Joel Fishman: "Zionism=Racism, Its Beginning, and the War Of Delegitimization Against Israel"

The delegitimization of Israel did not begin at Durban I, nor even back in 1975 with the UN Resolution equating Zionism with racism. The beginnings of the delegitimization of Israel goes back to 1965--and at the time, few in the West, or in Israel, were aware of foundation that was being carefully established.

It all started with the refusal to recognize antisemitism as a form of racism.

Here is the conclusion from Joel Fishman's article.

"A Disaster of another Kind”: Zionism=Racism,
Its Beginning, and the War of Delegitimization against Israel

The 1965 debates in the Third Committee of the UN are a matter of great relevance to the present. A failed attempt of Israel and the US to have antisemitism defined as a type of racism resulted in two important setbacks: the failure of Israel to achieve a universally accepted definition of antisemitism with the force of international law and, a decade later, the UN acceptance of the libel “Zionism is racism.” From then on, it was almost impossible to raise the problem of antisemitism as a human rights issue. Others framed the reality of Israel, attributing to the Jewish State a completely specious and negative meaning. By setting the agenda of the international community, Israel’s enemies caused lasting harm in obstructing its claim to legal recourse in the matter of antisemitism. As a consequence, Israel must live with a disability and make do with a less than equal status in the community of nations.

One of the most valuable insights of this study is that there is a nexus between the defamation of Israel, as is the case with the “Zionism is racism” libel, and the need to ensure that antisemitism is defined as an internationally recognized human rights violation.
In recent years, efforts to establish a definition of antisemitism have received serious “push-back.” Bayefsky reported, for example, that in December 2003, Ireland quietly withdrew a draft UN resolution condemning antisemitism. The Irish foreign minister, Brian Cowen, had promised to sponsor this measure, but in the end succumbed to Arab and Muslim objections and reneged. Nevertheless, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted on March 16, 2005, represents a step forward. One of its great refinements was the publication of a listing of ways in which antisemitism is manifested. Among the examples given was “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” This marks a step forward.

It is highly unlikely that in 1965 Israel and the US could have overcome Soviet opposition to the definition of antisemitism as a form of racism. In retrospect, one may ask if the former USSR would have had a different destiny if it did not persecute its Jewish citizens, engage in the propagation of antisemitism at home and abroad, and initiate two wars against Israel. The struggle for Soviet Jewry actually helped break the Soviet regime—and not the opposite. As a consequence, the State of Israel gained about a million educated, hard-working, and wellmotivated new citizens, adding to the strength and vitality of its society. Israel’s gain was Russia’s loss. This year, August 19 marked the twentieth anniversary of the failed counter-coup that sealed the fate of the Soviet Union, when Communist Party hard-liners attempted to overthrow President Mikhail Gorbachev and stop his reforms, including efforts to give the Soviet republics more freedom. On this occasion, “Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin described the fall of the Soviet Union as ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.’” Although great historical developments have multiple causes, it is a comforting thought that world Jewry and the State of Israel, with the vigorous support of powerful and courageous partners, contributed to this outcome. In the greater order of things, the Soviets were severely punished.

During the ’90s, the would-be “architects of peace” in Israel, many of whom viewed the world through a Marxist-materialist prism, convinced themselves that the negotiating process and mutually profitable business projects would overcome the long-standing reality of an intransigent Palestinian refusal to recognize “the existence of Israel as a truly legitimate entity.” For their part, the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have been consistent when they declared that they would never accept Israel as a Jewish State. Despite being a signatory to the Oslo Accords, they have officially sponsored incitement to hatred and violence against the Jewish State, and at the moment of this writing, Israel’s Palestinian “peace partners” have bolted from the framework of dialogue and negotiation. In light of the large number of Israeli terror victims; the Second Intifada; the Durban Conference; the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement; and the relentless assault on Israel’s legitimacy, one must ask if the era of the “peace process” and the ceremonial signing of documents may in truth have been a digression from the normal course of history, a parenthèse, to use the French expression. The time has come to answer this question honestly, because in policy-making it is necessary to distinguish between one’s enemies and one’s friends.

Great efforts are still needed if Israel is to take its place in the community of nations. Patience, persistence, and clear thinking will be necessary, but this battle must be won in order to regain and safeguard the legitimacy of the Jewish State.

Read the entire article.

Joel Fishman, a historian and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. His previous article was Palestinian Incitement: The Real “Deal Breaker” in which he documents how Palestinian incitement of hatred against Israel constitutes a crime of genocide.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Antisemitism and Zionism and United Nations.