Talk:UN General Assembly Resolution 3379

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Talk:Zionism and racism

As far as I know there was only one UN resolution equating Zionism and racism. uriber 19:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the 1975 and 1991 debates were separate, and also, in between, there were many resolutions of subcommittees, conferences and such - check the reference. It would be a mistake to imply that the resolution was a one-shot, or that the Bush adminstration has changed the UN's collective mind. EofT

The debates were separate - but were both about the same resolution (3379), adopted in 1975 and revoked in 1991. uriber 20:11, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The UN resolution doesn't leave any room for, or call for, reform or change or any attempt to redefine the Zionist movement, it states that the conclusion of the UN is that it is inherently racist and imperialistic. EofT

Contents 1 Revocation 2 Missing votes 3 What on earth......?? 4 What has been done + what still needs to be done 5 No US veto

[edit] Revocation

it seems to me fair for someone to add (for balance) the link to the revocation of the original resolution to the external links section at the bottom. As it is there's a link to the UN resolution but not to its subsequent (and still effective, as far as I know) revocation of that resolution. I suggest adding to the External Links:

• 1991 revocation of UN resolution

Steverapaport 09:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The context of that revocation is missing. It was one President named Bush that forced the 1991 revocation, and, in a very important subcurrent which all you Zionists are deliberately hiding in my view, another President named Bush who forced the UN racism conference, which had consistently used this language, to drop it in 2000. Neither of these moves says much about political or social reality - other than overt US pressure from Presidents named Bush. So a neutral voice might be able to conclude that the majority of people on this planet continue to believe this 'slogan'. But I did not conclude that. I conclude only that a reasonable person can believe it, and that they cannot be censored from Wikipedia for believing it, or reflecting it in their edits. It was just such an attempt by User:RK to censor User:172 (both Ashkenazi Jews I believe) on this basis that motivated me to add the article at all. You cannot exclude someone from Wikipedia for agreeing with such a widespread belief, period. It does not matter how offensive that belief is to you personally. EofT

EofT, you're being pretty one-sided here, and revealing a substantial bias in this paragraph. Why is the context of the revocation, and the prime mover behind it, a "hidden subcurrent", whereas the context of the original 1977 resolution, and the prime movers behind it, simply "U.N. opinion" and therefore in your previous words "neutral"?

Also, why is the 72 to 35 vote that "established" your point considered "the majority of the people on this planet", whereas the subsequent 111 to 25 vote that revoked the point considered the opinion of nobody but "Presidents named Bush"? You've got a severe bias problem if you can twist facts in that way and actually believe it.

Your point that after the 111 to 25 vote on "Zionism is not racism" that "a neutral voice might be able to conclude that the majority of people on this planet continue to believe this 'slogan'" speaks for itself. What kind of neutrality might that be?

You're being just as one-sided as RK here, and your attempt to sound like a voice of reason is undermined by your obvious bias.

Not that there's anything wrong with having an opinion, but why not have the courage to just state it as that, not pretend to be "neutral"?

Steverapaport 06:32, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"why is the 72 to 35 vote that "established" your point considered "the majority of the people on this planet", whereas the subsequent 111 to 25 vote that revoked the point considered the opinion of nobody but "Presidents named Bush"? Because Bush forced the outcome of the vote at the UN because revocation was one of the conditions for Israeli participation in the Madrid Conference. the votes do not fairly reflect the opinions of the voting nations.

[edit] Missing votes

I don't see the Spanish vote.

[edit] What on earth......??

What on earth is Idi Amin doing in this article?? (I´m suprised that his cannibalism isn´t mentioned, also! Lol! Absolutely relevant!) Uganda wasn´t even one of the 25 "sponsors" of resolution 3379. Absurd. (A link to the Jewish Virtual Library (while nothing to the UN) is almost to be expectet under these circumstances, I guess; http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/30/ares30.htm) Regards, Huldra 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Cut out: On September 12, 1972 the president of Uganda Idi Amin sent a cable to the UN secretary-general in which he approved of the Holocaust, and proposed to erect a statue to Adolf Hitler in Uganda, since it had not been erected in Germany.

On October 1, 1975 the UN had a reception welcoming Idi Amin, then the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity. He received a standing ovation before he began his speech, another standing ovation when he sat down and it was frequently interrupted by applause. He condemned the "Zionist-American conspiracy" and called for the exclusion of Israel from the UN and its "extinction". The following day the UN secretary-general and the president of the General Assembly gave a public dinner in his honor.

