Talk:United Nations 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

[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:

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. '
jbolden1517Talk 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Many would think that the statement "entitled to the same group rights as other nationalities." takes us in directions we'd prefer not to go. "Group rights" were enshrined in the law of apartheid South Africa, but they have no standing in civilised nations, and precious little moral standing anywhere. PalestineRemembered 09:55, 2 August 2007 (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. jbolden1517Talk 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)

[edit] "US pressure" in the Lead; removal of Ebban's speech

A discussion of what causes lead to this resolution being revoked is not appropriate in the WP:Lead, which should be a concise overview of the article. And since this is a discussion of the resolution, I'm not sure why the second half of Herzog's speech should be removed because of his mention of Arab anti-Semitism, since it isn't brought as a discussion of that topic, but of Israel's response. TewfikTalk 06:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The segment of the speech I excised is really a discussion of arab anti-semitism; it says so. The eloquent defence of Israel's integration has been left in. Having more of it turns the article into a soapbox.
About the lead, I have reflected about it, and you might be right. I will see if anything occurs to me to change my mind. Hornplease 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with soapboxing if this was any of the broad-discussion ME entries. However this is specifically about this resolution, and that would be enough for me to say that at least the two primary sections of the response should be included. Beyond that, it is functionally part of the Israeli rationale etc. Take into account as well that even including all of it is less than the body of the resolution, which if soapbox was an issue here, would apply there as well. TewfikTalk 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The bits about the resolution are fine. The bits about Arab anti-semitism are not. (In any case, it comes across as ranting in the face of the legalese of the resolution, which is really inappropriate for some sort of balance.) Hornplease 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We can turn to WP:3O if you like, but as it is a significant part of the reply and its rationale, I feel strongly that it should appear, ranting or not. TewfikTalk 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

After the Afd discussion and delrev, it was suggested that Zionism and racism allegations be merged into this article. I fully support this move because Zionism and racism allegations is a clear POV fork.--Sefringle 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to that becase a) it's two related but different subjects, b) it would make more sense to merge this into Zionism and racism allegations rather than the other way around. // Liftarn
Agree with Liftarn (b), except that this subject deserves its own article and I would therefor oppose merging it into Zionism and racism allegations. What different POVs are supposedly involved here? Andyvphil 20:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they are about different subject. Zionism as racism is the cause, 3379 is a result. // Liftarn
Geopolitics, oil, and antisemitism are the causes, "Zionism as racism" and 3379 are the result. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. In any case, they're two different things. Hornplease 05:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
One was: a nasty allegation that found its support in a UN resolution and subsequently was revoked by another UN resolution. And another? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Even if one caused the other, or they were both caused by the same thing, it does not mean that they are two different things. One requires an article describing the structure and motivation behind the 1970s allegations; the other needs to describe the Resolution itself and the circumstances of its passage and revocation. I don't see a single actual argument for the merge here. Hornplease 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The resolution was devoted solely to the allegation, and the allegation found its support in a UN resolution and disappeared from the mainstream after being revoked. Whichever way you turn it, it is the same thing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Cite. Hornplease 04:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense yourself. What do you want to cite, the resolution? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Cite something backing up your claim about the allegation, obviously. Hornplease 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree Zionism and racism allegations is badly written but not that it's a POVfork. Both entries are needed. The UN GA resolution is a matter of (perhaps minor) historical interest. The allegation is a much wider topic going to the nature of racism and the nature of zionism. We need an NPOV treatment of that debate. Zoomatters 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not merge - resolution 3379 is a relevant UN resolution, no other content should be merged in as well as it shall not merged into any other article. --213.155.231.26 12:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger - what about allegations of racism that are not in the context of UN? Mnay have been made in the past, and are made to this day. However, the Zionism and racism allegations shoudl be cleaned up.Bless sins 05:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not merge - two different subjects although they are related to eachother. Merging them is like merging Yassir Arafat article with the Lebanese civil war article. --Aaronshavit 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger "...the allegation found its support in a UN resolution and disappeared from the mainstream after being revoked." So, since the revocation we don't hear any more about Zionism being racism. Really? ... This subject is dead. I'm yanking the templates. Andyvphil (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What changed over those years?

Something I don't understand is what changed over those years to swing people around from one strong view to another? I have to admit I'm limited in my understanding of israel/zionism issues, but it seems to me that zionism is some kind of unchanging philosophy, so why would people change their opinions of if it as racist? Something that catches my eye is that Bush said people "forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II", which seems to me like one of those special rules (like mention the nazis and the argument is over, same with holocaust, you end up in a position where you can't argue against them without being accused of anti-semitism or fascism or something). That kind of argument though also I guess plays into the hands of the people who would claim the US is ZOG or some other conspiracy stuff.

So what I'm asking for here is does anyone have some good sources for notable persons comments on WHY the opinion changed? Hahahahahaoh (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)