Aron Green - 10/27/2009

Alex, I'm sure you understand that the currently fashionable term of "Israeli apartheid" used by the ignorami, is a continuation of Z = R. The push given to diffusion of this lie by ex-US president James Earl Carter III makes it more dangerous.

The lie is so preposterous that I'm sure many Israelis don't think it needs to answered. It is ridiculous to me when I consider that Arabs live on my street not far from my house, that Arabs ride on the bus with me, eat in restaurants where I eat, and so on.

It is true that most Arab pupils go to Arab schools, but that is what Arab parents want. They are proud as Arabs and want schools that pass on the Arab language and culture, as well as reinforcing the Muslim religion. However, some Arabs go to schools with the Jewish pupils. An Arab kid named Akram was in the class of one of my sons. When my daughter was at the university, there were Arab girls in her dorm.

So the lie of "apartheid" is absurd. But it's dangerous all the same since so many people accept Big Lies when presented in the right way by the right disseminator of lies, by leaders of the social or religious group that they belong to.

Subscribe to our mailing list