You may say that there is no proof, but irrelevant? Here is why this is relevant: this shows what policies the UN favored at the time, and standing ovations are another proof. The Amin's sponsorships, eating habits, etc. are indeed irrelevant and were not mentioned here. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Uganda wasn´t even one of the sponsoring nations! (of the resolution) That he got standing ovation: yes, as Chairman of OAU. By 1975 "Big Daddy" Amins reputation in the world was so low that he hardly would have gotten support for a Resolution saying "2+2=4" if he had tried to pass it in the UN. That he was a racist + murderer +anti-semitic +probably completely insane; I wouldn´t disagree with any of these statements. But he just wasn´t instrumental in passing Res. 3379. We could as well have quoted something from the "Stormfront": just as irrelevant...to this article. Regards, Huldra 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: the "Israeli response" section is still messy; I´m working to clear it up, Huldra 02:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What has been done + what still needs to be done

Ok, here is (a little belated) a summary of what has been done with this article + work that remains:

• the text has been expanded to encompass the full resolution text; it is relatively short so there is no reason why the whole text can´t be included. NOTE: I followed the text on the UN site, as the text in the Jewish Virtual Library is filled with printing errors; most insignificant, but also important mistakes. Eg. the text in JVL states that resolution 3151 was passed in 1953(!!) (it was actually passed in 1973). I mention this, so that other editors should be aware of this when they use the JVL.
• have moved quotes/response of Herzog from Zionism and racism article to this article.
• what remains to be done: I´m still not very happy with the "Background"-section; e.g. words like "ironic" and "hypocritical" simply does not sound encyclopedic to me... Also: both in this article and (especially) in the Resolution 4686-article there is a lot of inf. about what went on in "the corridors of power" before the resolutions were passed which could be (should be??) included. I´ll leave that to later....... (But please: don´t take this as an excuse to insert completely general inf. about anti-semitism into the article! ;-) ) Regards, Huldra 12:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence in 'background' is firstly not written from a neutral point of view, and secondly contains factual errors. what are these "many incidents that reflect a long-standing UN condemnation of Zionism" exactly? the language is blatantly editorial and biased as mentioned above (usage of ironic and hypocritical), and these claims are factually bankrupt. First of all, it is patently wrong to say that the partition plan established the state of israel, although it was an endorsement by the international community of the establishment of a jewish state in the region. The state of israel was established by David Ben Gurion declaring it so in 1948, and the borders of the state were a result of the 1949 armistice agreement (initially). Secondly, suggesting that the resolution is 'hypocritical' ignores the fact that the general assembly that passed the partition resolution, and the general assembly that pass 3379 are not at all the same in terms of the nations involved. the international community which passed 3379 was made up of far more nations than the community which passed the partition resolution, which was essentially comprised of the imperial powers who were victors of world war 2. i could go on.. that sentence needs to go.

I agree. The current background section (ironically :P) does not sound encyclopedic at all. Should be replaced (or NPOV'd) wth information about the context of this time, about the alliances between South Africa and Israel etc. Magabund 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The people you are responding to haven't been there in a while. I'm OK with a rewrite however the content needs to remain:

1. The 1975 resolution was one of many incidents that reflect a long-standing UN condemnation of Zionism, -- It needs to be firmly established that the UN condemnation was based on a denial that Jews are entitled to the same group rights as other nationalities.
2. South Africa has nothing to do with whether Zionism is racist, it at best has something to do with whether Israel was racist. I.E. American slavery was racist but asserting that Americanism is racist is a much stronger statement.
3. which many find ironic and hypocritical, considering that it was 1947 UN Partition Plan that established the State of Israel.which many find ironic and hypocritical, considering that it was 1947 UN Partition Plan that established the State of Israel. -- I see nothing wrong with that. Precident bounds many organizations that change composition. '

jbolden1517^Talk 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the word "established" should be changed to something a little more accurate, such as "confirmed" or "recognized." -WikiMarshall 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;... Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect; (1947). I don't know how they could be seen as anything other than full legal endorsement. jbolden1517^Talk 12:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since all suggested changes have been made, would it be appropriate to remove the "disputed neutrality" tag at the beggining of the article? If the article has been changed in such a fashion to make it no longer disputed, then the tag should be removed as it is only confusing and distracting to people who read the article for the first time.

[edit] No US veto

Why didn't the US veto this resolution, as with many other UN resolutions concerning Israel? The article should make this clear. Twinxor t 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Buddy, the Security Council and the General Assembly are two different things. The U.S. has a 'veto' on the S.C. No one has a veto over G.A. resolutions. This was a G.A. resolution.--SESmith 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)